Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2019

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

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

---

Arch of Remembrance

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For my first nomination of 2019, I bring you yet another war memorial. We're getting towards the top of the tree, as evidenced by the fact that this is Lutyens' largest war memorial in the UK. It's certainly impressive, the result of a healthy budget and careful planning, but its gestation was far from easy—a story documented in this article. I hope you find it interesting, and I would be most grateful for any constructive feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text for images

• File:Edwin_Lutyens.jpg: per the given tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox, such as the exact designation date, don't appear to be sourced anywhere

• FN18 is a dead link. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, thanks for your review. I'm not sure alt text text would add anything not covered in the captions and detailed physical description in the prose. I don't know what tag would be best for File:Edwin_Lutyens.jpg; I trusted the Internet Archive's declaration (I would assume, given that it dates from 1921, that it's PD-old, and PD in the US because it's pre-1923). I've added a link to the NHLE in the infobox and found an archived copy of FN18. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Another very interesting and readable coverage of the UK's war memorials. A very minor quibbles to consider, none of which will get in the war of a support, I think:

Lead

• "Lutyens first proposed a tree cathedral, which was accepted by the committee". I'm not sure a "tree cathedral" is common enough to leave unexplained in the lead (I had to do a Google search to check!) Perhaps "Lutyens first proposed a tree cathedral—crossing avenues of lime trees—which was accepted by the committee".

  On review, I've trimmed the mention of the tree cathedral (tree cathedral is a red link ripe for a nice little project for someone, but it's not my area of expertise).

Commissioning

• '"Arch of Remembrance".[1][12][13][14][15]' That's a long string of blue links! Any chance of bundlingthem together? (Ditto the two or three other strings lower down)

  I've bundled one and moved some around so there aren't so many of those strings (I tend to group them at the end of paragraphs); the ones that are left are right at the end of their paragraphs so at least they're not interrupting the prose.

Setting

• "Sir Jonathan North": do we need the full name again?

  There's been a bit of a gap, but perhaps not.

Sources

• Any need to link the publishers?

  I normally do. It seems harmless at worst and could be helpful.

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Gavin! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure - and thanks for another very readable and interesting piece. I'm happy to Support: the article covers all the main points I would expect, is well-written, nicely illustrated with pertinent images and passes the other FAC criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• ..from the main routes out of the city to the south - why not ,"from the main south(ward) routes out of the city"?

Damn I am finding little to complain about.....a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas, thanks very much. I made the edit you suggest in the lead, where we want concision, but in the body I think it's clearer the way it is. Happy to discuss if you don't agree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No probs, variation is the spice of life....and FAs. support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Peacemaker67

I just looked at this in detail at Milhist A-Class review, and could find precious little to quibble about then. I consider this meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Another excellent addition to the canon. A few minor comments below but nothing to stand in the way of my Support.

Background

• We really must get a clearer image of Lutyens in Commons.
• "led to commissions for war memorials across Britain and the empire" - link empire?

Commissioning

• "The Duke of Rutland suggested siting the memorial outside the town hall" - given that the temporary memorial was sited there, perhaps, "The Duke of Rutland suggested siting the permanent memorial outside the town hall"?
• "A design submitted by a member of the public was examined by the sub-committee, but in October 1919 the committee resolved to appoint Lutyens" - given you've mentioned two sub-committees in the para. above, perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the sub-committees? To avoid a double "design" - "A plan submitted by a member of the public was examined by the design sub-committee, but in October 1919 the full committee resolved to appoint Lutyens".
• "the costs were estimated at £23,000" - the funding story is odd; first rejecting £23K as too pricey, they then go for a £25K design which ends up costing £27K. Just an observation - you note Skelton describes the commissioning process as bumpy.

Design

• I find the first image in this section a bit odd. It appears truncated. I wonder how it would look if you flipped the pair, so that the top came first? Daren't try it myself.

Setting

• "The lodges are single-storey rectangular buildings which flank the gates" - I wonder if pavilions is more descriptive? It follows Pevsner and allows for a, quite useful, link.
• "Both have architraves above the doorways and a pulvinated frieze below the pyramidal slate roofs and large chimney stacks" - I wonder if the distinctive pyramidal design could be mentioned?
• "They support ornate iron gates which feature an overthrow which incorporates Leicester's coat of arms" - to avoid the double "which", perhaps, "They support ornate iron gates which feature an overthrow incorporating Leicester's coat of arms"?

History

• "Another biographer, Tim Skelton, laments that the memorial" - super-picky but is Lutyens and the Great War strictly a biography, rather than a study? "Another writer..."?
• "A ceremony is held at the memorial on Remembrance Sunday annually" - I might flip "annually" to "A ceremony is held annually at the memorial on Remembrance Sunday".
• "Indian Labour Corps" - is this the same as this, Indian Army Pioneer Corps?
• "Grade I is reserved for buildings of "exceptional interest" and applied to only 2.5% of listings" - "applies"?

Hi KJP, thanks for your input, both here and on the talk page. I've made almost all the changes you suggest. I'm not sure if the Indian LAbour corps and the Indian Army Pioneer Corps were the same thing; the news reports seem to suggest the labour corps didn't have a combat role. Btw, you and I are not the only ones to question the wisdom of rejecting one scheme on cost grounds and then selecting an even more expensive one; the committee don't seem to have known whether they were coming or going, hence the strong criticism from the local paper. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

WTF indeed. "It's too expensive - spend more!" All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2019 (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) 12:28, 31 January 2019 (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) 31 January 2019 [2].

---

Spaghetti House siege

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Spaghetti House siege was an interesting hostage situation of the mid 1970s. It marked the first use in the UK of technology to create a live surveillance feed, and the first use of a forensic psychologist who advised the police on their negotiating strategy. The men all claimed that they were acting for political reasons; the police and courts did not believe them, and said it was purely a criminal act. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

The name sounds like a good candidate for 1 April! A few things.

• three black males entered the Spaghetti House. Presumably the Knightsbridge location? Also suggest this sentence start a new paragraph.
• It strikes me that rather than divide the action, with the armed entry separated from what staff did in reaction, you might put them together and postpone the robbers's CVs until their individual actions are written of, perhaps make that the final paragraph of the section.
• "Davies informed police that he was a captain in the BLF;[13][c] a subsequent message said that they were members of the Black Liberation Army, a Black Panther splinter group.[14]" perhaps, if Mr Davies was the source of the subsequent communication, change the semicolon to a comma and add immediately thereafter "and in" or "but in".
• "Only the request for a radio was granted to them.[6][15]" consider cutting "to them"
• "but his offer turned down.[1] " I suppose a "was" is missing here before "turned"
• "one of the hostages was released was a sign of good faith." no doubt the second "was" has a surplus "w".
• "to kill the hostages.[20][19] " just checking reference order.
• "One was threaded through the wall alongside a hot water pipe; the second way was through a vent, after acid was dripped onto it using an eyedropper, in order to make a small hole. " I imagine the "it" refers to the vent, but it might be taken to refer to the camera.
• Do we know the result of the re-trial?

That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt. All your comments addressed per your suggestions. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if anything else springs to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt – I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• We have, respectively, "Anne Mchardy" and "Anne McHardy", though I imagine it's the same person
• The "Real-life Crimes" journal source should be listed with journal articles rather than news articles

In general the sources seem well chosen, are of the required standards of quality and reliability and entirely appropriate to the subject and, apart from the minor points noted, are consistently formatted and presented. A couple of spot-checks produced no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian! Your points both addressed. Cheers, - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:The_spaghetti_house_siege.gif: the "unique historic image" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is significant. Is anything more known about the provenance of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for picking up on the review. I've swapped over the tag to something (hopefully) more appropriate. The image appears a few times on the internet, but not with any indication as to the first publication. I've searched around to see where it could have come from, but without success (although I don't have access to every news source that would have been operating at the time). I've updated the FUR to show the searches I've done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Okay. Suggest expanding the purpose of use, and I wonder if there's a mistake in the minimal use section? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yep, done both, thanks- SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

MOD

The police used technology as a live surveillance technique, and had audio and visual facilities which monitored the actions and conversations of the gunmen. Is there a missing word? As it stands it doesn't make sense. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I edited this; what do you think? I think it's a bit clearer now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked again, just to clarify a little more. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

• In the mid-1970s, the managers of the London-based Spaghetti House restaurant chain would close the various branches and meet at the company's Knightsbridge branch. – Based on the "in the mid-1970s" and the following, I assume regularly, each Sunday? Would be good to specify.
• making it look like he was selling the information to the newspapers – which information? I do not fully understand.
• In 1976 Horace Ové, a Trinidadian-born writer and filmmaker, wrote the play A Hole in Babylon, which was later broadcast on the BBC's Play for Today series. – What precisely is the link to the Spaghetti House siege?
• A fictionalised account, The Siege of Babylon, was written by Farrukh Dhondy in 1978. – As above.
• Otherwise a very good read, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Jens, nice spots: I've tweaked them accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments and your support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell

Another interesting subject! I love these bits of British history you keep picking up! I have a few books that might be relevant; I'll see if they contain anything useful. Some other general comments from reading through:

• We could perhaps use "police officers" rather than policemen? The Met certainly had female officers in the 70s, and "officer" is more formal
  • Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Is it worth naming the unit the specialist firearms teams belonged to (which at the time would have been D11 I believe), and maybe something very brief about British police officers not normally carrying guns (Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom exists to link to if desired)?
  • Now added; I've dropped it in the footnote, much as the Embassy siege article does. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Was there something they wanted the radio for in particular, or were they just worried about missing The Archers?
  • Added - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Introduce and link Robert Mark on first mention
  • I thought I had, but I see it was via a footnote, so added into the body too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• You cite Mark's opinion that the perpetrators were common criminals but I wonder if including the blockquote from him isn't biasing the article against their claim to have been acting out of political motivation (you and I and Commissioner Mark might have our own opinions, but the article should let the reader draw their own conclusion). Is there any evidence in support of their claims?
  • Good point. I like Mark's quote as the official line, so I'll see if I can find a counter claim to balance it out; if not, I'll trim his down to balance it that way. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Added a separate quote about their motivations by someone who knew them, which should give an indication that they were "activists" in some sense. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• How did the Italian consul general get involved, and do we need Mark's opinion of his actions?
  • I can't find a reason (outside the obvious inference that the hostages were all Italian (or of Italian extraction)), but I'll keep looking. I've taken out Mark's opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• it's a lynching party." You need a reference right next to a quote
  • Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe mention the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege (not to shoehorn my own FA in!); although that's more famous for its messy ending, the police used much the same tactics up until the point that a hostage was shot.
  • Yep - used Waddington for that, and his quotes too - they tie up the three parts rather nicely. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• There's a nice quote in Waddington that you might want to use; he brings this and the Balcombe Street siege together and says the British police's "reputation for restraint received dramatic vindication by the way in which two highly publicised sieges were handled by the Metropolitan Police", and "if there was any criticism of the police it was that they showed excessive disinclination to resort to force in such circumstances"

  Waddington, P. A. J. (1991). The Strong Arm of the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 18. ISBN 0198273592.

• Waldren's Armed Police: Police Use of Firearms Since 1945 (2007) contains a section on the siege, including accounts from police officers who were involved, and claims (as he's wont to do, being the former head of the Met's firearms unit) that it justified the need for specialist armed police units. Happy to send you the relevant pages if you shoot me an email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Harry, both for the review and for sending through the Waldren and Waddington information. I've dealt with your comments in these edits. Please let me know if there are any further tweaks left, or if you spot any more points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. I'm more than satisfied that my comments have been addressed and the article is in outstanding shape. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Harry - I'm much obliged to you for your help here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1

As Harry says, another fascinating piece of only vaguely-remembered history, very well told. Just a few comments.

Attempted robbery

• "the managers of the London-based Spaghetti House restaurant chain would close the various branches every Sunday night and meet at the company's Knightsbridge branch" - isn't this actually Saturday night? The robbery starts at 1.30 a.m. on Sunday, which suggests the managers had gathered, and the takings collected, the previous night, i.e. Saturday? I think this would also have made commercial sense. Even though the pre-1994 Sunday trading laws didn't cover restaurants (I think?), Saturday was most likely the busiest night of the week.

Siege

• Pump action shotguns - don't think this needs capitalisation.
• "Initially the police considered that the siege was a terrorist incident, but were then dismissive of the potential political element, and insisted throughout that it was only ever a criminal action" - don't have the sources, but this reads slightly oddly to me. As there wasn't actually a political aspect to the robbery, at least in the "official" view, perhaps, "Initially the police considered that the siege may have been a terrorist incident, but were subsequently dismissive of any political motivation, and insisted that it was only ever a criminal action"?
• "Lord Pitt, the former chairman of the Greater London Council who was also West Indian-born, also attempted to negotiate with the men" - not sure what the first "also" is doing here?
• "Two cameras were used to observe what happened" - for clarity, perhaps, "Two cameras were used to observe what was happening in the basement storeroom"?
• "shot himself in the stomach with a .22 rim-fire revolver"- should rimfire be hyphenated? It isn't in the main article.

• The OED has both, but the hyphenated seems a little older than the non, so I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "were cornered in a London flat, leading to a six-day siege by police" - for ease of recognition, I wonder if you might mention Balcombe Street explicitly, e.g. "were cornered in a London flat in Balcombe Street (, Marylebone)....", or just "in Balcombe Street"?
• "the use of the Special Air Service to assault the building" - does one assault a building? "storm the building"?

See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks KJP1, All your suggestions adopted. I'm not sure "storm" is better than "assault", but I've gone with it for now, and will mull it over. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely fine - it's a matter of preference, nothing more. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

• Not sure why the Daily Mail and the Daily Express but The Times and The Guardian. The latter form seems to me clearly preferable.
• "While on remand, Davies went on hunger strike." The reader might wonder – well this one does – when he stopped his strike.
  • I've not found any information on this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• "When asked how they pled" – did what? I think you mean pleaded.
• I assume because you haven't mentioned it that we don't know when the three criminals were released and what happened to them after that.
  • There is very little information, aside that they all died after their lengthy prison sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

and obiter dicta

• Mervyn Griffith-Jones – if you get hold of Bernard Levin's The Pendulum Years you will find the most breathtakingly obscene index entry about this hapless lawyer, but that's entirely irrelevant.

That's all from me. Minor points. A clear and well documented account of an incident I remember well, and I look forward to supporting. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim, your suggestions taken on board where I can, but there is only limited information on the fate of the men. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I didn't imagine you'd have omitted those points if the information were available, but as it's an FAC I thought I ought to ask. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article is a v. good read, evidently comprehensive, neutral and – though there are only two illustrations – as well illustrated as possible, one feels, given WP rules. Sourcing looks impressive: a wide range of book references as well as press articles. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Tim, for your comments and support: all are gratefully received. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Great article, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• 400 police officers were involved, including dog-handlers and the deployment of D11, the Metropolitan Police's marksmen isn't grammatical, should say ... and D11... was deployed
• after acid was dripped onto the vent — I assume the vent was metal, perhaps this should be stated, also the type of acid if known
• Davies, Dick and Munroe died after being released from prison—I don't understand this. Immediately? Within a year? Within ten years?
  • Many thanks Jim - much appreciated. I've tweaked per your suggestions. The type of acid isn't identified, so I've skipped that, and I've added a little more onto the deaths. That's about all the information I have found on them (from reliable sources, that is). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I thought the acid would be a long shot, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim - I am very much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

I'm recusing from this one, though I don't think I need to do a full review and I'm not about to oppose or anything! My only minor concerns relate to setting this into a wider context and I wonder do we really address the race side enough? This is told very much from a "the police are right" viewpoint which will reflect the sources, I would imagine. But if the three men were black liberation organisations BEFORE the robbery, and they claimed a political agenda (which the police dismissed but it doesn't make them right) I think we maybe need to go into this a little more. Especially as the note that Davies wrote kind of gets dropped in with no further comment.

Similarly, if race is somehow an issue in here (which I think it almost certainly is, one way or another) do we need some context? Race riots, and that kind of thing? Racism in general?

I also noticed, doing a search on JSTOR that a few books mention this which we don't appear to be using (unless I'm blind, which is possible). I can't access the books unfortunately (I've only got partial access through my old university) but they do seem to be setting this event into the context of race and racial politics. All of which makes me wonder do we need to address this a little more in the article? Sarastro (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we follow a "police are right" line (although we make it clear that they thought they were); we show what Davies et al were thinking too - hopefully in a balanced way. I've had a look at the JSTOR hits (not at the books just yet), and seen that two of the refs are from a book published since the article was written, which is good news: I'll go through them tomorrow and see if these are just en passant mentions, or something more concrete. If there is enough there, we can add a line or two about the state of race relations in Britain in the mid-70s. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro1, There are some bits that we can use to give a line or two on race relations of the time, but - more importantly - there is a good description of the motives for the robbery (ie what the men said the money was going to be used for). I'll add this shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarastro1, a little re-working to provide a background section (with some other bits moved up) and additional info on the social background. How does this read to you? - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That looks good and covers exactly the kind of thing I was thinking. I have no further concerns; I haven't done a full review, but I'm happy that this meets 1b, 1c and 1d. Sarastro (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. That's great news. Thanks for picking up on those - it's nice we've managed to pick up some new sources in there too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2019 (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) 12:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian, and thanks to all who commented. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2019 (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) 31 January 2019 [3].

---

Fôrça Bruta

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 1970 album by the Brazilian singer-songwriter Jorge Ben, accompanied by the Trio Mocotó band. It was a musical and thematic departure from Ben's previous work, a successful work in the contemporaneous Tropicália artistic movement, and pioneering of what later became known as samba-rock. It received retrospective critical acclaim and attention from North American publications after a re-release in 2007. The previous nomination was closed a week ago due to prolonged inactivity and belated activity, but I have been allowed to renominate. Dan56 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Brandt Luke Zorn

• Support per my exhaustively thorough review in the first nomination. Most of it can be found here, but it was concluded on the article talk page here after the nomination closed. At a glance, my review (including Dan56's responses) is ~72k characters in length, while the article itself is ~28k—a good indicator that no stone was left unturned. I'm now convinced that the quality of research, sourcing, prose, etc. is excellent and that the article meets all FA criteria. This is an exceptional article that helps to expand English Wikipedia's coverage of music from outside the Anglosphere; if it passes FAC this time, it appears (judging from Category:FA-Class arts in Brazil articles) Fôrça Bruta would be the encyclopedia's first featured article about Brazilian music or arts, which is a very valuable contribution. —BLZ · talk 17:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp

Resolved comments from Moisejp

In the first paragraph of the lead, if you include the pronunciation/translation section, it is mentioned twice that Fôrça Bruta means "Brute Force". Moisejp (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC) I've removed the first instance. Dan56 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC) "A reviewer for The Boston Globe said Ben's masterful performance of this music—"a fusion of bright samba and mellow soul"—still sounds original and essential nearly forty years after its recording". Would "sounded" be better as the review is from 2007? Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Yes. I've changed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC) "But in his own appraisal in The Wire, Shapiro judged it to be". Does "own" add anything here? Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC) No. It was offered in another's edit. I've removed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC) I've read through the article and in general found it very good. My biggest concern is in the final two paragraphs, where every sentence has a direct quotation. I would feel a lot more comfortable about supporting if you could paraphrase some of the points. Off the top of my head I can suggest that the following could be candidates that shouldn't be hard to paraphrase but these are just ideas: "a wonderful album because it kept everyone's plentiful musical skills intact while simply sailing along on a wonderful acoustic groove that may have varied little but was all the better for its agreeable evenness"; "loveliest tunes"; "matchless"; "this graceful, lovely album"; "catchiest"; "overplay[ed]"; "something of a minor masterpiece of textural contrast"; "too dainty" or "too conservative"; "pleading quality"; "as if he can't contain that feeling of sadness and joy at the same time." Or there could possibly be other paraphrasable points from the same reviews to substitue in and bring down the overall frequency of direct quotes. My original paraphrasing was reviewed extensively in the previous nomination by BLZ, who judged it would be best to just quote the authors. Several of the quotations you cited came in to question in the previous review. But I will reword a few. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Also, there seems to be no clear order to the reviews, and at first glance it seems quite random. (Is it possibly chronological? If so, the chronological grouping doesn’t necessarily add anything to the reader’s appreciation of common trends in the reviews.) I don’t consider myself an expert on WP:RECEPTION, but in my most recent articles I’ve taken to heart the idea that with a bit of effort, a narrative can be found to group reviews in order to, at least a little, highlight trends or similarities in them as opposed to just a list of miscellaneous reviews. Moisejp (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Not necessarily chronological. The ideas summarized in each review loosely transition to the next; the criticism at the end of McKean --> Shapiro's possible criticisms for the album; Shapiro's mention of Tropicália --> Bird's "raw and soulful Tropicália"; Hickey citing specific songs --> McKean citing specific songs. I don't believe individual paragraphs of specific ideas would be more feasible; all the authors touch on several ideas that are worth summarizing together. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Dan. I can accept your argument of the loose transitions throughout the section. And I'm sympathetic to a nominator who has different reviewers asking for conflicting things, and I have very big respect for BLZ's editing abilities and instincts. Nonetheless, I find myself disagreeing with him on this particular point about the appropriateness of having this many quotations in the section. I appreciate the few you paraphrased a day or two ago but I truly believe the section needs a handful more paraphrased to not be overburdened with quotations. From what I gathered from the section of the previous review that you linked to, BLZ argues that by paraphrasing reviews, we don't convey 100% of the nuance that the reviewer intended. That may be true, but I believe paraphrases of reviews don't always need to convey 100% of the nuance—it's enough to have a quite close generalization that is still true even if a bit of the nuance is lost; indeed, this is preferable to having quotations in every sentence. BLZ, how can we proceed with this? Would you still support if Dan were to paraphrase a few more quotations in this section? (Even more than a few would actually be ideal for me, but I'd be willing to settle for just a few.) Or do you have any other ideas to propose? Moisejp (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC) I wouldn't oppose or withdraw support for paraphrasing things. To be clear, I'm not against paraphrasing of critical reviews in all instances, I just think it invites problems that often outweigh the putative benefits. In the first place, my expectations as a reader are that when I get to a reception section, I will be reading what critics said, not what a Wikipedia editor said critics said. Even if most of a critic's original language is taken out I usually expect to see a single word quoted; among other benefits, this allows me to click through to the review, hit command-F on my keyboard, plug in that word, and see exactly where the rest of the paraphrased idea is coming from. Otherwise, if no identical language is used, I may have to read the whole review to try and get a sense of where the cited idea came from—and worse, I may finish reading only to find that I'm confused, that I can't identify the source of the cited idea in the writing, or that I think the paraphrase misrepresents or misunderstood an idea in the source. Things can be lost in translation, and paraphrasing is essentially translation of English into English. But a guiding principle of translation (from a foreign language) is fidelity, while the guiding principle of paraphrasing is finding a "close-enough" word. The paraphraser can't use the same word or else it wouldn't be paraphrasing, it'd be quoting. Problems come in when words that may be synonymous in certain contexts have different connotations. I think it's OK to convey less than "100% of the nuance" of the reviewer's text, but not OK to attribute (or risk attributing) an idea to the reviewer that we can't say for certain was in the review. This can be a form of WP:OR by interpretation. Naturally, there's often a very fine line between those, and many times it'll be a subjective judgment call. In general it's worth erring on the side of quotes, even if only a few words containing the key idea are quoted, to avoid playing a game of telephone. So for example, from my review, I objected to paraphrasing "catchiest" as "most memorable". The reason is that catchiness and memorability are not necessarily the same ideas, even if they have overlap in usage. As I said in my earlier review, a song can be memorable but not catchy and vice versa. To give some examples: I think "With a Little Help from My Friends" is the catchiest song on Sgt. Pepper's because it has the album's most instantly accessible and appealing melody, but I think "A Day in the Life" is the most memorable because of its haunting depth and surprising structure; even though the latter is not the "catchiest" per se, I will nonetheless remember it for the rest of my life. These words can overlap (imo "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is the catchiest and most memorable song on Nevermind, and the reasons it's catchy are the same reasons it's memorable), but the fact that they can also diverge means we should be cautious, and the most cautious thing to do is to quote the critic's word and let it speak for itself. It's far simpler to just quote the one word and avoid risking any slippage. In the article's current draft, "catchiest" has been paraphrased as "most catchy"; I'm not sure that formulation is even grammatically correct, but it's awkward at the least, and so close to "catchiest" anyway that it's a good example of the kind of arbitrary shapes that paraphrasing can force us into, bending over backwards in order to say-without-saying the things we can and should just say by quoting. Note that a major reason "catchy" is an extreme case of difficulty in translation/paraphrasing is that it is such a specific word, so it's surprisingly difficult to pin down. It's a simple word and an intuitive musical concept, even children get what a "catchy" song is. But it's really, really hard to convey all of what "catchy" means or can possibly mean into one word or a few words. So what paraphrases are OK? I think "loveliest tunes"—an exact quote used in the article that predates my review (i.e. I did not request its placement)—could be paraphrased as "best songs". To the extent that "loveliest" may mean something more specific than "best", I don't know that whatever connotative nuance may exist is essential. I don't see "loveliness" and "goodness" as distinct enough concepts that there's a strong risk of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the review's meaning. Besides, there's a title for the song being praised, so if the reader is really interested in knowing precisely what the reviewer said they can search the review for that song title. To be clear, I'm fine with the current draft as-is quoting "loveliest tunes". But if more paraphrases are desired, that strikes me as low-hanging fruit. It's a case-in-point for what Moisejp called a "quite close generalization that is still true even if a bit of the nuance is lost." And of course, any paraphrases that are mere summary style are appropriate (or even necessary); if a critic spends four paragraphs detailing why an album's second half is not as good as its first, you can say "the critic said the album's second half is not as good as its first." It's better, and usually easier, to compress hundreds of words into a few words than to compress one word into one word. —BLZ · talk 05:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC) BLZ, you make some interesting points and your zero tolerance for any possibility of the Wikipedia editor interpreting a reviewer's words makes me question whether my own level of tolerance has been right. But that's something I'll think about and I don't believe it necessarily needs to be a part of this current discussion. Rather, in this current conversation, I think if we can find a handful of quotations that none of us objects to getting rid of, either through paraphrase or through other means (e.g., reducing detail), it sounds like both of us will be in a situation of support for the article. Here are some ideas from me that don't seem too controversial: "a wonderful album because it kept everyone's plentiful musical skills intact while simply sailing along on a wonderful acoustic groove that may have varied little but was all the better for its agreeable evenness": This quotation seems long, and though it has some slightly flavourful bits, as a whole it doesn't seem essential. Could we paraphrase it without keeping all the points in it, for example say something about the album demonstrating the musicians' talents (then skip the "simply sailing along on a wonderful acoustic" part) then paraphrase the last bit... it's late here, and I don't have a good paraphrase immediately, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with one. BLZ proposed "best songs" for "loveliest tunes". "He also found Trio Mocotó were incomparable in their performance on 'this graceful, lovely album'." Can we just say "on the album"? It's slightly less detail, but I think that's OK. "the string section on "Mulher Brasileira" sounded slightly 'overplay[ed]'". I think there must be something we can say here to paraphrase, for example something about an overabundance of strings? That's just an idea off the top of my head, I'm happy to work it more. "as if he can't contain that feeling of sadness and joy at the same time": This seems paraphrasable, but again, it's late here and I don't have an exact wording thought out. As I mentioned, if it turns out we can't agree on a handful of quotations to reduce, another possibility would be to look in the sources for other points the reviewers may have said that are also worthwhile and are paraphrasable, and substitute these in. If it comes to this, I'd be happy to help look in the English online sources for such instances. Moisejp (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC) @Moisejp:, I think quoting "loveliest" is preferable, as its connotations (attractive, pleasant) would connect with similar sentiments by McKean in the next sentences. That said, I've reduced more quotations in my recent edits. Let me know what you think. Dan56 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Dan, how are you? Thank you for your edits. Hmm, but the last two paragraphs of Release and reception still feel really dense with quotations to me. Except for the first sentence, every sentence has at least one quotation, and most have two or more. Would it be possible to aim for having at least a couple more sentences with zero quotations, and—if possible—see if there are any other ones you can trim here and there in other sentences? I hope I don't seem like a difficult reviewer. I do think overall the article is very good, and if this one section could be made a little tighter, I think I would certainly be ready to support. Moisejp (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC) @Moisejp:, I've made the last two sentences of the third paragraph without quotations, and paraphrased the opening sentence of the fourth further. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry if pinging you is a nuisance, by the way. Given the fate of the previous nomination, I want to be more careful and timely about responding to reviewers here. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC) No worries about having pinged me. OK, I'm ready to support now. There are still a few more quotations in the section than I would normally go for, but given BLZ's concerns, I can accept them. One remaining quotation that really jumps out at me as unnecessary is "feeling of sadness and joy"; it seems like it should be easy to paraphrase, and I urge you to see if you can do anything with it, but if you have reasons not to, it doesn't affect my support. Moisejp (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts

I don't really have much to say about this article because I mostly do hip hop-related articles, but this article is well sourced and well edited, I think it deserves to be featured. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47

*Apologies in advance if this is obvious, but I am a little confused by the following sentence (This "hectic" period for them led music critic John Bush to believe it may have resulted in a relaxed recording of samba soul for Fôrça Bruta.). To me, it reads that the musicians’ previous success and busy schedules had lead to a more “relaxed” atmosphere for the recording of this album. I am not seeing the connection between the two, as I would imagine that busy schedules with four individual musicians would lead to more conflict and stress than relaxation. Does John Bush elaborate on this more? No, Bush does not elaborate on the connection. BLZ agreed in the previous nomination that the implication was "obvious" but "between-the-lines", so in response I worded it as "relaxed recording". If it is any consolation, AllMusic's review of Ben's preceding album notes an "uneasy tension" in the music, as opposed to Forca Bruta's "mellow samba-soul". Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC) I have a question about this sentence (They held one nighttime session without rehearsing most of the songs beforehand.) and this part (largely unrehearsed) from the lead. These parts imply that they had rehearsed or prepared at least one of the album’s songs prior to the recording session. Do any sources elaborate on these preparations before the session, as it seems somewhat vague in the article right now? Unfortunately, no sources of the ones I was able to locate mention preparation for this recording or any particular songs that might have been rehearsed beforehand. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC) You have done a wonderful job with this article. It is great to see a non-English-language album on the FAC level, and hopefully, this will encourage other editors to pursue similar projects. Most of my comments were addressed in the previoius review, and I only have two very nitpicky comments/questions. Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review on an article that I would ideally like to put through the FAC process sometime in January. I understand if you are not interested or do not have time. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the response. It just seemed a little odd to me that the implication is at least one song had some sort of undefined preparation or rehearsal, but if this information cannot be found in a source, then I understand. Aoba47 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you. And sure, I can offer feedback to the peer review. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Magiciandude (Erick)

Support per last nomination. Erick (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

@Nikkimaria:, you offered a media review in the previous nomination, where BLZ also responded to your concern about this image. The media have remained unchanged since then. Does this article pass a media check? Dan56 (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't a problem with me knocking out an image/file review so I'll go ahead and do that. Here's a run-through of every image and audio file on the page, whether free-licensed or copyrighted:

• File:Forca Bruta.jpg — The album cover found in the infobox. Appropriate fair use rationale and licensing tag. At 300 × 300 px, the image has a lower resolution than the 0.1 megapixel res recommended for copyrighted images at WP:IMAGERES. Includes appropriate alt text.
• File:Br-força bruta.ogg — 0:02 PD audio file of the pronunciation of "Fôrça Bruta" ([fˈoxsɐ bɾˈutɐ]), as spoken and recorded by Dan56. Very minor recommendation: The file description indicates this is a pronunciation of the album title as "spoken in São Paulo dialect of Brazilian Portuguese". I don't know if there would be any difference in the pronunciation of this phrase between Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese, but Template:IPA-pt#usage shows that there is a way to indicate a "Brazilian Portuguese" pronunciation. I'd recommend relabeling it to avoid any error in case there is a difference in pronunciation, but also because the artist is Brazilian. Other than that, there are no usage or copyright issues with this file.
• File:Jorge Ben e o Trio Mocotó no Teatro da Lagoa, 1971.tif — A photo of Ben and the backing band Trio Mocotó, used in the "Recording and production" section. The image is free-licensed, as it entered the public domain in Brazil for the following reasons: the photo was "first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities, such as copyright notice" (the image is dated November 1971) and it is a "Photographic [work] not considered to be 'artistic creations' produced before 19 June 1998" (it is considered a "non-artistic," "documentary" photograph under the applicable standards of Brazilian law.) See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil#Threshold of originality for further info.
  Regarding some comments from the last review: in my view, using this image—rather than removing it or using another image—is appropriate. This is a reasonably contemporaneous image of the musicians, only one year after the album was released. The only other available PD image of Jorge Ben from the 1970s is File:Jorge Ben, 1972.tif, which is a year later and does not include the backing band. There is no indication that there is a superior PD image with the backing band closer in time to the recording. While there are some minor imperfections in the scan—a rectangle drawn around Ben's head, some slight damage near the top of the photo—none of these are significant enough that they detract from the image's educational value. This scan of the photo was taken from the Brazilian National Archives, so it's fair to presume this is the best-preserved scan available anywhere. In general, this is a PD image that adds a lot of informational value; its minor flaws and slight distance in time from the recording time period don't strike me as reasons to remove the image. Includes appropriate alt text.
• File:Oba, Lá Vem Ela.ogg — Sample of the song "Oba, Lá Vem Ela" (4:13) in the "Musical style" section. At 0:25 in length, it is less than 10% of the original song length. Non-free use rationale and licensing both check out. Article includes commentary on the song; the song is also used to illustrate the overall sound of the album.
• File:Almeida Júnior - O Negrinho.jpg — PD image of a 19th c. Brazilian painting, "The Black Boy", used in the "Themes" section. Appropriate licensing (the last image review noted that a US-PD tag was needed, and one has been added.) The article discusses the racial themes of Ben's lyrics and their relation to historical conditions of slavery in Brazil, so use of this image is appropriate as a PD representation of that subject matter. Includes appropriate alt text.

If anyone has further concerns about file usage, there should be enough information here to assess any issues. —BLZ · talk 23:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this review. And yes, I have now modified the IPA template to indicate Brazilian Portuguese. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain

The article is very well-written and I enjoyed reading about a genre I've not explored. I'll be back to offer a few more small comments but overall I think it's strong.

• "after a four-year leave from the label due to creative differences" Is there any more detail available on this? It might be nice to expand a bit to give more context.
  • Yes; the creative differences stemmed from the label pressuring Ben to "crank out lesser versions of his debut classic, padded out with sometimes-questionable covers of tunes by other writers." But I felt this section should be more involved with establishing this album's timeframe than going back further, possibly distracting readers with more detail about Ben's career developments from four years prior. I will include this information in Jorge Ben#Biography and the article of the preceding album, though, in the spirit of summary style. The articles on Ben's other preceding albums should also have more information to establish the career narrative, rather than here; maybe will get to those in the future.
• "String and horn sections were recorded for the final mix but went uncredited in the album's packaging" This is slightly confusing.. are the strings and horns actually on the album? Maybe it could be rephrased like "String and horn sections are present on the final mix but went uncredited in the album's packaging" --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer to include "recorded", to sustain the section's narrative of a recording process; I added "and included [in the final mix]", to make it clearer. Dan56 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support at this time, as anything else I have would be a subjective nit-pick. Well done. --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. For the support, and for inspiring me to expand Jorge Ben (album) today. Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

I've seen a few mentions above re. sourcing but I don't think we've had a formal review for formatting and reliability (correct me if I'm wrong). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Only with certain print sources, not everything. I'll make a request. Dan56 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As this seems to be stalled waiting for a source review, I wonder if Nikkimaria or Laser_brain could do the honours? Sarastro (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review (BLZ)

Starting one now. I've already looked through the sources fairly extensively in my review (often in minute detail, checking the source and also the precision of translation, etc.) so, with that familiarity I think I will be able to finish a source review fairly quickly. —BLZ · talk 02:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Overall, sources look good. I made some minor formatting edits. Most of the online sources are straightforward and standard. I've discussed the offline sources with Dan56 previously and had made some corrections in my first review (when double-checking the articles published in Time and The Wire). I spent some extra time with two articles, both published on the platform Medium:

• I removed one of the posts published on Medium because I didn't think there was enough to substantiate its reliability (Medium both allows self-publication and publishes articles with editorial oversight). I searched for the writer's background/credentials and came up a bit blank. That said, the source was unnecessary because the only information the source was used to verify was that "Fôrça Bruta" translates to "Brute Force", a claim which is virtually evident on its face (the phrases are cognates) and can be checked against any Portuguese-to-English dictionary or translation software in the world. Dan56, if there is any reason you feel this source should be considered valid, please let me know, but again I don't think a source is necessary for this purpose. (As I'm writing this, I just noticed Dan56 moved the source into the "Further reading" section, which is appropriate).
• There is another Medium post, a 2017 Portuguese-language article by Gabriel Proiete de Souza, who appears to be a legit Brazilian journalist. As can be seen on his Contently profile, he has been published in a number of well-established Brazilian/Portuguese-language journalistic outlets. I don't see any reason to doubt his credentials or reliability as a source in the context of how his work is cited in our article. —BLZ · talk 05:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Great. Good work. Now is this nomination finished and worthy of being passed? Dan56 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2019 (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) 12:19, 31 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2019 [4].

---

Battle of Auberoche

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Eight years into the Hundred Years' War the Battle of Auberoche was one of the first decisive land victories by either side and a significant humiliation for the French. For some reason the battle is little known and there are relatively few sources; nevertheless, I think that there is enough here to merit the nomination. Having recently gone through an ACR I am hopeful that the article approaches FA standard and invite you to have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Lacey, Robert (2008) is showing a HARV error. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a good start. I thought that I had removed him as non-RS. Apologies. I have now. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, Cplakidas, CPA-5, Maury Markowitz, Nikkimaria, and Sturmvogel 66: Greetings to you all. You were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. It is now up for an FAC and I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed this article at GAN, and was impressed. It is now better still. Since GAN the article has been expanded by more than a third, making it more informative (and interesting) without any excessive detail. The new location map is a distinct plus point.

I am taking a modest bet with myself that someone will query "routed" as an intransitive verb as I did at GAN before I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary. Struggling to find something new to carp about, I find the map/plan in the Bergerac section hard to read. Of course one can click on it and see it at a scale convenient for elderly eyes, but could it perhaps be displayed on the article page just a little bit bigger?

That quibble apart, on rereading the article I found it clear, interesting and well proportioned – good logical movement from stage to stage. A wide, and to my layman's eye, impressive array of sources, ancient and modern. Happy to support promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 23:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought: I see Gog the Mild's FAC for the Siege of Berwick is still open. Has there been a false start with this new nomination, given that the rules say only one FAC at a time per nominator? Happy to put my comments on ice if so. Tim riley talk 23:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: is a comment in these rooms merely a gin? Take it off the ice, he gained the necessary here. Good times. ——SerialNumber54129 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley Keep the ice, place in the gin, sit back, relax, enjoy. Serial Number 54129, bless him, is being both helpful and generous regarding my newbie errors at the outstanding FAC. Thanks for your support, and for your input at GAN, which gave this article a good base to move forward from; you flatter me with your opinion of the prose. It received a reasonably thorough review at ACR, so I am hopeful re FAC. Note that "routed" was not commented on :-) . I did comment re the map at the construction stage, but I didn't commission it, so it is what it is. I have played a bit with the compromise of making it large enough to read without clicking on and not taking over the page and have cranked it up a couple of notches - see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks better. Thanks for that. Point taken that you can't let it take over the whole screen. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a minor note, Gog. You may have already done this, and apologies if you have, but you really need to get papal (FAC coord) dispensation if you want to nominate a fresh FAC (on your own) before your last single nom one has been closed. Usually that is only given if the previous one is ready for close (three supports, image and source reviews). Just ping the coords. I'll take a look at this once that has been sorted out. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker: They already did. See my link above. ——SerialNumber54129 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. Wouldn't have hurt to have explicitly stated that when he nominated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Np. Rookie error. Rotate him back to the Island now!  ;) On a lighter note, it means you can start earning your chow and get on with that review :p ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for the heads up. However, the Supreme Beings have already smiled upon me, as SN54129 points out - they are on commission, which accounts for their enthusiasm. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't push your luck, dear boy! Tim riley talk 20:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Um. "they" was intended to refer to SN54129. Oops. I can see that some propitiation is in order. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Hm why not? If I can help you in your Hundred Years' War's serie than I'll do that with pleasure.

• The Gascons had their own language and customs. Hm some scholars says it is a dialect of Occitan. So I think you should use the word "claim" in the sentence.

Done.

• See some English and French crowns which are not capitalised. or holding some rights from the French crown as the monarch and others from the English crown as their liege lord.

Done.

• There was no formal border between English and French territory. Significant landholders owned a patchwork of widely separated estates, perhaps owing fealty to a different overlord for each; or holding some rights from the French crown as the monarch and others from the English crown as their liege lord. Each small estate was likely to have a fortified tower or keep, with larger estates having castles. Fortifications were also constructed at transport choke points, to collect tolls and to restrict military passage, and fortified towns grew up alongside all bridges and most fords over the many rivers in the region. has somehow no citation.

How embarrassing. The cites had wondered off. I have retrieved them.

• They anchored off Sluys in Flanders until 22 July, while Edward attended to diplomatic affairs. I think the "Sluys" part should become "Sluys (Sluis)".

Um. I see what you mean, but when I make the change it looks clunky and (IMO) breaks the flow of the prose. It is Wikilinked if anyone cares. Could you live with it as it is?

• @Gog the Mild: Yes indeed, it is wikilinked. However it looks a little bit odd to me. I mean in this sentence The Earl of Northampton would lead a small force to Brittany (known at the time as Bretagne), a slightly larger force would proceed to Gascony (Guyenne) under the command of Henry, Earl of Derby and the main force would accompany Edward to France or Flanders. says the older version of the name Brittany called Bretagne and Brittany itself are listed in the article. Which is strange to me, the article use the current Brittany and old one too. But the current Sluis can't be listed? I mean the article could use Bretagne instead of Brittany and having a wikilink to Brittany's article or make a note, with the current or old name in it, same with Sluis right? Do you see the odd part? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Fair enough. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• There is already a "(40 km)" above this sentence in the another French army of some 9,000–10,000 men under the Duke of Normandy was only 25 miles (40 km) away.

Done.

• "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War", --> "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Years' War",

Oops. Done.

Hopefully this was useful. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: It is very useful. Thank you for once again running your eagle eyes over this. They are very good. All of your comments above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: I've a last question to you? Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres of wine. How much is that in U.S. gallon? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Far too much  :) a hundred million litres?! Crikey  :) those armoured trousers must've worked them up a thirst! @GtM, I couldn't find that on pp.39–40 of Sumption which it's sourced to, can you double-check? When you lose the jetlag of course  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 22:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• My bad they were U.S. quarts instead of U.S. gallons. But, when I found out that the article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 use U.S. quarts (which were 110 million U.S. quarts). I thought why they aren't in the article? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5 and Serial Number 54129: Typing this off a wonky airport internet. Well spotted. The quantity is correct (!!!) The reference is Rodger, at the end of the paragraph. My bad. Once I am back in the land of decent internet connections I will put an extra cite in, and add one to (hopefully) nail it down. It does smack of the incredible. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5 and Serial Number 54129: Right. I now have a cite at the end (Rodger, 79-80) which supports the whole paragraph; and cites for the two statements I think are "likely to be challenged". Ie, Bordeaux being more populous than London and the 100,000,000 litres of wine. The latter is on Rodger 79, but I think it bears sticking right next to the claim. The source gives it in tuns, a standardised volume (and the ancestor of the modern ton and tonnage to indicate a ships capacity) so I have done the maths, which I believe is allowed. The xix-xx bit is Rodger helpfully giving the number of modern (imperial) gallons in a tun. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Hmm may I ask you to put in the article? The article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 uses 110 million U.S. quarts. So I think we've to go that way or we use U.S. gallons instead of U.S. quarts in both articles. If we use quarts than it is 110 million quarts if we use gallons than it should be 26,417,000 gallons. I think we can choose which one the article use. So which one should it be? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Done. I have gone with quarts. I am trying to use the common unit closest to the size of a modern wine bottle, to give readers a feel for how many bottles of wine this represents. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Happy to see this. I've no comments anymore. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by PM

This article is in really great shape, Gog. The only comment I have is that the lead says this was a decisive victory for the Anglo-Gascon force, but I couldn't find that description or words to that effect in the body, although it is self-evident from the Aftermath section, I think "decisive" should be used in the body and cited if it is going to be used in the lead. Alternatively, you could just more fully describe the aftermath in the lead rather than call it "decisive" per se. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi PM, high praise indeed. I don't really like the word decisive, if only because it is overused. I haven't been self-critical enough there, so thanks for stepping in. I have rephrased the lead. Perhaps you could see what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That is what I meant, those changes are great. Nice job on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from MM

I read this during the A and loved it then, and its even better now. I particularly like the additions to the "During the first half" part.

I did some very minor GS and WS edits, mostly some vertical whitespace, and all I have left is...

Hi MM, thanks for the copy edit.

• "The French in the camp to the north" - I assume this is the second smaller camp, described earlier? If so, "The French in the smaller camp to the north...", just for clarity. And I'm not sure about "the french", that sounds odd to these Canadian ears. "The French men..."? Hmmm, not much better. "The smaller French force camped to the north...", ahhh, that one maybe?

Reworded.

• There's no cite in "There was no formal border", not that I personally care.

I think that it needs fixing for FA. Sounds like a job for Sumption, but I am temporarily away from my hard copies. I shall add a cite or two next week.

Clearly not enough to hold up the FA, so good to go as it is IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

I reviewed this at ACR and was very pleased with its quality. I don't really have any quibbles with it now, whether in extent, coverage, prose quality, except one: the lack of French-perspective sources, at least at first glance. I am not well versed on the topic's historiography, but what I have glimpsed from it occasionally (and from what I know of how the conflict is treated in English culture historically), there is more than a bit of triumphalism on the part of the Anglo-Saxon authors. Not that this necessarily impedes their scholarly qualities, but one does occasionally get the impression that they root for one team in particular, especially among the older generations. This may be reflected in texts in innocuous ways, e.g. where the French side are simply "the French", whereas on the English side, the commander(s) are mentioned by name, given agency, their motives (and errors) explained, whereas "the other side" is almost an impersonal force. This inevitably seeps through to us when we rely on them, and I've come across this often enough in my own work (I do write on the Balkans and the Middle East, after all) to think that I can detect this influence here. Now, it is of course possible that on this battle, the contemporary French sources are silent or not as detailed as the English accounts. It is also likely that the sources cited (which are all very reputable) do make the best possible use of this limited material and can be assumed to present a fair and comprehensive treatment of the topic, or that the modern French scholars have not dealt with the topic in the extent the British have. The point is, I don't really know, and, long story short, I simply would like Gog the Mild's opinion (or of any other informed reviewer) on this, as the one who has read the sources in question and has a grasp of the bibliography. Constantine ✍ 15:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) To be fair, even the French article uses solely English (and far fewer!) sources; but to adhere to—and prevent anyone opposing on—criterion 1b, may I suggest that GtM inserts a small section—a level 3 under "Aftermath" suggests itself?—dealing with the approach different chroniclers took to the battle. Hint: Froissart is your go-to guy on this one (remember how, for your last one, at least Scottish chronicle was used? Same thing). ——SerialNumber54129 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I am currently travelling. I had started a lengthy discussion of Constantine’s point, which I think is a good one. However, SN−54129 has put a it much more succinctly. I shall try something along the lines they suggest, which at worse will give us something concrete to discuss. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. I noted your comments at ACR, and put this forward for FAC regardless, although I agree that you raise sound points above, and they need to be addressed. I have five articles on the Hundred Year’s War in Gascony in 1345-46 which I would like, eventually, to submit for FAC. All rely on substantially the same sources. So, at some point, the adequacy of them as a group needs to be addressed.

The short response to your point is that there simply aren’t any modern French sources which deal with these campaigns. Come to that, there are precious few English ones: two specialist books (Fowler and Gribit) and Sumption’s general, but very detailed, book. A slightly outdated summary (1999) of the sources by Vale can be found here. P 69, ignore the first paragraph, 71 and nearly all of 72. Essentially he says that pre-1360 there is French (er, the British professor, not the language) and nothing else. Things have improved slightly over the past 20 years.

Can I point out that I am not shy about incorporating foreign sources where they exist. I recently nominated the great French victory of 1312, Battle of Bouvines, for GA. It incorporates, I think, a reasonable spread of French sources and its spine is drawn from a Belgian author. In my five Gascon articles I have been so desperate for French sources that I have included Guizot in one which I wrote from scratch, in spite of it dating to the 1870s. User:Newm30, who is knowledgeable about things French and late Medieval found one I had missed – here. Note that it covers eleven campaigning seasons in its brief summary and dates to 1895. I was excited in spite of this, until I realised that it was actually one of Froissart's (see below) versions; no doubt new in 1895, but not today.

The theatre is under-represented in all of the literature, overshadowed by the Crecy campaign and the siege of Calais. Additionally, French historians tend to concentrate on their successful periods: before, eg Bouvines, or after, eg the Carolinian phase of the Hundred Years' War, rather than the period of incompetence and abject defeat. This does, as you point out, mean that much examination of the French forces and commanders is missing. I don’t doubt your points about authors having unconscious national biases, but if the source material is not there for them, it simply is not there – they have to do the best they can with what they have.

Regarding contemporary sources, well obviously they all wrote in French. The main chronicler, as User:Serial Number 54129 points out, is Froissart: a French speaker who came from what is now France and was then the Holy Roman Empire; much of his work was commissioned by the English court, but was widely accepted as an accurate record across Europe in its day; although Rogers, in the work cited next comments "Froissart is not reliable". Other Medieval sources – see Rogers p 93-94 for a summary – include William of Dene (English), the St Omer Chronicle (French), Chronique de Bazas (French), Chronique de normande (French) and another French source now lost but copied independently in three slightly later compilations. In sum, the contemporaneous sources which the modern authors use are mostly French. (The nation, not the language.)

I had agreed above to include a section on the sources, even to quote direct from them. The more I think about the latter, the less happy I am about quoting 650+ year old sources, unfiltered through modern experts; considering that a filtered version is available. Could I invite discussion on this? I am also feeling unhappy about writing a separate section on the sources. This is normally only done when the sources fundamentally disagree. Here, for the most part, they don't. Sure, there is room for scholarly debate, but there is more divergence between Froissart's three versions than there is between him and the other chronicles. (I would be happy to quote modern scholars on this.) This being the case I don't see that it would add to the article for the average reader, and would be there purely as a fig leaf of purported national balance. I would welcome comment on this too. (Where the chronicles do diverge on details I prefer to cover it as it arises, as in the first paragraph and a half of Battle of Bergerac#Battle. Apparently it was a confused running battle and no one could work out what the hell happened - one can hardly blame the chroniclers for also being confused.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. Sorry for making you going through all the trouble, but you are right, at some point this would have to be addressed. The situation you present on the sources is more or less what one would expect, and one that appears frequently in other eras and regions as well. Regarding a source section, I generally find them useful, perhaps not for the average reader, but certainly for anyone more interested in getting a quick and ready overview for further study; indeed, if there are divergences in the primary sources that affect modern (or not-so-modern) scholarship, or if you are forced to quote primary sources because either no modern sources cover the events in the same detail, or because the modern sources essentially follow the primary ones verbatim, or because you need to illustrate the differences between two or more traditions of primary sources, you really have to discuss their relative merits in a dedicated section first.

For the present article, I agree that it probably would be overkill; however, it would IMO be pertinent for the overview article Gascon campaign of 1345, unless you also plan another, broader article on the Gascon theatre in general (and as long as the group of sources for 1345 is the same for the region throughout this phase of the conflict) or you can point to a relevant section elsewhere (we really should at some point have a Historiography of the Hundred Years' War article).

For the record and for the benefit of this review, I support the nomination without reservation. Constantine ✍ 11:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Yes, you did make me go to a lot of trouble. But , as you say, it needed to be thrashed out at some point. It took me a while to get there. Partly because I wasn't sure what my opinion was re the details; partly to try and source what I was saying rather than spout self serving OR. I think that you see where I am coming from. I am content to go with your proposed solution. I shall write a section on sources. If I put it in Gascon campaign of 1345 that covers Bergerac and Auberouge, but not, theoretically, Aiguillon nor Lancaster's chevauchee - in 1346. However, I have an article planned - Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 - where I think this would fit reasonably naturally. See the third "topic" down in User:Gog the Mild/Tasks#Targets for the coverage. Does this sound reasonable?

The modern sources for this are (much) more varied than those for the Gascon articles, but the core is the same 6-8 scholars and there are almost no new contemporary sources. Yes, we could do with a Historiography of the Hundred Years' War article. I would be hesitatingly willing to write the 1345-49 section. If pushed, 1337-49. That leaves a lot of years to be picked up. When I do the proposed sources section, could you remind me to revisit this?

It is reassuring to have you keeping an eye on this series. Please be as free with advice, on anything, as you ask me to be with your wannabe FAs. (I suspect that is a redundant request.) Ditto for any TPWs or editors referred here. All comments and suggestions gratefully received.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The proposed solution would be perfect from my point of view; indeed such sections are better suited for articles discussing a broader and self-contained period/set of events. Looking forward to your next pieces of work :). Best, Constantine ✍ 14:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Constantine Good. Thanks. Well, I am having a short break to work on some First Punic War naval battles, but I shall return. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• All sources are high quality, given the scarcity of coverage of this period and area.
• You are inconsistent with the publisher location for Boydell.

Now consistent.

• No. 53 is missing a full page range.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Corrected.

@Sturmvogel 66: Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• There seems to be something odd going on with the coding of the lead image - are there multiple captions for some reason?

Yes. Although not for any reason. Extraneous captions removed

• Would it be possible to provide a inset country map with the map of modern Nouvelle-Acquitaine? It would help provide context for those less familiar with the region

Good idea. If I had the faintest idea how to do it, I would. It must be possible. I shall start researching. Hmm. To save me what could be a lot of work, what do you think of the solution I have implemented.

• Given that even at this size the labelling on the troop movement map is illegible, suggest repeating the legend in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria That was quick, thank you. Points addressed. Possibly not how you would prefer. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's workable - suggest making it slightly larger, the colouring makes it a mite difficult to see. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, how’s that? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Better. I do think an inset would be preferable if possible, but if not this is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I know someone I can outsource it to, I will ask them. And I appreciate the FAC not being held up over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2019 [5].

---

North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Following on from Eastern Area a few months ago, I present its northerly neighbour, North-Eastern Area (NEA), which was right in Australia's frontline of the Pacific War in its early period. You'll find, though, that after an action-packed first year (during which NEA was the recipient of the most memorable two-fingered salute in RAAF history, via a signal by Wing Commander John Lerew) the level of detail in the article tapers off, which reflects the sources and the diminishing importance of NEA in the war effort. The Americans took direct control of USAAF units in the area from mid-1942, and the RAAF formed No. 9 Operational Group (Northern Command from April 1944) soon later, denuding NEA of its forces in New Guinea. NEA continued to operate after the war but had little to do until being consigned to history by the RAAF's reorganisation into a functional command-and-control structure beginning in 1953. As ever, I look forward to any and all comments! Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• All sources appear to be from official sources or reliable presses. NewSouth Publishing is also known as the University of New South Wales Press, which might be a better name to list because it is more obviously reliable.
• ISBN: sources are inconsistent between listing 10- or 13- digit ISBN.
• A search for additional sources did not turn up anything useful.
• No source checks done because nominator is an experienced user with several FAs already.

Fix the ISBNs and I will give a solid support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Tks for looking, Catriona. While I'd agree 13-digit ISBNs should be used where available (and I've changed one where my source used both), the remaining 10-digit ones are all that was available in the editions I used, so I think it best to stick with them rather than convert to numbers my editions didn't employ. Similarly, I've piped NewSouth Publishing to UNSWP since the former is what's printed in my source (tks for pointing it out). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Tks for that, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape, and I only have a couple of queries:

• was there a reason for the USAAF not being under NEA control after the Battle of the Coral Sea? Did something happen during the battle to cause this? Was it the fault of NEA?
  • Just seems to be a facet of the Americanisation of operational tasking at this time (initially raised earlier in that para re. the establishment of Allied Air Forces) -- I've added a bit to reinforce that.
• I'm left wondering what role NEA had in an air defence sense responding to Japanese air raids within the NEA in 1942–1943, particularly those on Australian soil, Horn Island and Townsville, for example. Could a mention be made of these raids and their targets within NEA during its existence?
  • Added a bit on Horn Island and Townsville raids -- I've kept the detail level fairly high as I think that's consiistent with the rest of the article but let me know if you think more is appropriate.

That's all I have, great work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking a look, PM. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi PM, did you have a chance to review my responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ian, this one slipped through the net. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• The chronology of the first two paragraphs World War II jumps back and forth a bit. I understand the flow though and can't see an alternative in making it more chronological without muddying the prose so not technically a deal-breaker as such. Might have a think about this.
  • Yes, in a history such as this I think sometimes it's best to follow a train of thought, as it were, even if it means occasionally jumping a little bit ahead (and then back) chronologically.
• Also - doesn't state who decided to establish it...?
  • I felt it best to leave the details to the parent RAAF area commands article. The short answer is simply "the RAAF", and I've spelt that out now.
• Any reason given why the Aus Govt rejected going from 5 to 3 areas in September 1946?
  • It's not much clearer than that, I'm afraid. The source says the Secretary for Air of the time may have been trying to maintain close control of things, but the way it's expressed this could be referring to a general proposal (again unrealised) of decentralising command and control.

Otherwise reads well with no prose-clangers outstanding. I am a neophyte in the area but can't see any glaring gaps in comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Tks for looking it over, Cas -- it definitely helps to have a mix of MilHist and non-MilHist eyes on the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - a nice clean short article that I can't see anything actionable to improve. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, just a few suggestions / questions ...

• "Northern Area had been established on 8 May 1941 as one of the RAAF's geographically based command-and-control zones, and covered northern New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory, and Papua" - the accompanying map (Dec 1941) also includes northern WA and northern SA ... was there an interim change between May and Dec 1941?
  • You have an eye for detail (as if I didn't know it already)! Yes, there was a change to area boundaries, I'll work that in...
    • After a quick rethink, it's probably simpler to just reword slightly to say Northern Area controlled units in NSW, Qld, NT and Papua, which remained the case even after its boundaries were enlarged to cover northern WA and SA, as those bits didn't include RAAF bases at that stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • using "units" is a fine solution
• "...over 100 Japanese aircraft attacked Rabaul..." - no explanation that Papua was 'part of' Aust at that time (unless reader had clicked on Territory of Papua|Papua), maybe remove pipe?
  • Sorry Jenny, can you confirm which pipe you suggest removing?
    • I reckon here "covering units in northern New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory, and Papua." you could consider using Territory of Papua instead of piping it as Papua. (As always, I'm taking into consideration say a school age student who may not know it was under Aust authority.)
• "...concrete bunker known as Building 81,..." - wlink to Green Street bunker? But see also my last comment at bottom.
  • See my comment there too...
• "...the only casualty was an injured child." - sounds harsh, maybe 'with only one casualty, an injured child.' or similar.
  • You ole' softie...
    • Yeah, guilty! I know it wasn't intended to sound dismissive:)
• "...to hold overarching administrative authority over all Australian units." - 2 x over tautology
  • Well I know "overarching" is not one of your favourite words, so another good reason for it to go... ;-)
    • Hehe - It is a tautology in itself. Arches are always 'over'. I've never changed it anywhere but so pleased you did. Thanks!
• "...control of all radar stations in NEA." - consider here or elsewhere? Radar in World War II
  • Fair enough.
• "...flying Bristol Beaufort reconnaissance-bombers..." - DAPs?
  • Yes, I probably used the original, better-known manufacturer name since there isn't even a redirect for DAP Beaufort -- I guess I could create one though.
• "...transferred to Townsville in May that year, and disbanded the following month." - because we don't know 'the' month change to 'a month later'?
  • Isn't 'the' month May? I don't mind "a month later" anyway though...
    • Blush, how did I miss seeing May?
• "...headquarters was located in Sturt Street, Townsville." - wlink No 42 Commonwealth Offices, Townsville?
  • I don't think my sources give the actual number of the building in Sturt St but I guess it's a low-risk pipe... ;-)
    • that article says "serving as Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area, during the Second World War.[1]" so you could grab that ref to verify No 42 to avoid all risk?
• "As of 2009, the former NEA headquarters in Building 81, Green Street, housed Townsville's State Emergency Service group." - wlink RAAF Operations Building Site? (Should that article and Green Street bunker be merged?)
  • Ugh, this is probably why I didn't wikilink it...! Not sure if I even want to get into merger discussions -- the former article is in slightly better shape IMO, based as it is on the same Qld Heritage building register data that I cite, but I think "Green Street Bunker" is the better title for a single article on the structure. Guess I'll pipe the former for now...
    • Okey doke. I might mention it to Kerry one day. I sorta doubt she knew the Green St one existed when she created the QHR RAAF one.

That's it from me. JennyOz (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks as always for reviewing, Jenny. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ian, I've added some replies to yours but nothing concerns me so am very happy to support. Thanks and regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Couldn't find a damn thing to pick up and complain about, which is a shame! ;-) Meets the FAC criteria, as far as I can see (from a position of a complete ignoramus on the subject, at least!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 [6].

---

French battleship Courbet (1911)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Courbet had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but not enough that the French didn't use her as a training ship during the 1930s. After bombarding Rommel's 7th Panzer as it approached Cherbourg, France, she sailed to Britain where she was seized by Perfidious Albion a few weeks later. They used her as a target ship before she was sunk as a breakwater off the Normandy beaches in 1944. The article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and I believe it to meet the FAC criteria. That said, I hope that reviewers will catch any infelicitous prose and unexplained jargon that might remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size - suggest scaling up the deck plan using |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• I'd put the date she was launched in the lead - it does look odd that there is "(1911)" in title but then is 1914 in lead...
  • I don't think that it confuses readers as you're the first person ever to say anything about that sort of thing in any of my ship reviews.
    • ok, good point...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• After the war ended on 11 November, Courbet and her sisters returned in succession to Toulon for a refit; - why "in succession"?
  • I was trying to establish that they were refitted one after another, but it's really not relevant to the ship's history. So deleted.
• The first sentence in the World War II is pretty long. I'd split it.
  • Done.

Otherwise reads well. I am not an expert in the area but there don't appear to be any glaring gaps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support then - nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Moise

Hi Sturmvogel. I'll start a review of this article in the next few days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(First read-through) Background and description:

• "By 1909 the French Navy was finally convinced of the superiority of the all-big-gun battleship like HMS Dreadnought over the mixed-calibre designs like the Danton class which had preceded the Courbets." There may be missing context here. Why "finally" and what had been their reasoning for taking the opposite point of view until then? Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Previous doctrine used a mix of a few slow-firing, heavy-hitting guns to penetrate armor and lots of lighter, faster-firing guns to damage everything else. Problem was that the latter were becoming larger themselves and misses were harder to distinguish from the main armament, so controlling them was more difficult. This will have to be discussed in more detail in the class article as it's not really relevant to this ship's history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• OK, how about at least removing the word "finally"? It gives the sentence a possible subjective feel, and it raises questions for the reader that are not answered within the article itself. Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• You're right that it does sort of invite a deeper discussion of the topic. Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Construction and career:

• "The ship was ordered on 11 August 1910[7] and named after Admiral Amédée Courbet." Feels like a bit sudden introduction to the subject, as the ship hasn't been mentioned yet in the main text, and until now there has only been mention of the Courbet class of ships in general. Possibly in this sentence you could say something like "A lead ship for the Courbet class was ordered on..." Or "Courbet, the lead ship for the Courbet class, was ordered on..." By the way, is it common for classes of ships and their lead ship to have the same name? This could be confusing for laypeople like me, and if there is clarifying info about this that you could include in a footnote, it could be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added her name to the beginning of the Construction and career section to better orient the reader. The description section is intended to be generic for all the articles about the ships in the class, with only differences being specifically called out, as they were for Courbet's boilers in the first paragraph of the section. The class name is usually, but not always, the name of the first ship laid down or launched. Some classes have a theme or all use the same letter of the alphabet like A-class destroyer or Weapon-class destroyer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• May I recommend "The ship Courbet..." to begin the sentence so it is clearer you are moving away from discussion of the class to the individual ship? Also, how about a footnote saying that the class name is usually the name of the first ship laid down or launched? As I mentioned above, this would be less confusing for people who don't know much about ships. If you can't find a source that says so explicitly, another option would be to say in the footnote: "The ship Courbet was the first ship launched in the Courbet class. Other examples where a class name is the same as the first of its ships are XXX, YYY, and ZZZ." That way readers can understand there's a trend behind it. Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I dunno, all that's explained in the lead ship article. I don't think it's something that needs to be elaborately explained in an individual ship article as people can simply click on the term if they want more detailed information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I see. I didn't click on the lead ship link, and it didn't occur me that the answer would be there. I guess for ship enthusiasts it's more obvious. In any case, okay, I'm satisfied enough with your explanation to let this point go. Moisejp (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I’ll take a closer look at them and type up some more comments soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

World War 1:

• May I suggest a wiki-link for metropolitan France? I didn't know what it meant, maybe other readers don't either. Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Good idea.
• "On 1 July the Armée Navale was reorganised with Courbet, Paris and Jean Bart assigned to the 2nd Division of the 1st Squadron on 1 July." It looks like one instance of "on 1 July" needs to be removed. Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Interwar years:

• "On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and Western Mediterranean Squadrons (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale)". The French-in-parentheses is after just "Eastern" in the first instance, but after the whole phrase "Western Mediterranean Squadrons" in the second instance. May I suggest one of the two solutions below for a parallel structure:

• On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and Western (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale) Mediterranean Squadrons, or
• On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern Mediterranean Squadron (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and its Western counterpart (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale). Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I like it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

World War II:

• ”After the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Courbet and Paris continued training until after the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940.” Two instances of after in the sentence. May I suggest “From the beginning of World War II...” Moisejp (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I like it. Do you think it would be better combined with the following sentence as per PM's suggestion below or is it better in its current state?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest not combining the two sentences. Actually one of the comments I was planning to make in this review is that a few sentences in the article are a little on the long side. I'll identify the few I was thinking of in a future comment, after I finish looking at your current replies. Moisejp (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at your replies and finish my review soon—hopefully will have time this weekend. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Final comment:

• I mentioned above there may be instances of sentences that are possibly too long, but re-reading now I only found the following that really jumped out at me. Would you consider breaking it up?

• "Aside from a brief bombardment of Austro-Hungarian coastal fortifications defending the Bay of Cattaro on 1 September to discharge the unfired shells remaining in the guns after sinking Zenta, and several uneventful sorties into the Adriatic, the 1st Naval Army spent most of its time cruising between the Greek and Italian coasts[11] to prevent the Austro-Hungarian fleet from attempting to break out of the Adriatic." Moisejp (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sure, see how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• It looks good! I'm happy. Moisejp (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

• in the lead "that same month" isn't closely enough associated with August 1914 in the text. I suggest "She helped to sink the Austro-Hungarian protected cruiser SMS Zenta[Note 1] that same month, and spent the war in the Mediterranean."
  • Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• I think Note 1 is unnecessary in the lead, most readers will assume it is a ship prefix used for Austro-Hungarian ships.
• after introduction, should Boué de Lapeyrère just be Lapeyrère per the usual treatment of the German "von"?
  • I don't think so as I believe that they're more a like hyphenated surname in English. Jordan and Caresse use the full version consistently, so I've followed their practice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• "them a range of 4,200"
• suggest "which were mounted singly in casemates in the hull"
• the TT conversions don't match between the body and infobox
• where were the TTs located?
  • Added.
• Boué de Lapeyrère is the same one that was the Minister? Perhaps explain that he retired as Minister and returned to sea service as a Vice Admiral, as when I read it I assumed he was a brother or something until I went to his article to check.
  • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• suggest 1st Squadron→1st Battle Squadron for clarity, there is another example
• rather than sometimes use the French name for a unit and sometimes use the English, I suggest sticking to one or the other. ie 1st Naval Army and 1ère Armée Navale/Armée Navale
  • Yeah, I hadn't realized that I'd switched between them so often.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• "cruiser Zenta in off Antivari,"
  • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• comma after "after sinking Zenta" to break up the sentence
  • Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• the italicisation of the guns irks me for some reason, particularly when there is barely any French involved, or it is mainly an acronymn ie 75 mm (3.0 in) Mle 1891 G. The article titles aren't italicised, so I don't think the links should be.
  • Fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• do we have a first name for Charlier? Redlink given he was an admiral?
  • No, one of the frustrating things about Jordan & Caresse is that they have a list of all the admirals who used the ships as flagships with dates, but no first names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• suggest "2nd Battle Division" if that's right?
  • The French Navy didn't differentiate them at all, unlike squadrons which were "du ligne", etc. Usage is inconsistent. An OB for 1914 didn't have them, but one for 1920 did, so perhaps things changed. At any rate, I've decided to standardize on Battle Division, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• do we know where she underwent her 1920–1921 refit? Toulon?
  • Oddly enough, it seems that I confused Courbet with some other ship for this bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• some guns aren't linked, and I can't find an article on them. Redlink them?
  • I think that I found enough inferences elsewhere to link them to existing guns, though the best sources don't have anything on either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• just for consistency, perhaps No. 2 turret→forward superfiring turret?
  • Not my preferred solution, but since I have no idea how the French designated the wing turrets, it will have to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• suggest "After the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Courbet and Paris continued training, but following the German invasion of France of 10 May, they were mobilised on 21 May 1940 with augmented crews and assigned to the command of Vice-Admiral Jean-Marie Abrial for the defence of the French ports on the English Channel."
  • That's originally how I had it, but one of the ACR reviewers suggested that that was too long a sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• suggest " by the Allies during Operation Aerial."
• suggest "Dambuster Raid, also known as Operation Chastise."
  • I think that flipping those is better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• suggest stating that she was successfully scuttled as a breakwater (if that is what happened) and what landing beach she was scuttled off?

That's me done on primary review. I'll also take a separate look at the sources etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the thorough review. I think that I've covered all of your comments, so see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries, it is always a pleasure reviewing one of yours. Hopefully some improvements have resulted. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review

All the sources used are of high quality and reliable, and what one would expect on a French ship of this vintage. Formatting looks fine. Spotchecks not conducted (AGF'ed given Sturm's long history at FAC). My main queries relate to the Further reading section, in that two articles specifically about this class haven't been used as sources, and that the latter Gardiner and Chesneau source doesn't have anything extra to say. For that reason I'm wondering if this is actually comprehensive in terms of reflecting the available scholarship on this ship. I am also left wondering about what relevance to this ship the Curtis source has? Finally, the EL - is netmarine.net reliable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

See my respons on the article's ACR

I think that netmarine.net is reliable because it's not generally editable and doesn't appear to be the work of any one person. But the key thing is the photo of the monument commemorating Courbet's service at Normandy which acts to further confirm the dates on which she was attacked, etc.

I've deleted Conways as its more of a general reference.

Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 [7].

---

History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

Nominator(s): Hzh (talk · contribs), Govvy (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is has come together nicely. Hzh has done alot of heavy lifting here and I can't see anything actionable prose- or comprehensiveness-wise. With three nominators issues should be dealt with promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to weigh in here, as well as here and here. The nominators could help one another, me, and the community, by commenting on the other two pages. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay @Dweller: we're ready.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

See below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from SN54129

You've done a job of work on this and no mistake. A couple of points on prose that jump out at a skim read. No major malfunctions though.

Background

• president until 1894, would became an important > become

Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Early years

• between themselves, the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs however would gradually increase > In the first two years, the boys largely played games between themselves; the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs would, however, gradually increase

Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• this was changed for 1895 to 1898 > from?

Changed to "changed in 1895" (the 1898 date is probably unnecessary since the following sentence showed that it changed again in 18991898). Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Error corrected. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Professional status

• On this the London Football Association found the club > On this, the London Football Association found the club

Wording adjust. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• agreed to play for Spurs, but arrived without any kit > agreed to play for Spurs but arrived without any kit

Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• However, press coverage over the incidence raised > However, press coverage over the incident raised

Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• found the club guilty of professionalism with financial inducement to attract a player to the club after Fulham complained of poaching of their player

Makes for heavy reading this; certainly a comma is required after "club", but is it possible to tighten the sentence? Possibly by splitting it? Also, can the phrase "professionalism with financial inducement" be linked or otherwise clarified—for example, is it a legal term, the term the source uses, or your rewording of the source?

Both "professionalism" and "financial inducement" are found in various sources, although some sources use "unfair inducement" which may be the original judgement as they used it in quotation marks. I have decide to rewrite it as Fulham then complained to the London Football Association that Tottenham had poached their player and were guilty of professionalism having breached amateur rules. On the latter charge, the London Football Association found Tottenham guilty as the payment for the boots was judged an 'unfair inducement' to attract the player to the club. I hope this is satisfactory. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Wording adjusted. Hzh (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Charles Roberts and a local businessman John Oliver > Charles Roberts and local businessman John Oliver

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• took up post as the first ever manager of Spurs > took up postwas appointed the first manager of Spurs.

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• cup-winning > should this be Cup-winning? I'm not too sure myself, but I'm leaning towards it being a proper noun.

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

1901 FA Cup

• Kirkham however was not a success > Kirkham, however, was not a success

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Highs and lows

• charge however saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated > charge, however, saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tresadern however failed to lift > Again, add commas. Note—however!—that this is one of the most over- and mis-used words in wirtten English. I know this is a big article, but you use it over seventy times; they're not all necessary. I'm not going to comment on them again, but suggest ctrl+f and eliminating those you don't need (most of them) and adding commas where you do.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have removed/reworded some of these so that it won't get too repetitive, will go through the others to see how they might be rewritten. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Peter McWilliam returned to Spurs, and tried to rebuild > Peter McWilliam was brought back as manager, and tried to rebuild...or something like that. No Spurs necessary; we know what team we're talking about by now!

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• beyond the quarter finals of the FA Cup in the 30s > beyond the quarterfinals of the FA Cup in the 30s...one word

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• travel long distance for the matches drawn up by the Football League, and decided to run their own competitions > no comma required

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The spurs way

• terrible state of the White Hart Lane pitch, > Ditto.

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• It was the best ever start by any club in the top flight of English football, until it was > It was to be the best start by any club in the top flight of English football until it was

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The double

• the final of the 1960–61 FA Cup extraneous space

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

1st Euro triumph

• Rotterdam, Spurs won 5–1, including ditto

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing success

• Steve Perryman would become Spurs' longest serving player hyphenate "longest serving"

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline and revival

• Tottenham managed to reached four cup finals > reach

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Relegation

• 70s cup-winning team had by now left or retired Again, cap for Cup?

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• A memorable game early in the season came at home to Bristol Rovers, when Spurs won 9–0, no comma req.

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cup wins

• a new phase of redevelopment of White Hart Lane > choice of: a new phase of the redevelopment of White Hart Lane / a new phase of redeveloping White Hart Lane / a new phase of redevelopment at White Hart Lane.

Done. Last option used. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cup and boardroom drama

• Spurs managed a nine game unbeaten start, hyphenate "nine-game"

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Undo this as it is the title of a news article. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• who had little knowledge of the club's history (alleged to have said... > who had little knowledge of the club's history (and was alleged to have asked}}...or something Incidentally. does "double" have to be capitalised? I wouldn't have thought so, important as it is to Spurs fans  :)

Done. As for "Double", I have no opinion one way or another, most sources appear to capitalise it, but if Wikipedia editors prefer it uncapitalised, then it can be done that way. What's the general opinion here? Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• but then reverted on appeal Think you mean, "reversed on appeal"

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Premier league

• as replacement for the > to replace the

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ardiles

• after Sheringhham was injured Of all the names for you to mis-spell!

Ooops, I actually have a tendency to use 2 Rs for his name, not 2 Hs! Corrected. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• in June 1994 the club was found found guilty of making It was only found once

Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Nice article. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing out the errors, I have a tendency not to see my own mistakes. Much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I appear to have made some errors saving the edits, but I hope they have all been fixed now. Hzh (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: are you happy that all actionable issues have been actioned? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Indeed; I see the however issue was brought up below, but that its usage has been reduced to nearly single-figures. Everything else has also been addressed. Up the Irons! :p D Supporting this candidature. ——SerialNumber54129 12:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of "however"

Even by Wikipedia practices, 26 uses of "however" is far too many. Use it only where needed to show contrast, and not as just another conjunction. Consider using "but", or recasting the sentence to use "although". Eric Corbett has some good advice and links here and here. Kablammo (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I have removed/reworded some of them, and will go over the article again to see how I can write the others better. Hzh (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the goal differences and table positions charts

I've made them somewhat larger, but I'm not sure making them any bigger would look good. Hzh (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:Tottenham_hotspur_1901.jpg: per the tag, should specify steps taken to try to ascertain authorship. When/where was this first published?

Authorship wasn't clear as no copyright information was present in the 1901 match day booklet, Govvy (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you confused it with the other image, but this one was published in 1921 in the book A Romance of Football - The History of the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 1882-1921. I've added that information for the image file. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I've found the author of this photograph, and as his date of death appears to be in 1953, the copyright would not expire until 2024 in the UK. It therefore cannot stay in Wikimedia Commons, I will move this into English Wikipedia (it is OK there as it is public domain in the US). Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

File moved to English Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:Facupfinal1901-D.jpg: source link is dead, need more info on steps taken to try to ascertain authorship

Will look into this. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found the author for this photograph yet despite looking into a number of books and a few other sources. I guess we may consider that its author "cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry", but I will keep looking for a bit longer yet (one of the publications where it might have been published is not yet completely digitised, so it is hard to tell if it is there). Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Decided to use only one image for the season, and removed in favour of a group photo. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:TottenhamHotspurFC_League_Performance.svg needs a source for the data presented. Same with File:Tottenham_Hotspurs_F.C_Cumulative_Goal_Difference_1992_to_Oct_09.png

The data can be found in here and here. I will add them to the article. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:West_stand_of_White_Hart_Lane_in_1909.jpg: when/where was this first published?

Unfortunately the source does not state where it was published apart from the date which was 1909. It should be public domain in the US as it was published before 1923, I can remove this image while I look further into this. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, haven't found much about this image, but will continue looking. I noticed a discrepancy in the date by looking at the stadium closely (the photograph is likely to have been taken in 1910 or later since it has a cockerel which was placed on top of the stand in 1910), so I won't use it until it has been resolved. Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:Spurs_team_with_the_Cup_Winners'_Cup_trophy_1963.jpg: not seeing that licensing at the given source? Same with File:Ajax_vs_Spurs_1981_European_Cup_Winners'_Cup.jpg

The Ajax Spurs image and 1963 trophy, licensing is CC0 1.0 Universeel (CC0 1.0) Publiek Domein Verklaring Govvy (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both images are listed as public domain in the Dutch National Archives website - licensing is given in the sources [8][9].

Also seeing a number of ref errors that should be sorted before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found a couple of things, but couldn't see anything else - can you be more specific? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Not doing a full source review at this point, but quickly: some footnotes don't link to Bibliography entries, some Bibliography entries aren't linked from footnotes, some inconsistencies in italicization (see for example BBC Sport), most web sources use cite templates but a couple don't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the issues that need fixing. I've dealt with some of those, and will go through the article again to see if there are any more. Hzh (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller

This is essentially a great article. Maybe a local map with annotations would help, if you can find someone to do it.

I've started some copyediting. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of curious use of English. Most objectionable is the repeated use of the word "would" instead of the ordinary perfect tense, or sometimes future tense. I fixed a bunch, but when I saw there were roughly 50 more occurrences, I thought the team that wrote the article really ought to fix this. Please ping me when done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok I have gotten it down to 9 "would"s, almost all of which I think are appropriate use to make smoothest language Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• The goal difference chart is an interesting addition. But I'm not sure what it's trying to say that the league position chart doesn't. As the text doesn't seem to refer to it, and it's already 9 years out of date, I'd consider updating it and explaining it significance somehow, or removing it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right, I will remove that. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that although I thought the chart is unnecessary and out of date, if anyone wants to update an use the chart in the article, they can. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Some WP:RECENTISM issues. Nine paragraphs on the most successful period in the club's history (1958-1974, 16 years), 1 parag for every 2 years, 11 major trophies I counted on the main club page. most recent period (1992-2018) 23 paragraphs on the 26 years, 1 parag for every year, 2 major trophies. Should be the other way round. Expand the earlier period and trim the excessive recent detail. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I do agree to some extent that there is a bit of RECENTISM, but not all of it. There have been 13 managers from 1993 to 2018 (25 years), compared to 18 in the previous 100 years. The higher turnover of manager means that more needs be written to cover the period properly. I think a couple of paragraphs could be removed in the 1992-2018 period, and a paragraph could be added in the 1958-1974 period. I will do that later. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Good response, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• The box about the quote misallocated to Burkinshaw is utterly bewildering and comes across as somewhere between smartarsery and original research --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I will think about how to reword it, or whether to remove it altogether. I added it because it is often quoted to indicate a change in football in the 1980s, but it might not be necessary. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been removed. That quote was frequently used to indicate a sense of regret and nostalgia before football clubs became commercial enterprises - before that clubs were often owned by wealthy local individuals (or families for clubs such as Tottenham whose shares were handed down through generations) who treated the clubs with benevolence, but it is too much having to give a long explanation for such a short quote. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Note to FAC team: there's a lot of work going on with the article at the moment. Inactivity here isn't inactivity. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominators, please look out for detail that falls between excessive and insufficient with regard to players. For example, this paragraph:

Soon after the club became a limited company, on 14 March 1898, Frank Brettell was appointed the first manager of Spurs.[33] Bretell signed a number of players from northern clubs, such as Harry Erentz, Tom Smith, Harry Bradshaw, James McNaught, and in particular John Cameron, who signed from Everton in May 1898 and was to have a considerable role in the history of the club. Cameron became player-manager the following February, after Bretell left to take a better-paid position at Portsmouth, and led the club to its first trophies, the Southern League title in 1899-1900 and the 1901 FA Cup. In his first year as manager, he signed seven players: George Clawley, Ted Hughes, David Copeland, Tom Morris, Jack Kirwan, Sandy Tait and Tom Pratt. In the following year Sandy Brown replaced Pratt who wanted to return to the North despite being the top goalscorer. They, together with Cameron, Erentz, Smith and Jones, formed the 1901 Cup-winning team.[34]

...names 12 or 13 players (never been very good at maths), but only refers to the importance of four or five of them. So why mention the others by name? In an article about the history of a club that's well over 100 years old, surely you should only mention the really very important players - and in every case where you do, the reader will want to know why they merit mention. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Another example. I remember Pauls Stewart and Walsh very well, but their inclusion in the article is fairly baffling. Why them and not Nayim (or even Vinny SidewaysSamways)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I need @Hzh:'s input here, but one can only put in what the sources say, and if Goodwin has identified that (his or whosever) common thinking was that Fenwick and Walsh were the pivotal signings that were supposed to (and failed) to lift the club then that's who gets mentioned I guess. I do agree that it is better to as much as possible include some sort of reason as to why a person is included. However there are times when it is unavoidable (but should be minimised as much as possible) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My feeling is that the first Cup winning team need to be mentioned in full, but if others feel that some can be removed, then do so. As for the others, it's about how to fit them into the narrative. For example, Nayim first came on loan to Spurs, but later became part of the deal to bring Gary Lineker to the club, it's whether he is significant enough to warrant a special mention on how he came to the club, which I don't think he is. Same for Vinny Samways. Fenwick and Walsh are included because they fit into the narrative. Paul Stewart was at that time a big signing, so he was mentioned. Others, however, may have a different opinion, and I don't really object if anyone feels that names need to be removed or added. Hzh (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed two of the names from the quote given above so that only members of the Cup-winning team are left. Hzh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I should add I have no problem with listing lots of players from the early 1950s or early 1960s sides as they were the peak years and (I guess) th whole team contributed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There are still lots of named players littering the article in all eras, whose supreme importance is not asserted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It will take a bit of time to write more on individual players, but I will try to do that the next couple of days. I'm not sure they could be said to be of supreme importance (there are really only a few who could be said to be of supreme importance), but most of them were certainly players important enough to be worth mentioning. I'll see if there is anyone who can be removed. Hzh (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that the rivalry with Arsenal is so important to Spurs, relegating the genesis of the rivalry to an aside in brackets feels insubstantial. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It is covered in greater detail in North London derby and even on the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. page (which is, incidentally, much smaller than this one and has more room to be expanded). Some material such as supporters and rivalries could be interpreted as being a bit 'meta' to the chronological flow of the club's fortunes and hence may be better covered in the parent page rather than the history page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly unfair and poorly timed comment: I'm just not active enough (watch my next edit) at the moment to do this justice. It's a huge and high quality piece of work but I have strong reservations about the quality of the prose. In places, it looks like it's been written by someone for whom English is a second language, something I've alluded to in a number of edit summaries as I've been slowly copy-editing. I cannot commit to finishing the job and I feel I'm slowing down this process. So here's my thought. Support, entirely conditional on detailed third-party copyedit. Without one, I'm actually really close to oppose (and if I'm true to myself, I would oppose on those grounds if it weren't that Cas was involved, to whom I owe a great deal, and merely offering conditional support grieves me). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair call (I respect people being thorough and honest) - there is a huge amount of text in the article and each reviewer has found some basic grammar issues as well as the usual prose-smoothing. I'll ask around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Here are my comments on the article. You might find it useful for the comments about English and for how far I got. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: it's had a run through by an independent copyeditor. Do you feel it flows better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There are few editors around who are better writers than Eric Corbett. Unconditional Support --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks/much appreciated. I think the cosmos rebalanced itself as his team beat Spurs 1-0 last week....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• I have checked through the first half of the references. There are several instances where I am not convinced that the source meets the required criteria for quality and reliability. Would you care to comment on the following?

• Ref 3 and others: Hotspur HQ

All replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 11: Save the Red House

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 13: Aford Awards

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 61: A Halftime Report

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 66: The Fighting Cock

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 132: Who Ate All The Pies

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 143:

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

some can definitely be replaced by book refs. Will look more later as RL beckons... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I can make a start replacing the references a bit later. Most are easily replaceable, there might be one or two that are difficult to replace, but we can deal with that later if nothing else can be found. Hzh (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Took a while to find other sources for the information in Save the Red House, but all have been fixed now. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• In addition there are a few minor glitches

• Ref 22 Harvard error

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 46 Source wrongly stated as Spurs HQ

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 133 Chapter reference missing

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 150 Harvard error (Source given as "Goodman")

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: ref numbers are as at the date of this post. A report on the second half will follow presently. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing - second column:

• More sources that I would like you to comment on in terms of quality/reliability:

• Ref 168: HITC

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 187: Football Site

Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 208: FourFourTwo

This is FourFourTwo, which is a notable football magazine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 225: football.london

replaced that one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 274: Goal

This is Goal (website). Would seem to be reliable (writers/size etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Other points

• Ref 177: publisher details and date missing

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 178: publisher details missing

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 180: publication date missing

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 198: publisher details missing

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 270: publisher details missing

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bibliography: there are no citations to the Hunter Davies book

Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Dead links

• According to the external link checking tool the following are dead links: Refs 106, 151, 159 (numbers correct at time of this posting)

Ref 106 replaced as it appears to be permanently dead. Ref 151 fixed. Red 159 seemed OK, but I added its archived link anyway. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Subject to the above, this looks like a comprehensively sourced article with over 300 citations, mostly to sources of appropriate quality and reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to check the sources. Much appreciated. If you notice anything else do let us know. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

A few thoughts from a quick canter through:

• Date ranges
  • e.g. In the 1921–22 season – the MoS, Heaven knows why, now bids us spell out date ranges, e.g. 1921–1922 season, God save us!

need to look at/think about this - seems really counterintuitive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Counterintuitive as in "bloody silly", but heigh ho! Tim riley talk 20:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Lead
  • There is some confusion of singular-v-plural. We start off singular for the first three sentences and then switch, unannounced, to plural in the fourth.

singularised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Early decades in the Football League (1908–1949)
  • "The rivalry begun six years earlier" – "began", I think you mean

fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Highs and lows of the interwar years
  • The MoS discourages use of definite articles within headers

trimmed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• War and post-war lull
  • The OED prescribes a hyphen in "semi-final".

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Villas-Boas and Sherwood
  • "former Swansea City loanee" – this needs a bit of work. The OED defines "loanee" as "One to whom a loan has been granted; a borrower", which I don’t think you mean here. Also it is not clear whether Sigurðsson was lent to or by Swansea. I pass over the clunky false title. A sports article is perhaps OK with such tabloidese.

leave it like this as that is where he was physically just before and where he attracted the attention of the two clubs (Liverpool and Spurs) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope these few quick points are of use. Tim riley (Everton F.C.) talk 19:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed they are/thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley, BrEng has a weird pluralisation for football teams. When I've worked on FACs on football before, I've dealt with the corporate body club in the singular ("Norwich City is the best club in Anglia") and the team in the plural ("Norwich City are the best team in Anglia"). But pretty much whatever you do looks wrong to someone. What's important is consistency. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right: personally I'd pluralise the lot, but it's a matter of personal preference, and consistency is really the most important thing. Tim riley talk 20:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a headache whichever way. At least is consistently singular or have ducked it a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If we stick to singular for the club and plural for team, it would be consistent. Using plural for the team is standard in British English, not doing it would be even more confusing to British readers. It is also common to use singular for the club (an example from a news article ...the club is very well run... - [10], note also the use of plural in Tranmere are...) Using singular or plural in a sentence simply signals to the readers what is being referred to in that sentence. The only confusion that may arise (for non-BrEng speakers) is when plural is used for the club, which is possible in British English for football club. Hzh (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Tim Riley: can you see anything else actionable to improve? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Fixing the ping for Tim riley. Sarastro (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article, which, as far as I can see meets the FA criteria. At 11,500 words it's on the long side, but I didn't detect any waffling or digression. Some topics seem to attract voluminous prose (Bollywood, anyone?) and perhaps readers most likely to read them prefer it so. Happy to support despite the length. Tim riley talk 18:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thx/much appreciated! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kosack

Resolved comments from Kosack

Casliber has asked me to take a look at this one. My initial comments on a run through: Lead Link football to Association football. Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Pipe Football League Cup to EFL Cup to avoid the redirect. Done. Also adjusted to League Cup as it is the more common name and the name has changed. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Formation All Hallows Church is linked to a redirect. Fixed, Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Ripsher, who stayed as president until 1894'', should this be "stayed on"? Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Early years Link friendly to Exhibition game. Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Spurs played in navy-blue shirts with a letter H on a scarlet shield with on the left breast.", something missing from this sentence. Removed an extraneous "with". Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) There are a number of seasons here that are left unlinked but, as the article develops, season links seem to become the norm. Is there any reason these earlier seasons are unlinked? Linked. Sometimes it's just carelessness, although for the early period it is not certain if the links are relevant as the team didn't compete in the Football League and no information is given on the league they were in in those links. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Professional status "they were admitted to the Division One of Southern League", should that be the Southern League? fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Move to White Hart Lane Charringtons link is a redirect. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "first game at the White Hart Lane", is the necessary here? removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) 1901 FA Cup 1901 FA Cup, Preston North End, Sandy Brown, Tom Smith, Football League and Western League are all linked here despite being linked in previous sections. WP:OVERLINK discourages repeat links like this. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "they started their first overseas tour,", was this a repeating tour? If not, started sounds odd considering it must have presumably ended the same year. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Election to the Football League The 1908-09 season link in the second sentence should be extended to include the word season as it is referring to the actual season rather than the year. Just to avoid being slightly WP:EASTEREGGy. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Billy Minter is linked in the first paragraph and is already linked previously in the article. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "charged in battles", should that be "charged into battles"? tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Tommy Clay's link needs piping. Done. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Chelsea repeat linked in the fourth paragraph. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Division 2 is used in the last paragraph, this is the only time the name of a division uses a number. Avoid using different formats to avoid confusion. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Interwar years Tommy Clay, Preston North End, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Billy Minter all linked again here. Taffy O'Callaghan is also linked twice here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Plymouth > Plymouth Argyle tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) War and post-war lull Arthur Turner and Highbury repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "an arrangement that last from the early 1920s ", should that be lasted? tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) League title Sheffield Wednesday repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Post-Rowe Ipswich > Ipswich Town. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Bill Nicholson and the Glory Years (1958–1974) No need for glory years to be capitalised in the heading. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Everton repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC) FA cup > FA Cup. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC) The Double "was broken by a loss at Hillsborough in November", probably expecting too much for the reader to know who plays at Hillsborough. I would add the team name in there. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Sheffield Wednesday repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Continuing success Chelsea repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Pipe Football League Cup to EFL Cup. link tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) West Ham are mentioned for the first time here in relation to Martin Peters. Link and use full team name. linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Decline and revival under Keith Burkinshaw (1974–1984) "reach four cup finals in 4 years and winning three", avoid switching numbers from words to digits in the same sentence. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Could probably do with an explanation of what "under-the-counter payments" are, or at least a relevant link. Linked. Hzh (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Danny Blanchflower repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Relegation Pat Jennings repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC) first division > First Division tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Cup wins and European success Manchester City and Queens Park Rangers both repeat linked here. Fixed. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "semis", I think I'd stick with semi-final here rather than using semis. Replaced. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987) "should have booked them a UEFA Cup place", booked a little informal maybe. Secured, perhaps? Replaced. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Cup win and boardroom drama England repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC) plc is linked here but is unlinked in its first mention earlier in the text. Move the link to the first use. Done. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Sugar dealing with the club's debt", how did he deal with it? Did he pay it off or something else? That's just him making arrangement with the bank so that the club can ride out its financial crisis without a hitch (he has the financial clout to do so) and then a rights issue, nothing very exciting, I'm thinking it might be better to delete that part because to explain further is not that interesting, and leaving it unexplained may be unsatisfactory. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC) I believe you've removed this now. It's entirely your decision if you feel the information is unnecessary of course, I was just thinking of trying to clarify the information for an unfamiliar reader. Kosack (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004) Nottingham Forest repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "The Sheringham transfer was later the subject of allegations of "bungs" against Forest manager Brian Clough", what were the allegations? The allegation was that Clough "liked a bung" (i.e. he wanted a bribe for the transfer to go ahead). He was said to have received £58,750 for the Sheringham transfer, and £1 million in total for all the transfers he was involved in [11]. I'm not sure if anything more need to be added apart from linking "bung" to bribery, but if others want further explanation it can be added. As with the "under-the-counter payment" that Bill Nicholson refused to pay, it seems that bribery was fairly common in football in that period. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC) I'm happy with just the link being added for clarity with an unusual term, probably not worth extra detail for something not really linked to the subject. Kosack (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC) " the heaviest punishment ever dished out to an English club", dished out seems a bit sensationalist and journalistic. toned down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Coca-Cola Cup > League Cup. Avoid using sponsored competition names. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Ardiles, Francis and Gross "as well as a teenager Ledley King", should that be "as well as teenager Ledley King" or "as well as a teenage Ledley King"? fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC) South stand > South Stand fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC) New ownership and Glenn Hoddle "but they ended the Season 2001–02 season", bit of unnecessary wording there. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Villas-Boas and Sherwood Tim Sherwood is repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC) A new era under Pochettino (2014–present) 2014–15 League Cup Final > link? linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Stamford Bridge, Leicester and Premier League all repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC) New stadium 2016-17 season, Manchester United and North London derby all repeat linked here. delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC) References Dave Moor is the author of historicalfootballkits.co.uk (ref 25). See [12]. Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Refs 52 and 168 are by The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation and have an available author (Paul Felton). For the second ref I put two authors down using the author element. Wondering if I should do the same for ref 52. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Yeah, could do. The site doesn't really make it too clear what James' role was but he was obviously involved in the collection of the information at the very least Kosack (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC) k, made both those ref's match each other for author. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Ref 197, BBC > BBC Sport Ref points to news.bbc.co.uk so changed work element to BBC News. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Ref 250, BBC Sports > BBC Sport.  Fixed Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Refs 228, 238, 240, 244, 265 and 266 list the authors by first name-last name. However, the rest of the references use last name-first name. Try to stick to one style for consistency. Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Does ref 273 need "at White Hart Lane" in the author's surname?  Fixed Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not an experienced FA reviewer but I have experience reviewing GAs and I would raise all of the points above in a normal GA review. As such, I would assume they would be worth dealing with at FA level. There is a minor but consistent WP:OVERLINK issue throughout but that's not hard to deal with. There is also some inconsistency in position wording, for example both fifth and 5th are used in the article, although I'm unsure of how important that is so I'll leave it up to others to raise if necessary. Happy to take any constructive criticism of my review if its not up to scratch though. Kosack (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to go over the article, excellent work, much appreciated. I've fixed some of the issues you have identified and will go through the others later. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Yep, correctly writing in prose numbers below 10 should be written, but not sure where they are, might need to be more specific where the errors might be. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC) I think I found most if not all of them. Let me know if I missed any. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC) @Kosack: I think we got everything, with two outstanding issues, Sugar and "bung" - whether we expand and explain...or just delete. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Follow up I've had another run through today and found a few more issues to look at. Early years "the club played the 1892–93 season for first time in a league", this doesn't quite make sense. reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 1901 FA Cup "the 1901 cup win", should that be "1901 Cup" if this is a direct reference to the FA Cup? it is/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) War and post-war lull "first gained their playing experience for the club in this period", sounds a little odd to me, could do with reordering? "Gained their first playing experience..." perhaps? done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Spurs managed to stay in the top half of Second Division" > the Second Division? done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) The note above would leave "the top half of the Second Division in the three seasons..." which is a bit repetitive. Maybe swap the last one for "during his three seasons as manager" or something similar? done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) The Spurs Way "Rowe signed future captain Danny Blanchflower, for a record £30,000", I would suggest clarifying that this was a club record. The fee was only three years off being the British record transfer fee, so a casual reader may get confused. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Bill Nicholson and the glory years (1958–1974) "behind the champion Burnley" > champions done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "it still remains the club record win", should that be club's? done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Cup wins and European success "two Argentinian World Cup winning stars", stars seem to be a bit of a WP:PEACOCK term. Villa for example made two substitute appearances in Argentina's seven matches at the tournament. changed to "internationals" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "beating Queens Park Rangers in 1982 Final.", word missing from this sentence. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "a fan with ambition of owning the club, started to buy up shares in the club", slight repetition here, using the club in very close proximity. removed the amibtion bit as it is implied by the behaviour of buying up shares... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987) "Perryman left the club in 1986 after 19 years at the club", again some slight repetition. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "missed out on the first division title to Everton" > First Division. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "new signings by Venables Terry Fenwick and Paul Walsh failed to lift the team,[158] The team could only manage a 13th-place finish", appears to be a mix of two sentences here. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004) "pushed for the founding of Premier League" > the Premier League. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Resurgence and the Champions League (2004–2014) "the worst start to a season in the club history" > club's history. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "director of Football", capital letter missing here. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Harry Redknapp "was appointed as Ramos' replacement at Tottenham, and Tottenham reverted", first use of Tottenham could probably be dropped here. Slightly repetitive and its probably safe to assume that it would be at Tottenham at this point. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "winning ten out of the 12 points", WP:NUMNOTES would suggest that comparable figures in the same sentence should be written in the same format. Either both in words or both in digits. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) That'll probably be all from me on this one. Kosack (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) ok Kosack, all done... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I'm happy that all of the issues I and others raised here have been addressed. The article is well written and detailed. I would support promotion. Kosack (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the thorough working-over. I hope it makes you feel more confident to nominate your one again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments – I've read part of the way through the article and have a couple of (minor) thoughts so far, not counting ones that were mentioned above:

• "and also the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup." Remove "also", as that is just an extra word that adds nothing to the lead.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Election to the Football League: This usage of the word "Fortuitously" could be perceived as POV. To save it, you could try adding "for the club" or similar after it, to imply that it wasn't fortunate in general (it certainly doesn't seem fortunate for Stoke). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

good point/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• First European triumph: A word is missing in "A month later Spurs won their consecutive FA Cup...".

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Terry Venables (1987–1993): This is quite repetitive around the comma: "and new signings by Venables Terry Fenwick and Paul Walsh failed to lift the team, the team only managing...".

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• "the" is needed before "opening game" in the following paragraph.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• "There were second from bottom...". Was "There" supposed to be "They"? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Giants2008: do you have any more to add? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm a little concerned that we are heading towards this FAC being open for 6 weeks, and we have a lot of text here but still no real consensus that it meets the FA criteria. I'm going to add this to the urgent list, but I'm a little concerned that the wall of text might put off any new reviewers. It might be worth the nominators pinging those who have commented earlier to see if they have anything further to add, or this could be in danger of archiving. Sarastro (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it has gone quiet. Am pinging now. Dweller posted that he wanted an independent copyedit (which has occurred) and gave a (sort of) support if this had occurred. (He also doesn't edit much on weekends so might not be till Monday till he posts) Other comments look promising but I agree we need to sort this out. Have pinged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support – I gave some comments before, but had refrained from supporting because, like others, I wasn't thrilled with the state of the prose in general. It had tended to be on the wordy side, with some overly long sentences that were trying to say too much for their own good and the large amount of passive voice noted by Dweller above. While he may describe his own comment as "possibly unfair", I believe it was perfectly reasonable to state that a general copy-edit was needed for the article to meet FA standards, as I had similar feelings. Well, after the third-party copy-edit this now reads like an entirely different, much stronger article. Thanks to that good work, I now believe this meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks for that. I figured something like that was up and am relieved. I have not been on the nominating end of a football article before so a steep learning curve for us Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think there is enough support and commentary for promotion now. I'd just like to add to the praise for the copy edit that pushed us over the line by Eric Corbett. One final point for the nominators to consider after promotion: the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few, although some may be justified by the length of the article. This tool will highlight any duplication, and I leave it to the main editors to decide which need to be kept. Sarastro (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 [13].

---

Washington State Route 522

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This highway is among the oldest and most congested in the Seattle area, transforming from a city street to a countryside freeway. At one time, it was named one of the nation's most dangerous highways, and has since been rebuilt to prevent head-on collisions that were once common in the 1980s and 1990s. This article passed GAN last year and went through a project A-Class review that was accepted. SounderBruce 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my review at the ACR. An image review was done at that time. --Rschen7754 19:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN7: no need to repeat Google. Same with FN14
  • The repeat of "Google" is baked into the template. FN14 fixed.
• be consistent in when you include publisher locations
  • Dropped from citations.
• Be consistent in whether report titles are italicized
  • Not sure which reports are italicized here. All citations using {{cite report}} are unitalicized.
• FN24: source gives a different publication date. Same with FN90
  • Both use dates from the newspaper copy, rather than the website.
• FN29: title doesn't match source
  • Fixed.
• Fn57 has an error message. Same with FN49, 46, 43, 41, 31. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Error messages fixed. Thanks for the source review. SounderBruce 04:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord note -- this one has petered out quickly; I'll add it to the FAC urgents list and perhaps you can try and scare up another couple of reviews, but if we don't see some action soon I'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport (having stumbled here from my own FAC)

• State Route 522 (SR 522) is a state highway in the U.S. state of Washington, serving the Seattle metropolitan area. - maybe it's just me, but I think it would work better to have "...Washington that serves..." instead of the gerund "serving". Minor, but because it's the opening sentence I wanted to leave it up to you.
  • It definitely sounds better, and eliminates a troublesome comma.
• Its western half is primarily an arterial street, named Lake City Way and Bothell Way, following the northern shore of Lake Washington - Could you link arterial street? Also, the prose could be improved here, namely the Lake Washington part. It feels awkward. Something like "where it follows" would work better.
  • Tried to work around it without changing things too much.
• Why is "Red Brick Road" in quotations?
  • Removed.
• You use "pass"/"passing" in three consecutive sentences in "Route description". Any chance you could change one of them?
  • Changed all three to make the paragraph flow a bit better.
• "It continues moving north and east with sharp turns that are parallel to the Eastside Rail Corridor" - could you improve the wording in this part? I think I get it, but I'm a little confused.
  • Cut out the directions.
• " In 2016, WSDOT calculated that 96,000 vehicles used SR 522 at its interchange with I-405 and 12,000 vehicles used it at its eastern terminus in Monroe, the highest and lowest counts along the highway, respectively." - are there any more recent estimates?
  • WSDOT no longer publishes AADT data in the cited format. The new interface makes it harder to find high/low data points, and doesn't seem to have a major difference in traffic counts.
• Who called the road "finest pieces of road to be found anywhere in the United States".
  • The Times, according to The Times.
• in a "Boulevard Blowout" - again, since it's in quotes, I have to ask, who said it?
  • It was the name of the event.
• costing $5.3 million (equivalent to $32 million in 2016 dollars) - why not 2019 USD? For that matter, I don't think the inflation is even required.
  • The template generates figures that are automatically updated based on new sources. It can be left to run indefinitely with little maintenance.
• $180 million (equivalent to $278 million in 2016 dollars)[56] in funding was allocated to a five-stage widening project by the state government in 1993 - since this is the history section and years are important, could you rewrite this part so you mention 1993 a lot sooner? Again, the inflation isn't too important here. It's fine that it's consistent, but it's not like $278 million was spent.
  • Re-ordered the sentence.

All in all, typically good road article, one that just needs a bit more work before I can support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for the review. I've responded to your comments, but I would like to keep the inflation figures. SounderBruce 06:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick reply. I'm happy to support now. That works fine with the inflation figures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Waves at Bruce
• It would be nice if the map showed Monroe, though I understand that that may not be possible to get done quickly.
• Lake Forest Park.[7][8] Within Lake Forest Park, SR 522 Compressing the excerpt, but it might be useful to change the second mention of the city/town to something like "Within that city/town" to avoid close conjunctionitis.
• Not sure that the link to stairstep is useful considering it doesn't even mention this usage. I think that moving north and east with sharp turns suffices to describe the pattern.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: I was able to cleanup the map labels in Inkscape and fix those two items in the Route description section. Thanks for stepping in to review this. SounderBruce 05:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think I'd still like a little more commentary on this, so maybe we could squeeze one more review from somewhere? Sarastro (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

On it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have read through a couple of times and made a couple of changes - overall looks fine. I can't see any outstanding prose-clangers. Happy to support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

SN54129

• MOS:SANDWICH issue between the lead and first image.
• Images on the left shouldn't be on the first line below the header; the way around this is either to move them to the right (where they can be on the first line) or to move them further down the section.
  Nice article this; I wouldn't have thought a road could be so interesting! ;) ——SerialNumber54129 20:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think we've had a good range of views now, and I will be promoting this shortly. Serial Number 54129 seems to have only minor concerns, which can be dealt with after promotion, and any further issues can be discussed on the talk page. Sarastro (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 (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) 12:19, 21 January 2019 [14].

---

Al-Mu'tasim

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the eighth Abbasid caliph. A younger prince who under normal circumstances would never have become caliph, as a person al-Mu'tasim was in stark contrast to his erudite predecessors, by being a military man through and through; indeed he cemented his fame as a warrior caliph by leading one of the most famous early Muslim feats of arms, the Sack of Amorium. More importantly, his reign saw the completion of the process of dis-empowerment of the older elites, including the Arab settler communities that had held power in the provinces since the Muslim conquests, in favour of the Turkish slave soldiers as the main military (and inevitably also political) support of the monarch. In this way, he inadvertently created the preconditions for the downfall of the Abbasid Caliphate, but also established a new norm of political organization that was widely emulated and prevailed in large parts of the Muslim world even until the early modern era (think of the Mamelukes or the Janissaries). I've been working on this since 2013, and the article in previous forms has passed GA (2015) and ACR (2017). Gog the Mild recently copyedited it and made some critical suggestions on content and structure. I think the article now provides a thorough, balanced, and approachable coverage of its subject, and is suitable for FA. Constantine ✍ 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all three maps and the family tree

• File:Dirham_of_al-Mu'tasim,_AH_221.jpg should have an explicit tag for the coin itself
  • Done, with PD-art, as a coin is well-nigh a two-dimensional work. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The [Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet Commons documentation] indicates that that tag shouldn't be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The coin photo itself is licensed as a photo with the CNG license; the coin as a design or artwork (which is what I understood by "an explicit tag for the coin itself") is two-dimensional art. Constantine ✍ 15:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • You've understood my comment correctly, but the coin is legally considered 3D art, not 2d. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • But surely that rationale applies to the photo of a coin ("Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image"), not the original artistic design of the coin itself, which, especially in the case of a coin featuring nothing but Arabic text, is 2D. Constantine ✍ 15:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I think we're talking past each other a bit here. What I'm trying to say is, we need a copyright tag for the photo and for the coin itself, and the tag for the coin itself can't be PD-Art because the Commons documentation doesn't allow that tag to be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion and court ruling referred to in Commons is that a coin should be regarded as a 3D object when considering the photo of a coin, as the photographer might position it in such a way that an artistic effect is created; for that, the CNG license suffices, as they took the photo. The design of the coin is two-dimensional design (text), which happens to be expressed on a (barely) three-dimensional medium. Anyhow, to avoid going around in circles over this, I've changed the tag to {{PD-1923}}, I hope that is suitable. Constantine ✍ 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Babak_parleys_with_the_Afshin_Haydar,_the_Caliph_al-Mu'tasim's_general_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Done, with PD-art. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• File:Abbasids_Ninth_Century.svg is sourced to a Commons file that does not itself have a source - suggest adding a reliable reference that verifies the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Done Constantine ✍ 14:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Looks interesting, will have a look soon. The beginning of your description here reminds me of a certain modern day Arabian prince, much less successful on the battlefield, tough... FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• There are a lot of duplinks, this script[15] can be used to highlight them (I may have linked it before).
• Any relevant buildings that could be shown in the article for flavour?

Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this on, looking forward to your comments. On the duplinks, I've followed the rule of always linking in the first occurrence in the body, not counting the lede, per MOS:DUPLINK. I will re-check though, it is likely that some have slipped through. On buildings, the most notable buildings of Samarra and Baghdad date from different periods; I am not aware of any building of Mu'tasim's reign still surviving to this day. I might add some fragments of pottery or frescoes, though. There's not much in Commons, but perhaps something suitable can be found elsewhere. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say "a lot" of duplinks on second looking (maybe I was confusing it with Alodia that I looked at right before), Baghdad is linked twice within the intro, and a couple of words are linked after first instance in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Political instability at the highest levels" This WP:Easter egg link to Barmakids is not very transparent (who would guess what was meant here?), I'd suggest making it clearer what is meant.
  • Done
• "inspiration for the first of the stories of the Thousand and One Nights" Does that story have a name? If so, could be mentioned.
  • Clarified, not the "first story", but rather among the earliest stories
• "supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi" This appears to have been his "half uncle", perhaps worth a mention?
  • Indeed
• Mashriq could be explained in parenthesis (supposedly as "countries bounded between the Mediterranean Sea and Iran").
  • Done
• "he supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi against al-Ma'mun" You don't explain how he could turn from al-Mahdi to al-Ma'mun; there were no hard feelings between them even after that?
  • He did not play a prominent role in the opposition, and Ibrahim's regime was more a protest by the Baghdad elites at al-Ma'mun's long absence from the capital, even after winning the civil war, rather than a serious attempt to dethrone him. Will add this in a footnote.
• "one of the original Arab conquerors of the country" and " since the Muslim conquest of Egypt", why don't you place the link to "Muslim conquest of Egypt"at the first mention?
  • Done
• "won a minor skirmish against Theophilos in person" Against him and his army, I assume? Reads like it was just the two...
  • Clarified
• "but he suddenly fell ill and died" Any idea from what?
  • There are only anecdotal stories, and no definite or even half-way reliable indication. One tradition holds that he caught a cold from bathing or washing in the river, another that he fell ill after eating some dates, another that Ibn Hanbal prayed for his death, etc. I've included the couple of stories that blame Mu'tasim (almost certainly to be disregarded as slander) in a footnote Constantine ✍ 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• "with the regnal name of al-Mu'tasim" The meaning should be stated here.
  • Added.
• "disappear from the court, and distaff members of the Abbasid family ceased" Why jump to present tense out of nowhere?
  • It was meant as "disappear from references about the court", seen from a modern perspective; amended.
• "to reject Tahirid control (see below)" I think such internal directions are discouraged, but I can't find a relevant guideline.
  • I don't know, but since MOS:SECTIONLINKS exists, it probably is sanctioned.
• "and of being accorded divine status" I wonder if Shirk (Islam) would be a more appropriate link than Sacred king.
  • Excellent suggestion, changed.
• "that the Quran was created" You should probably specify that what is meant is it wasn't created by god...
  • That would be an even greater heresy; no, the createdness dispute concerns the creation of the Quran at some point in time (by god), or its eternal existence. I've linked to Quranic createdness for anyone interested.
• I wonder if this[16] image is relevant here?
  • It is, but it doesn't really fit in terms of space; the map is rather more useful to the average reader.
• The place and person-names mentioned in the caption of the map under Confrontation with Byzantium could be linked.
  • Done.
• "bankruptcy of the Abbasid government and the eclipse of the caliphs' political power with Ibn Ra'iq's rise" Could specify his non Arab origin and that the fall of the Abbasids also lead to the fall of Arab rule of the Caliphate? Since this seems to be connected to his policy of employing non-Arab soldiers.
  • Hmmm, Arab rule was effectively dead with Mu'tasim and his immediate successors; the caliphs themselves were Arab, but power lay with the soldiers, and they were Turks. Added Ibn Ra'iq's ethnic origin though, as it fits the narrative.
• "Al-Mu'tasim is featured in the medieval Arabic and Turkish epic Delhemma" Specify if it was fictional or based on real events?
  • Clarified.
• "the story The Approach to al-Mu'tasim by Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges" From when?
  • Added.
• There are a lot of author duplinks in the Bibliography.
  • I thought that since each entry is in effect stand-alone, this did not matter. Is there a MOS guideline for this?
• "his proved useful to his half-brother, Caliph al-Ma'mun, who made use" Seems repetitive.
  • Fixed.
• The infobox image caption could state a date, so the reader will know it is not a contemporary depiction.
  • Added.
• Support - looks good to me now, and everything that wasn't changed was explained well above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you FunkMonk for your time and your excellent suggestions. Constantine ✍ 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Attar

Very nice article. I will review it monday.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: a friendly reminder ;). Constantine ✍ 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah sorry. Its like the university is afraid I will run away if it doesnt shower me with three exams before Christmas holiday. I will add my notes as I read through the article. First two comments I have are:

• I think a new section should be created. The second paragraph of the early life section seems to be more of a background. Therefore, I suggest the creation of a background section before the early life section. The paragraph: "in the judgment of posterity"----->"Thousand and One Nights.[a][5][6]" will constitute this section. The sentence "The young prince's early life coincided with what, in the judgment of posterity, was the golden age" will remain in the early life section and can be reworded to something like: The young prince's early life coincided with the Golden Age of the empire. I will leave the implementation of these changes to the judgment of Constantine.
  • I will keep this in mind, but I need to consider whether and how this might be best done.
• It is not clear who the Barmakids are. A sentence explaining their origin and influence will be helpful for the casual reader.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
• In the last paragraph of the early reign section, we read that a civil war ensued between al-Ma'mun and al-Amin. We dont read about the result of this conflict and Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi suddenly appear without a context. I suggest clarifying that al-Amin was defeated and a sentence to explain how Ibrahim came into the conflict.
  • Good point. I am adding a few more details on the course of events during the 810s, and the power vacuum in Iraq that allowed Mu'tasim the leeway to emerge as a player in the politics of the day.
• At the end of the early reign section, we read that al-Ma'mun elevated Al-Mu'tasim as part of the new elite. Earlier, we read that Al-Mu'tasim opposed his brother and was part of the elite eliminated by al-Ma'mun. I do not see this as a contradiction as the Caliph can change his mind, but maybe a scholarly explanation, if it does exist, can be given for why al-Ma'mun restored Al-Mu'tasim to favor.
  • Per the previous, al-Ma'mun was absent from Iraq until 819, and when he returned he had to be conciliatory, as the nomination of Ibrahim was very much the result of Ma'mun's own mistakes, and as Ma'mun's position was still weak. Furthermore, precisely because Mu'tasim had created his guard, he proved useful and was utilized by his half-brother. The disempowerment of the old elites was not really a physical elimination, nor indeed a firm "political programme" by Ma'mun, but rather an outgrowth of the fact that they had supported al-Amin, so this is not contradictory.
• In the Formation of the Turkish guard section, I see that Al-Mu'tasim began forming his guard (in reality army) in 814. How was he able to do that? I mean in which capacity? was he a governor of a province? If he is just a prince in the capital, then it is helpful to explain why al-Ma'mun allowed his brother (an opponent and a potential rival at that time) to build an army in the center of the Caliphate (or that Al-Mu'tasim simply took advantage of the chaos and the inability of his brother to stop him). I understand that al-Ma'mun found his brother's troops useful to counter-balance his own Eastern Iranians, but did he consider this when Al-Mu'tasim first started building this army (I understand that Al-Mu'tasim was on the side of al-Amin. If he was not, then he was not a suspect yet when Al-Ma'mun won in 813 before the rebellion of Ibrahim in 817. Still, it is weird that the Caliph allowed his brother to build an army)?
  • Well, Mu'tasim began this on a small scale, amidst the turmoils of the civil war; per above, Ma'mun did not return to Iraq from the east until 819, so he could very much do as he pleased, far from caliphal authority. The official sanctioning of his private army probably occurred only after Ma'mun returned to Baghdad.
    • The new edits help clarify many things. However, the establishment of the Turkish guard needs more elaboration. There are many indications that it was al-Ma'mun who ordered his brother to create this guard. I found this source: The Breaking of a Thousand Swords: A History of the Turkish Military of Samarra (A.H. 200-275/815-889 C.E.) Starting in page 25, an in depth analysis is given. Therefore, the establishment of the guard should incorporate all arguments and this book is a good starting point.
      • I've rewritten the entire section, and added some details both on the civil war and on Gordon's comments on the background of the Turkish guard's formation. I had deliberately not included this until now, because this is not a topic where I want to get too drawn into, unless it serves to indicate Mu'tasim's role and intentions. Ideally, at some point a full article on the Turks in Abbasid service should be written, because this is a major subject that cannot be treated fully here. However, upon review, prompted by your comments, at least a mention of the interplay between Mu'tasim's initiative and Ma'mun's requirements and policies at the time, which led to the official sanction of Mu'tasim's "pet project" (Gordon) was definitely required.
• No mentioning of Al-Mu'tasim's role in the rebellion of Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi in the Campaigns under al-Ma'mun section. This role was between 817-819 as I read earlier, and the section of Campaigns under al-Ma'mun starts in 816, then jumps to 819 when al-Mu'tasim led a force against the Kharijites. So his role in the rebellion of his half-uncle can fit between "but no details are known.[28]" and "In 819 Abu Ishaq commanded a force sent"
• "When Abu Ishaq's governor, Umayr ibn al-Walid, tried to raise taxes,". Isnt it more accurate to write: "When Abu Ishaq's deputy" since al-Mu'tasim was the official governor? And why wasnt he is Egypt? If he chose to stay in the capital to maintain his influence, or in Syria, and appoint deputies to run his assigned provinces then this should be clarified.
  • I hope this has been clarified by the recent rewrite, which allows for a more chronological progression of the "Career under al-Ma'mun" section.
• "In early 832, al-Ma'mun came to Egypt, and soon after the last elements of resistance, the Copts of the coastal marshes of the Nile Delta, were subdued.[33][34]" So now we are in 832, but the next paragraph starts in 830. I suggest (but its up to your judgment), to move this sentence to between "before withdrawing to Syria in September.[36][37]" and "In 832 al-Ma'mun repeated his invasion of the Byzantine borderlands," in the next paragraph. I understand that you are trying to focus on the topic of the Byzantine war in this last paragraph, but I was confused by the chronology a little.
  • Rewritten on a more chronological basis.
• "but also, according to Hugh Kennedy". He was already introduced earlier, so no need for his first name.
  • Done.
• Im not sure about the rise of the Turks section. His reliance on them increased after a plot discovered in 838, during the Amorium campaign. So chronologically, this section fits more suitably after the confrontation with Byzantium section. The rise of the Turks is kind of a legacy of al-Mu'tasim, and thats why I suggest the move. Again, these "reorganizations" suggestions are up to the judgment of Constantine and implementing them isnt necessary for me to support the elevation of the article to FA.
  • The part of the article concerning his reign is structured thematically, not chronologically, and this is the major event/legacy of his reign, so it merits a section of its own, and one prominently positioned, as it provides the context in which many other events of the reign should be understood.

I can not see any thing to comment on for the rest of the article. It is very well written and admirably comprehensive. Great work. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. Amazing article, very comprehensive and well written.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi Constantine, although commentary is so far quite positive, this has been open a month and a half and really needs one or two more comprehensive reviews to be safe -- do you want to try scaring those up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is the result of much effort and it would be a shame for it not to pass because of too few reviews. I wonder if User:Dudley Miles can help if he have time??--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I will notify some of the editors involved in the article, and/or involved in early Muslim history and knowledgeable about the subject and the period; Kansas Bear, Ro4444, Srnec, Al Ameer son. However, given the holiday season, any response may be delayed. Constantine ✍ 19:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, looking better, be worth seeking out a source review for reliability and formatting now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

• When al-Ma'mun died unexpectedly on campaign in August 833, al-Mu'tasim was thus well placed to succeed him, overriding the claims of his nephew, al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun. – Not clear to me who the "his" in "his nephew" is referring to; I first thought it was al-Mu'tasim's nephew.
  • I thought that the patronymic of al-Abbas would be enough, but clarified now, changed to "al-Ma'mun's son".
• The abrupt downfall of the powerful Barmakid family – here it would be good to know when this was.
  • Good point. Done.
• During the remainder of al-Ma'mun's reign, the old elites—the abnāʾ, the old Arab families settled in the provinces since the time of the Muslim conquests, and the members of the Abbasid dynasty itself—who had largely supported al–Amin, lost their positions in the administrative and military machinery, and with them their influence and power. – this is a bit long, especially the part starting with "the abnāʾ, the old Arab families" is convoluted and hard to read.
  • Rewritten so that it is hopefully clearer now.
• When Abu Ishaq's governor, Umayr ibn al-Walid – but previously it was stated that Abu Ishaq himself was the governor?
  • Abu Ishaq held the governorship, but usually for persons of his eminence this was exercised by a deputy, while the nominal governors remained at court. Changed "governor" to "deputy in Egypt" to avoid confusion.
• Soon after his departure from Egypt, however, the revolt flared up again, – has no connection to the preceding paragraph.
  • Fixed.
• otherwise excellent work. More soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• with the rise of the Khazar officer Ibn Ra'iq rise to the position of amīr al-umarāʾ. – two times "rise"?
  • Fixed.
• That is everything, happy to support as soon as the above queries are addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Jens Lallensack, and thanks for taking the time to review this. I've addressed the points you raised, please have a look. If you have any other comments or recommendations, beyond FAC criteria and concerns, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks! And support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

ro4444

Saw I got pinged, so I thought I'd put in my two cents. Also separately made some minor spelling and link changes.

• "As an adult, Muhammad was commonly called by his kunya, Abu Ishaq, including during his caliphate." - I'm not sure if the last part of this sentence is correct (see Kennedy, When Baghdad Ruled, p. 218.)
  • The incident Kennedy describes is an affront because a commoner used the familiar form instead of the formal one, especially in a public setting. However you are right that it is probably confusing, so I am removing it; "as an adult" should suffice.

• "However, al-Ma'mun remained in Khurasan and allowed his main lieutenants to rule in his stead in Iraq." - For those not familiar with the geography, it might be worth clarifying that Khurasan was far removed from the center of power here.
  • Good point. Done.

• "under an agreement with the local Samanid rulers" - "Rulers" makes them sound like they were independent.
  • Clarified by footnote.

• The term shakariyya appears to be a nebulous one in the article; at one point members are described as the personal retinue of senior officers, while at another it is described as a separate ethnic regiment.
  • Initially I thought about solving this in a footnote, but the ethnic regiment is really not that important here; removed it.

• "For the same reason he placed the Arab tribal levies of the Mashriq (the region of the Levant and Iraq)" - Does this description come from the source? It sounds kind of odd otherwise.
  • Which description exactly?

• "In 819 Abu Ishaq commanded his Turkish force" - This paragraph currently comes off as rather anecdotal. It might be worth adding in some information, such as where the rebellion took place, and mentioning that Ashinas would grow to become one of his most senior officials.
  • I've added some details on the rebellion and rephrased the Ashinas incident.

• "distaff members of the Abbasid family ceased to be appointed to governorships or senior military positions" - "Minor" seems to be a more appropriate term here than distaff.
  • Good point. Done.

• "The one exception to this process were the Tahirids" - Might be better to say "The one major exception," given the presence of the Aghlabids and Ziyadids during this period.
  • Good point. Done.

• "The post was held throughout al-Mu'tasim's reign by Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn Mus'ab" - Could be helpful to add in "by Abdallah ibn Tahir's cousin Ishaq..." to better establish this individual's identity.
  • Good point. Done.

• "Their mood is conveyed by al-Tabari, who reports two of the leading conspirators," - Would recommend retaining this sentence, but perhaps rewording it - the prose seems to be at variance with the rest of the paragraph.
  • Indeed. Moved to a footnote, with some rewriting.

• "and in 840, al-Mu'tasim appointed him as his deputy during his absence from Baghdad." - Shouldn't this be "from Samarra?"
  • Corrected.

• "and had him crowned." - Would recommend changing this to something like "and awarded him with a ceremonial crown" to avoid confusion.
  • Corrected.

• The map of the mihna can be reduced in size, as the text is unreadable either way.
  • Done, standardized all maps to landscape image size.

• The spelling of Ujayf ibn Anbasa's name should be standardized throughout the article.
  • Corrected.

• "In 835 al-Mu'tasim took action against Babak himself," - This passage could possibly be clarified; I initially read it as al-Mu'tasim having personally taken action.
  • Corrected.

• The final paragraph of the "Domestic Campaigns" section could probably use an introduction of some sort - currently the two topics it mentions are completely unconnected to each other.
  • Restructured the entire section a bit to follow a more chronological approach, focusing on each theatre of operations at a time.

Very good expansion overall though, as usual. Ro4444 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ro4444, I've gone through the suggested changes. Most are done, I think, but please have a look. Constantine ✍ 10:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Cplakidas:! And for the record, Support. Ro4444 (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review: All sources look reliable and high quality. They all seem to be academic too. Formatting of sources fine, just one minor issue. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• The Marius Canard book has an ISBN but the ISBN is not for the edition of the book cited. If the later edition was used, that one should be cited instead. If it was the 1965 edition, there is no ISBN. An OCLC number could be given instead but that is not essential. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Sarastro, fixed in the template. Constantine ✍ 15:24, 12 January 2019 (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) 12:19, 21 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 [17].

---

Apollo 15 postal covers incident

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... an unfortunate incident during the space program. Since its previous appearance here, it's had a rename, a GA review, a copyedit by the GOCE, several philatelic sources added, and the extent to which it relies on government sources diminished. I haven't tried to eliminate them though because although the Winick and the Faries sources follow the transcripts, they fuzz on detail I'd like to see in here, but in combination with the original sources should eliminate any OR concerns. As I said before, I am trying to be very careful on BLP issues as Colonel Scott and Colonel Worden are alive. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

• the astronauts of Apollo 15, who carried about 400 unauthorized postal covers ... One hundred were sent to Eiermann (and passed on to Sieger); the remaining covers were divided among the astronauts ... Worden had made arrangements to carry 144 additional covers — How many covers? It starts out sounding like 400, but ends sounding like 544.

I see your comment below. I'll respond to both together (I want to look at the article and think about it)

I've added it to the lede.

• that the Herrick covers were being sold — Is the passive voice (which I don't mind personally) intentional, i.e., was Herrick not the (only) one selling the Herrick covers?

It mentions that he placed some on commission later in the article, so yes.

• The Sieger matter became generally known in June 1972. — How?

Clarified.

• One of the covers given to Sieger sold for over $50,000 in 2014. — Surely that isn't the only one that has sold?

It's the highest price. Nine have now come to auction, undoubtedly others have been sold privately.

Posting just the highest price seems a bit misrepresentative. The market may have shifted between 2008 ($15,000 for one of the 298) and 2014 ($50,000 for one of the 100), but I think it would be better to state a range, or at least note that it is the highest.

I see it as more as highlighting the exceptional over the relatively ordinary. I find it is best not to have things in a way that you have to update when another cover is sold. Do we say "highest as of 2018"? I could say something like "highest auction price to that point" if you like.

Either way works. I get what you mean. My concern is that Wikipedia is full of both ordinary and extra ordinary things, and sometimes it is unclear which is which.

Background

• Cancelling them became a major duty of the employees of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) post office on space mission launch days. — Perhaps a sentence or clause here explaining why collectors like(d) postal covers to be cancelled

Maybe I'm wrong, as postal mail is going out of style, but isn't it self evident the collectors would want a postmark of the date and place of launch?

• they were not offered for sale until 2018. — How about a footnote with sale prices?

I just included it in the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Die proofs, perforated by hand were used rather than actual stamps. — This could easily stand being put this in the main text.

Possibly, but what I really want is a very brief summary of Apollo 15, with a nod to the philatelic angle, so I don't have to mention it much later. This slows things down and isn't greatly relevant to the covers this article is really about: the 400 and the 144.

• Scott catalogue numbers 1434–1435. — At this risk of slight redundancy, it might be worth including the catalogue as a reference here.

The use of Scott catalogue numbers is pretty widespread, including on the Internet. I don't think I have a Scott's catalogue around, I could source to web pages that mention the relevant numbers, if you like, but I think they are OK on their own.

Preparation

• Sieger's name was not mentioned in the approach to the astronauts. — Perhaps "Eiermann did not mention Sieger's name when he approached the other astronauts."

Done, but I've omitted the word "other"

• To ensure their families were provided for given the severe risks and dangers of their profession — I'm sure that's what they said, but it seems a bit generous for the article to assign to them without qualification a single, benevolent, motive.

That is what they said, and NASA, in the press release that announced the reprimands, mentioned it. It's also mentioned in the Justice Department opinion (1979). This is an area where we have to be careful due to BLP.

See what you think about my working, attributing it to the press release. I don't mean that the article should suggest they were lying, simply that we should be careful with the idea that we know what people's thoughts are.

• Scott earned $2,199 a month, Worden $1,715 and Irwin $2,235. — From their jobs as astronauts? It's unclear.

The source does not go into greater detail. They were, after all, active duty military on assignment to NASA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Irwin had concerns about the deal — Again, this suggests knowledge of an individual's thoughts.

It is his autobiography.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

All we know is that he said those were his thoughts; we don't actually know for sure whether what he said were his thoughts were indeed his thoughts. George W. Bush's autobiography says that he didn't notice the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and that in any event it was not a proclamation of victory but simply referenced the crew of the ship having finished a long deployment. Could be true; could be false. (That's a long-winded way of saying this sentence would be fine as "Irwin later said he had concerns about the deal".)

Actually, my mistake, it's the Chiakin book, not the autobiography.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cut that. Chiakin interviewed Irwin, but the sourcing in that book is not very clear, and without that it is hard to say he said it later. Better just to cut it.

• See Chaikin, p. 249. — Why not just a normal reference?

Because then it would give it a footnote number, based on its position in the text. I feel that looks odd numerically so try to avoid it by using the Harvard Reference.

As long as it's cited it's fine, so no worries if you're varying formats. For the record, vying for consistent footnote numbers is a bit of a losing battle, since idiosyncrasies occur every time a footnote is reused. The article currently goes "[37] ... [22] ... [38]" and "[52] ... [4] ... [53]", for instance.

• Because the Apollo 14 crew had accepted no money, they were not disciplined. — Then why did they fly the medals/give them to the Franklin Mint?

They got to keep the ones that were not given back. However, they did not sell them. At that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Slayton reduced the number of medallions each member of Apollo 15 could take along by half. — From how many to how many?

Doesn't say. There were two types of medals on 14: the Franklin Mint medals, and the usual Robbins medals. There were 200 of the first and about 340 of the second. But that leaves what 15 was allowed to carry a bit unclear.

Perhaps then change "The private Franklin Mint, which had supplied the medallions" to "The private Franklin Mint, which had supplied 200 medallions" with a footnote after "medallions" stating that about 340 Robbins medals were also flown.

The relevance of the Apollo 14 medallions is that they put NASA on notice of the problem of commercialization and caused Slayton to warn the 15 astronauts. The Robbins medallions were not commercial and really aren't very relevant to the story of the postal covers.

Creation and spaceflight

• a commercial artist — Who?

Added.

• Apollo 15 carried the cover from the Postal Service to be cancelled on the surface — Saying "the cover" rather than "a cover" makes it sound as if this was already mentioned in the article (it wasn't) or that it was a regular occurrence. Was it? Additionally, a transition (such as "Additionally,") might be warranted to lead off the sentence.

It is included in the background section.

Where?

The one he cancelled on the Moon.

The first day cover? Nothing in "Background" says that the first day cover came from the USPS (other than in the technical sense, e.g., how one could say of all American stamps that they come from the USPS). Instead, in "Background" it sounds as if he cancelled a random first day cover, and in "Creation and spaceflight" it sounds as if he had been given a specific property-of-the-USPS cover (and not specifically a first day cover) to cancel. If you're just trying to find a place to link United States Postal Service, there are probably less-confusing places to do so, or you could mention it in both sections.

Oops, good point. I will clarify it was from the USPS.

• Irwin carried 97 covers, one with a "flown-to-the-Moon" theme, eight with an Apollo 15 design, and 87 covers honoring Apollo 12 — I'm getting confused by the numbering. These are part of the 400, or in addition to?

I've hopefully clarified a bit. It's 398 (or 400) plus 144 plus 97 plus 2.

• Scott catalogue number C76. — Same as above re: reference.

Ditto response.

• Like other items being placed in the pockets on Scott's space suit (for example, his sunglasses) — I'm really hoping this was so he could forever after rock sunglasses that had been in space. Yes/no?

I would think it was so he would know what was in his pockets. The sunglasses was given as a specific example.

I mean the reason for bringing his sunglasses along for the flight.

I believe it was NASA equipment. I've read elsewhere that the pocket for the sunglasses were on one of his arms. Presumably there would be glare from the Sun.

Shame, was rooting for the Space-Bans.

• about 641 covers aboard. — This is what I was looking for. Perhaps state this in the lead, and differentiate between those that were authorized and those that were unauthorized.

Distribution and scandal

• Sieger offered the covers to his customers, selling them at DM 4,850 (about $1,500 at the time), with a discount to those who bought more than one. — How did he market them? What is $1,500 in 1972 dollars equal to in 2018 dollars? What was the discount? Also, might be worth reinforcing here that the agreement was that the covers would not be sold for some time.

I do not have anything that really says this was the deal, only that the astronauts said that was the deal. I have very little coming in from the Sieger/Eiermann side. I asked NASA if they have the investigative file, they say they don't. Presumably they would not ruin their own careers intentionally, but I don't feel I have anything definitive on the Sieger/Eiermann view of things.

He sent out a mailing. I don't know about the discount. I will add the bit about the mailing. I'm not thrilled about inflation templates. I think the monthly pay gives the reader enough context to appreciate the prices.

• Herrick sold three himself, at a price of $1,250 — Each, or total?

Each.

Aftermath

• See August 3, 1972 hearing, pp. 15–16. — Why not a regular reference?

See above re reference number.

• In 1978 the department issued a report indicating that while the government might have some claim to the Herrick covers, it probably did not to the others — Why? It would seem that since the Herrick covers were the only authorized ones, they would be the ones the government would have least claim to.

The official writing the opinion felt that there was greater evidence of commercialization re Herrick. There wasn't any evidence that the astronauts planned to sell the 298, they said they were for gifts, and went about getting the covers made very openly. It's fairly thick legal prose.

Perhaps worth a half-sentence explanation

• An Apollo 15 postal stamped cover that was one of the group of 298 impounded by the government — Any word on how many of these the astronauts still have>

No one, except I imagine Colonel Scott and Colonel Worden, know, and I gather from Col. Worden's autobiography that they are not on speaking terms because of this incident. Colonel Irwin is dead and I really looked for info about his selling his covers, because as a evangelical minister, he led expeditions to find Noah's Ark and I would have loved to be able to tie that in.

• A Sieger cover sold in 2014 for over $55,000 — Are the Sieger covers more coveted than the 298, and if so, why?
• one of only four Sieger covers to come to public sale since the initial distribution. — Details of the other three?

Of the nine auction sales of Sieger covers, this was the highest price realized.

The article states that four have come up for auction. So nine sales of the four covers?

It was the fourth, then, and that is what we say. Five others have come up for sale since then. There are pages that list them, we don't have to.

Got it, and agreed. You could add a footnote if you're so inclined, but up to you.

• Perhaps add a footnote at the end with: "Link to a 22 November 2003 version of this page."

More or less does.

References

• #23 — Why not just cite the Los Angeles Times?

Because I'm working from a copy of the reprint. And I notice they do Britishize (Britishise) the spelling.

• #38 — Retrieval date not needed, since the link is just a courtesy

Done.

• #44 — Perhaps spell it out; "AAMS" is not a commonly understood acronym.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• #99 – Should "Schneck, Harold M. Jr." instead be "Schneck Jr., Harold M."? Also, why no NYT link for this one?

I have reproductions of some of the print coverage from then, they were included with the transcript. That also explains #113. And Jr. has been moved.

• #113 — The NYT articles are also paywalled (maybe others too), but this appears to be the only one you put the subscription required template on.

Probably because this was the only one I got off their database, the other were reproductions as stated.

The subscription template is less about the reference you're using, and more a warning to readers about the link they're about to click on. In general, you might also consider more links as a courtesy to the reader. Even if they require a subscription, some readers will have them (especially with more common sources such as the NYT).

• #7, 8, 9, 14, 22 — Is the publisher Chris Spain, or space-flown artifacts? I would think "Chris Spain" would go in the last=/first= parameters. Otherwise, you might consider doing separate publisher=/website= parameters.

It is his website but he did not necessarily write the pages. I'm not sure there's a need to repeat what the reader can get from examining the URL, or just clicking.

Sources

• Fletcher/NASA — Are these not available on Google Books or another non-subscription site (e.g., a government site)?

Only on Congressional ProQuest that I've seen. A shame because it's an interesting document, especially when the committee stumbles over the fact they were put on the lunar lander. I can email you a copy if you send me an email.

• New York, NY — Several of these. Totally discretionary, but perhaps best rendered simply as "New York City".

I am going to let it stand. I just had to deal with "New York" by itself being insufficient in the last FAC.

• Winick 1973 — Missing publisher location, and "pp."

It was self-published by the philatelic group.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's a journal. They published this thing annually. The pages seems to be how it is intended to be rendered.

Perhaps the location of the group, then, unless you've refrained since "Chicagoland" is self-explanatory.

Wehwalt, the award for 'best way to conclude a Wikipedia article' is all yours. Great read. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged, I knew gold when I saw it. The credit goes to Slate. I think I've gotten just about everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response, Wehwalt. A few more comments are above, and I think the one about whether Sieger covers are more coveted may have been overlooked amidst the others. See what you think of them; the only one I'm waiting for a response on before supporting is the one about the USPS. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't overlook it. The Sieger covers are certainly highly prized, but other than rarity I didn't find anything that says they are more prized than the group of 298. They all went to the lunar surface, after all. I've added the bit on the postal service. Many thanks for your thorough comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure, I enjoyed reading it. Support added. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moise

Hi Wehwalt, and seasons greetings! Very interesting article. I have a few comments, which I will get to soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Background:

• "On August 2, before finishing the final EVA and entering the Lunar Module, Scott used a special postmarking device to cancel a first day cover provided by the United States Postal Service of two stamps": The wording "a first day cover ... of two stamps" seems unclear to me. He cancelled two covers (envelopes with a stamp on them), right? Would "A first day cover ... of each of two stamps" work better? Moisejp (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Two stamps, one cover. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see. How about "on which were two stamps" instead of "of two stamps"? Such wording would have prevented my initial confusion. Moisejp (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Done with slight variation.

Preparation:

• Minor comment, but David Scott's name is wiki-linked in the captions of both images of him (necessary?). In the first caption he is called "David R. Scott" but I think everywhere else simply "David Scott". Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure you mean is two pictures of him necessary, or the middle initial necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Two pictures is fine, just wasn't sure that two wiki-links to his name were necessary. And I meant it is probably good to remove the middle initial for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Done.

• "Scott also told the committee that he had met Eiermann at a party, rather than through another astronaut": Does "another astronaut" mean Slayton here? Either way, it seems unclear.

Scott is directly responding to a question from committee member Lowell Weicker "Did you meet him through another astronaut?" "No, sir. I met him just in a casual conversation at a party ..." Slayton due to a medical condition even though he was one of the Original Seven astronauts was not on flight status. He later flew on Apollo-Soyuz. Scott said this in 1972. In the commentary in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to Scott cancelling the stamps on the Moon, I find "[To complete the stamp story: in May 1971, Deke Slayton (Dave told me in a 1996 letter) introduced Dave to a German business man named Horst Eiermann who proposed that, in addition to the 250 authorized first-day covers, the crew take along and cancel 400 additional covers for later resale - 100 for each member of the crew and 100 for Eiermann." Then he mentioned Slayton in his 2004 memoir. Slayton died in 1993, and he doesn't mention introducing Scott and Eiermann in his own memoir. I didn't see the need to mention the Lunar Surface Journal, it's enough to note that there are different versions. I guess the bottom line is that it is unclear if Scott includes Slayton under "astronauts".

• "and that the first Slayton knew of the space-flown Sieger covers was in April of 1972, following an inquiry from a member of the public": I wonder whether this detail would be better later in the article, perhaps in Distribution and scandal or Aftermath sections. But it's just an idea, and I don't have a specific spot in mind. I understand where it is now is meant to contribute to the question of whether Slayton was there at the earliest meetings, but on the other hand the actual flying of the "space-flown Sieger covers" has not been mentioned yet in the main part of the article, so from that point of view the detail seems possibly a tiny bit out of place. Anyway, see what you think. Moisejp (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've cut it. Slayton's attitude is made very clear from the excerpt from his memoir.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• "At the time, Scott earned $2,199 a month, Worden $1,715 and Irwin $2,235": The first time I read this, it took me a moment to understand that "earned" refers to their regular monthly salary as astronauts (right?), and I first read it as some kind of monthly distribution of the $7000 previously mentioned. Of course I soon realized this reading doesn't make sense, but would it be an idea to clarify that this refers to their regular salary from NASA, to avoid any momentary confusion such as I had? Moisejp (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.

• "These would be split" / "with the space-flown covers to be divided between the two of them". Is the second of these necessary? It seems to have already been established in the first of these. Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice catch. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation and spaceflight:

• "Collins of the Mission Support Office”: I know he was introduced already with his full name and role in the Background section, which is quite a way back, so the reader may need a reminder, but this re-introduction with last name and role feels nonetheless awkward. I’m not immediately sure what to suggest as an alternative here. If you have an idea, great, otherwise I’ll try to think about it more. Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to disambiguate from Michael Collins of Apollo 11, which would be my first thought if I came upon the name Collins in a NASA related article.

• "In addition to those brought by Scott and by Worden, Irwin carried 97 covers, one with a "flown-to-the-Moon" theme, eight with an Apollo 15 design, and 87 covers honoring Apollo 12, carried as a favor for Barbara Gordon, wife of Apollo 12 astronaut Dick Gordon." Is this supposed to mean 97=1+8+87? If so, is there one missing? Also, I gather all 97 were carried for B. Gordon—if so, would it be an idea to add "all carried as a favor for Barbara Gordon", so it's clear it's not just the 87? And maybe put a colon after "97 covers" to make it clearer what follows is a breakdown of the 97, and not additional covers.

Good catch, it was originally thought to be 88 for Gordon but later sources have it as 87. The 97 is just addition, it should be 96. The others were not carried for her, and this is made clear later in the article when Irwin gives away two of them to people not named Gordon. I'll mull over rephrasing.

• I wonder whether it'd be an idea to start a new paragraph at "In addition to those brought by Scott and by Worden". I initially got a little lost in this paragraph, especially by the time it gets to "Apollo 15 carried the cover from the Postal Service to be cancelled on the surface of the Moon." I think breaking up the para could help. Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I did that too. In anticipation of the objections that 87 rather than 88 alters the math, I've footnoted an explanation with reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Distribution and scandal:

• "One of Irwin's covers was given to Rhodes and one to the president of the Kennedy Space Center Philatelic Society; Irwin said in 1972 that he had retained the other six." These are the eight Apollo 15 ones, right? It could be better to specify this (unless you already have and I missed it) because Irwin carried lots of other covers.
• There are lots of numbers throughout, especially of the various distributions of the different groups of covers. This is unavoidable, but it can be a little hard to keep track of for the reader. Just an idea: What about a table somewhere, possibly in a footnote, that summarizes important notes and the fate of different groups and subgroups of the covers? There were about 641 total, right? You could break that up into initial big groups of the 144 Herrick ones, then the 400 Eiermann ones, and the 96 Irwin ones in another group. Then break these up into subgroups, e.g., among the Irwin ones there were various configurations; and likewise the various subcategories of the other groups. You could decide the most important information to include in the table e.g., authorized or unauthorized, sold or unsold, carried onto the Falcon or not—these are just examples, I'm in no way saying this is necessarily the best information, just that there is lots of information throughout the article about the different groups that potentially could be included in the table. You could also possibly have a Notes column in table for open-ended details. Anyway, this table idea is just an idea. Feel free to ignore if you don't think it'd be useful. Moisejp (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are all my comments. Moisejp (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've done those. Table making is not my strength, but I've added one. I don't know if it is possible to add pictures. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• The table looks great! Moisejp (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. When I get some time I'll look into how to put images in there. I borrowed the coding from United States Bicentennial coinage. The articles you've worked on become a resource you can draw on, I've often cut and copied the quote box in Garret Hobart for use in other articles. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Precious little from me. The article was in fine shape the first time round, me judice. If I strain every nerve to be pernickety:

• Lead:
  • "Worden had made arrangements" – perhaps just "Worden had arranged" or "…had agreed"?
• Background
  • "The mission set a number of space records" – some reviewers (not me) get shirty about "a number of": substituting "several" might head them off here.
• Creation and spaceflight
  • "teflon-covered fiberglass" – is Teflon now regarded as a common noun, not to be capped? I think it's technically a trademark. (But then so is Fiberglass, now I look it up.) As so many words are common English but technically trademarks – "hoover" etc – I don't like to express a view either way about capitalising here.
• Sources
  • Faries, Belmont: "covers" presumably, rather than "coers".

That really is all I can find to carp about. A fascinating article, comprehensive, balanced and v. readable. And I echo Usernameunique's praise of the delectable envoi. Happy to support again and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and I concur with your dictum. Absent the trade names, which I think should be left lower case, I've done those things. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kees08

Placeholder so you can bug me if I forget to review. Kees08 (Talk) 04:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• On ref 104, per WP:SIC, However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is contextually important. Since the slip is not contextually important, recommend fixing it.

It's a title of an article. It may be important in a search.

Hmm, I do not feel strongly about it, I typically go with the guidelines to try to keep the 'pedia consistent. Leave it however you wish though. Kees08 (Talk)

As two reviewers have at various stages flagged this, I have done as you requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• On ref 118, use agency=Associated Press

Done.

• On ref 121, do not think you need website=RRAuction

Done.

• In the Notes section, why not use citations normally instead of adding See Winick, pp. 87–88.

Because then you get footnote numbers used down there, well out of apparent order. This doesn't happen in paper sources because their pages are shorter than ours. Accordingly, I use harvnb referencing within notes.

• Citation 7 (and other similar ones) should probably have Space Flown Artifacts as the publisher and Chris Spain as the author (excluding pages where he was not the author)

He appears to be the copyright holder for the site. See here. I don't see why it is better to have a URL than the guy's name who is actually putting it in front of the public.

I see it as Space Flown Artifacts is the corporate entity that published it (so would be in the publisher field), and Chris Spain is the author of it so would be in the author field. I feel mildly stronger about this, but not very. Kees08 (Talk)

I have changed the publisher field to "Space Flown Artifacts (Chris Spain)"

• Citation 10 should be July 8, 2009

Fixed.

• Citation 9 is missing the date

Fixed.

• Page number for citation 67, 104, and any other similar newspaper citations?
• At least The New York Times is overlinked; scrub the article for others

I'm not certain on this one Kees08. The reader isn't reading sequentially through the references, and if he's examining reference, say 199, it does him little good to have the source name linked on ref 122, he won't see it. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right. Multiple reviewers have asked me to only wikilink it in the first instance, and I blindly followed without looking up the policy. Apparently, per our policy, " Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". So ignore that point. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Before I scrub all of these, would you mind scrubbing through and looking for things like missing dates, author names, etc? I will take another look after. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through and added a couple of dates, Kees08. Not every page is dated, not every author listed, but I don't see any obvious omissions or I'd fill them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it is tough to get them all. I am actually doing another scrub on Aldrin's article and finding a few. I just realized when I was going through your article that NYT puts the page number at the bottom of the article...had never noticed that before. I will continue going through the article today. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I've finished the above. Thank you for the comments to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Should it be Apollo Program or Apollo program? The article has it the latter way.

I think the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Knowing what a Sieger cover was would have helped before the Armstrong auction :)
• I'd break this into two sentences (suggestion only) The crew of Apollo 15, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin, agreed to take payments for carrying the covers; though they returned the money, they were reprimanded by NASA.

I think there'd be some difficulty in the second part standing on its own. I'd like to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It could be worded as The crew of Apollo 15, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin, agreed to take payments for carrying the covers. Although they returned the money to NASA, they were still reprimanded. Style choice though, to each their own. Kees08 (Talk) 07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The "still" in that bothers me, as if they should not have been. Although the language of the reprimand was not made public, I would expect it went beyond the simply taking money.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Could get rid of "apparently" Apparently due to an error, they were not included on the list of the personal items he was taking into space.\

I'm not in favor, really. All we have is Smothermann's word for it. The circumstances are hazy enough that I don't think we should take it as gospel. If we grant that Slayton knew, as suggested by the Sun-Times reporter and supported by the conclusion of the Justice Department that NASA may have known about the covers, then they wouldn't have to be on the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Where is the citation that supports that information? (not asking you to include it in intro, just wondering). Would it be possible to say that Smotherman said the omission was due to an error or that It was reported the omissions was due to an error? I think "apparently" sounds a little inexact and unencyclopedic and would like to avoid it if possible. Kees08 (Talk) 07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's in Fletcher's letter to Anderson, which is the report requested by the Senate Committee. I just feel it's an awfully thin reed to base an unconditional statement on. Maybe "likely" for "apparently", or "Due to an apparent error"?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would modify this: were being sold, the astronauts' supervisor, Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, warned to this: were being sold, the astronauts' supervisor Deke Slayton warned. Just my personal preference probably, sentence is pretty choppy. Only for the intro, in the body more detail is acceptable
• Do you know if the Soviets did? The American astronauts participated in creating collectables.

I have no idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Lunar module pilot should be lower case since it is not being used as a title Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 14

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure what happened with this ref, but the link goes to collectSPACE and should be cited as such. (ref 9 right now) "Neil Armstrong collection commands $5.2 million at auction". Space Flown Artifacts (Chris Spain). November 5, 2018. Retrieved December 28, 2018.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would de-link aircraft carrier per WP:SEAOFBLUE and the fact people probably know what one is. by the aircraft carrier USS Okinawa
• Looks like the target article uses lower case, probably should here for consistency use the Lunar Rover.
• There was just some relevant talk about exact times on the Apollo 11 talk page, probably applies here as well and remained there for just under 67 hours.

I've read it. I think people are not coming here for exact timings on Moon stays, there's the main 15 article for that. They're coming here to read about the scandal, and so we can just paint the general mission picture for this set of readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Should it be tenth? Not sure if the typical rule applies for that. the 10th anniversary

I've changed to "tenth".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• You and I know that the life insurance is not from the stamp dealer or from the stamps, but you may want to squeeze in there that Time used to give previous astronauts more money and higher life insurance than later astronauts (if I remember all that correctly). Otherwise, with where it is in the paragraph it implies it has to do with the stamp dealer. Earlier astronauts had been given free life insurance.

I will rephrase. I think the whole issue of astronaut life insurance is a bit complicated to include here. My understanding is that no Apollo astronaut flew without life insurance, and the 15 astronauts in their memoirs talk about life insurance but they never actually say they didn't have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've explicitly mentioned Life magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• For some reason this sentence sounds odd to me; not sure if rephrasing it would help Herrick arranged for a commercial artist, Vance Johnson,[39] with whom Worden discussed the design, resulting in 100 envelopes depicting the phases of the Moon.

Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Have you tried using Dick here? for a friend of Astronaut Gordon

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• What time zone? the Moon at 9:34 am on July 26, 1971

Added EDT with a link on the earlier time mention, 1 am. I think the reader will get we're on the same timeline.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good so far!

Thanks. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that I am caught up on comments on the other articles, I will get through the rest of the article soon. Kees08 (Talk) 03:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Should that be a semicolon? The stamps were secured from the post office at Pearl Harbor:[66] 4,000 were flown to the Okinawa at sea by helicopter,[54] reportedly in the custody of a naval officer joining the vessel.[67]
• Do we ever say in 2018 dollars how much these are worth? Should we?

I've never been a fan of such things. The 1971 era figures are given scale by the astronauts' salaries and the sales figures are recent enough not to have been eroded that much by inflation.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think you should have a citation immediately following a statement qualified with "probably"

I've added it. There was some confusion in the testimony on this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably before they made an official NASA trip to Europe in November 1971, the Apollo 15 astronauts received and completed the paperwork necessary to open accounts in a Stuttgart-area bank to receive the agreed $7,000 payments.

• What is the rest of the quote? If it ends there, the period should be within the quotations. Just checking. Worden remembered, "we did this before NASA asked us anything about a deal with Sieger—before NASA even knew about it".

Worden prefaces the quoted language with "And, I should stress, we did this ... knew about it."

• This could be phrased better He hoped he could turn the experience to use in his ministry, helping him empathize with others who had erred.

I've rephrased, though I don't see what was wrong with it.

Some general comments: I think the article has too much detail in general. Not so much that I would not support it, but I think it would be an improvement if things like:

• On August 31, 1971, C.G. Carsey, a clerk in the Astronaut Office in Houston,
• On September 2, Scott sent the 100 covers by registered mail to Eiermann, who was in Stuttgart where he had moved.

Editing break for convenience

I suggest this because the article seems really choppy to me. I think that is probably subjective, which is why I would support anyways, but if you agree with me I can help you find excessive detail to remove. Kees08 (Talk) 07:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review. I feel that this article has to satisfy two kinds of reader, the space reader and the stamp reader, and thus detail which may not interest one has to be included for the other. I think it is important to know who Carsey was even for the space reader so as to be aware of the public resources that Scott was able to get devoted to this task (most visibly noted with how the stamps got to the carrier). As for Eiermann moving to Stuttgart, it's needed for continuity, since the actions he takes after that make more sense if we know he's in Europe.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, did you have further comments? I'd like to get this wrapped up for one reason and another, if possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a DOI or anything for the Society of Philatelic Americans Journal reference?\

Not that I am aware of.

• I only see volumes 1 and 2, where can I find volume 5 of American Air Mail Catalogue

Ww2censor kindly provided me with the relevant pages, and the title page, that does say Volume 5.

• Wikilink Francis French

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Do you have this book? Worldcat only gives Quadrangle as the publisher The Voyages of Apollo: The Exploration of the Moon

I don't own the book but I viewed it in a library and photographed the copyright page and the relevant page sand that is how the copyright page phrases it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• The range of pages does not match the range of pages you are citing. Probably delete the page range from here? Also, where can I find a copy of this? Ramkissoon, Reuben A. (2006), "An Astrophilatelic Rendering of the Conquest of Space: Part 3, Project Apollo—the Moon Landing Missions", The Congress Book 2006, State College, PA: American Philatelic Congress, Inc., pp. 191–211

It was a typo, 211 should read 221. You could get a copy as I did through the American Philatelic Society library.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Christine Toomey is an author as well. It also has St. Martin's Press listed as the publisher, do you have the copy to check? Scott, David; Leonov, Alexei (2004). Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books. ISBN 978-0-7434-5067-6.

The copyright page says that Thomas Dunne Books is an imprint of St. Martin's Press. It says Scott and Leonov with Toomey. Does that count as full co-authorship?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ulman should only be listed as the editor Ulman, Leon (1981), "78-64 Memorandum Opinion for the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division", in Ulman, Leon, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel (January 11, 1978 – December 31, 1978), 2, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, pp. 281–289, ISBN 978-0-936502-00-7

I meant to add him as editor and you'll find the fields filled out with him as editor, but it isn't apparent from the reference.

• Would it be worth noting that Sieger sold $150,000 worth of covers total?

I can't say he grossed that amount. He gave some sort of discount.

That's the number the attorney general gave in the report (the one in the bullet point below this). Kees08 (Talk) 03:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if there was no discount they would still be wrong as Sieger kept one. We already know the AG's office is fallible, see below.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• This says the astronauts were to get $10,000 each, the article says $7,000. Are the sources pretty consistent on the dollar amount?

Yes, very much so, and it is stated throughout the testimony.

• The same document says 60 of Worden's covers were impounded, and the article says 61. Can you explain the discrepancy?

See footnote g

Can you add footnote g to here? The remaining covers in the astronauts' control (298 from the group of 400[i] and 61 more from Worden)

"Faries noted that in 1983, 61 Herrick envelopes were returned by NASA to Worden, rather than the expected 60, but the 61st had no postal markings. For a full discussion of the number of covers, see Faries, pp. 29–31."

• I should have asked this awhile ago, but in Worden 2011, pp. 149–150, 2679–2674, what is 2679–2674 referring to?

Kindle locations. I used the digital versions of Worden's books and a couple of others. Hawkeye7 added the page numbers later, most kind of him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. I wish there was a good way to show that. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I get complaints when I use it, but it is a very convenient way of carrying books with me on my trips.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In the last FAC, there were comments about the use of primary sources. At least one of the primary sources you have could be replaced with secondary sources. I have provided some clippings for the Apollo 14 coin incident:

• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27406994/florida_today/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27407045/ames_daily_tribune/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27407114/tucson_daily_citizen/

If you need more of that event let me know. Many of the primary sources are used in a good way, to show the astronauts' thoughts or feelings on issues. I will go through the rest of the article and see if that is always the case. If you could replace the Apollo 14 flight medal primary source with the ones I provided (or other non-primary sources), that would be an improvement. Kees08 (Talk) 23:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked most of the rest of them, and they all seem appropriate. Kees08 (Talk) 23:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the third one as an additional source. Every word we have is not in that article. They might be in the other two, but I don't have page 1 on those. I will note my reluctance on these because as a practical matter if you are changing source it is a very tedious exercise to see that you have either fully sourced using the new source or else change your writing to fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Do you think On the flight, the 400 covers were autographed and divided by the three astronauts sounds better as On the flight, the 400 covers were divided among the three astronauts and autographed. Suggestion only; just makes it more chronological.

Since they bear all three signatures, they would want to complete the autograph signing before dividing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

After the above are addressed appropriately (completed or given rationale to why it should not be), I can support the nomination. The previous FAC also said the prose was "sluggish", which seems to match my thought that it is "choppy". You can try to make it less choppy/sluggish if you can, but I will not withhold support for the article. Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Given the number of editors who have looked over the article, the prose is what it is. I am constantly reviewing the article for improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Two bullet points above you missed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, got those now. Thank you for kicking the tires on this one and then some.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack

Good read. Only one point: I'm confused about the single cover canceled on the moon (during the first read, I assumed it was part of the scandal, which it seems not). Any more on this? Was this ordered by NASA, was it officially authorized? What happened to it? I also wonder why this info appears in the "background" section only and has no mention in the "Creation and spaceflight" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned that it and a backup were on the flight. It is today in the National Postal Museum, see here. I could certainly mention that if you feel it should be included. I think at one point I mentioned that it and the backup were returned to the USPS, it was flown at their request. I can put in as much detail as necessary, but was getting concerned about length and focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a brief mention that this was done on request by the USPS would avoid confusion. I personally would also add that they were returned to the USPS for completeness (If you already mentioned it, I can't find it). This way, it would be entirely clear that these covers were not sold for the astronaut profits or anything. I would furthermore recommend to amend the image label "Scott cancels an envelope on the Moon" to "Scott cancels an envelope on the Moon on request of the United States Postal Service" or something similar to make this clear to people who do not read the whole article (because if you see the image without reading the article, you will mistakenly assume that this was in the center of the controversy). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk)

• Support. Just one point for consideration. The final sentence in background ("On August 2,...") seems a little out of place for before the launch etc. These details could be included slightly later in the article, without losing focus at the front. Whatever you decide on that point, my support still stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. I think this needs to be here so it's not a distraction from the other covers. I'm trying to get the operational parts of the mission out of the way in Background or I fear things will get too complicated in the spaceflight section.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Will start now. Kees08 (Talk) 23:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• File:Sieger cover.jpg - a slightly weird one because it is a photo of the cover, but I believe the copyright information is correct as-is.
• File:Apollo 15 (15012200679).jpg - Requires personality rights warning per NASA (I can try to find the document if you want, it is on one of the John Glenn reviews). Maybe replace The Commons licensing with NASA's actual licensing? Also, why is the time in the date?

I'm not clear on what you mean by replacing the licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to an example of the personality rights? Because I just looked at some of the images in the Glenn article from 1962 and didn't see anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, sorry for the ambiguity. From NASA, NASA astronaut crew patches are also permitted on merchandise, but in some instances NASA may recommend that the names of astronauts be removed from the patches to avoid issues relating to endorsement, or rights of publicity.. I interpret this to mean c:Template:Personality rights needs to be added to the patches. Do you agree, and does that make sense? Kees08 (Talk) 20:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That template and the Commons policy page linked therefrom seem to apply to photographs of people. Maybe we could just reproduce the text you mention, possibly in a non-copyright restrictions box?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've experimented with it here but I don't know if it will survive on Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Would you be able to turn it into a proper template so I can add it to other crew patches? Obviously not as a part of this review. Kees08 (Talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

All I did was substitute the words you used for the word "empty" in this. I have never made a template on Commons, but will be happy to cooperate or learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• File:Apollo_program.svg - After a lot of thinking, I think the SVG could be copyrightable per this Commons information. So it would be fine as-is.
• File:NASA logo.svg - looks good.
• File:Dave Scott Apollo 15 CDR.jpg - recommend replacing the source with this, I believe that is the proper high-res source. Is there a source for the specific date?

I've cut the date. I tried uploading a new version from the page you cited, but got a message that it was identical to the current version.

Right, you changed the link to the source, which is what I was looking for. Kees08 (Talk)

• File:S71-41408.jpg - looks good
• File:Apollo 15 launch.jpg - source not valid, please fix

Subbed.

• File:As15 flown phases of the moon cover.jpg - the licensing information should match File:Sieger cover.jpg
• File:Apollo 15 Flown Cover.jpg - I do not think you can say it is PD because it is a government work and also say it was created by a non-government employee. Three items on it are works of the government and covered by that, and the presentation of it in the frame is by David Frohman. It looks like they meant to release that portion of it as PD but technically did not...

Nikkimaria have ideas on this?

Probably best just to crop down to the cover itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be the most straightforward solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Done and I've cleaned up the licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've now standardized the licensing as PD-no notice as there was no copyright notice.

Should the source still be 'Own work', since we are just left with the US government portions? Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• File:Apollo 15 Worden aboard Okinawa.jpg - the description of this is super close to the copyrighted source. I recommend revising it. Also needs personality rights warning

I've changed the wording, will look at the personality rights thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• File:Apollo 15 prime crew.jpg - well, this feels kind of stupid, but...from the template NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". The Flickr source indicates NC, which is not compatible w/ the Commons. So since it is noted, unless you can get explicit permission through an OTRS ticket, I think we would have to delete it (and all the other images in that Flickr album...) from Commons. Nikkimaria, thoughts on this one?

I've just changed to the image of the crew from the Apollo 15 infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:The Apollo 15 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001169.jpg - the description is not from Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (which is good, because it would be a copyvio), so you should remove that bit. The date also does not match ALSJ. I would replace the source link with this NASA link, which is likely where the high resolution version came from. It has the same date as ALSJ, which does not match the date we have listed. Should be able to remove who scanned it since you would not be using the ALSJ scan. Kees08 (Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)\

OK, done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• File:200907300003HQ.jpg - looks good

When Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is the source, you could include who scanned it in if you wanted to, but it is not required. They are on this page.

I have, on the image pages.

That should be all. Let me know if you have questions or disputes. Kees08 (Talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, Kees08, I think we're up to date. I just need the info on the personality rights thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Support for images. I do not think adding personality rights warnings is required, and it gets a little ambiguous when we should/should not include them anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. Note to coordinators: I think what Usernameunique and Kees08 did was the equivalent of a source review as well. However, if you need me to go out and get an explicit one, I'll list it. Otherwise I don't see any impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: . See note just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur that a sufficient source review has been completed. Thanks for the ping. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

For the stamped covers, I think you need to specifically distinguish between the portions covered by the template {{PD-US-no notice}} and the stamps, all of which are public domain per {{PD-USGov}} that applies to all US stamps per-1978. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done that now. Thanks. Good catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed another one for you. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing comments: I think this has had a very thorough review, and I'm happy that we've covered all the FA criteria and any concerns from the previous FAC. Just a few minor issues, which don't need to hold up promotion. First, we need consistency over alt text. Some images have it, others don't. One or the other is preferable. Second, it may be worth checking the duplinks. The tool shows up a few, but I will leave it up to the main editors to decide if they are necessary or not. Finally, there are a few references (all for Worden 2011, e.g. refs 30, 88 and 115) which use "p." rather than "pp." for a range of pages (e.g. like refs 19 and 64). But I'm happy to promote on the understanding that someone takes a look at these afterwards. Sarastro (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2019 [18].

---

SMS Schlesien

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Another article on a German battleship - this one had a relatively eventful career, despite having been made obsolescent by HMS Dreadnought before even entering service. Schlesien was present at the Battle of Jutland during WWI, and was one of the few ships to survive into the postwar navy. Still in active service during WWII, she took part in the invasions Poland in 1939 and Denmark and Norway in 1940, and ended up shelling advancing Soviet forces in 1945, before being scuttled in Swinemunde. I wrote this article in 2010 and overhauled it significantly in August 2018, and it went through a GOCE copyedit in September. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox, such as the normal displacement, don't seem to be cited anywhere

• If you're going to include a country for London, probably makes sense to do so for Ratingen and Bonn as well

• London link returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've fixed all of these - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

This article is in fine trim, so just a few comments from me:

• the bit in the lead that relates to her guns being used after sinking isn't supported by the body
  • Fixed
• the dimension conversions in the body should be ftin not decimal feet
  • Fixed
• do we know how many engines she had? This isn't explicitly covered at present
  • Clarified
• the standard displacement in the infobox isn't covered by the body
  • Fixed
• the installed power doesn't match between infobox and body
  • Fixed
• the infobox says that the 8.8 cm guns were casemated, but the body says pivot mounts. What's the diff?
  • Casemates is correct
• the belt and deck armor measurements don't match between the infobox and body
  • Fixed
• link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal
  • Done
• link Wilhelmshaven
  • Done
• link Kattegat
  • Done
• link Baltic Sea
  • Done
• suggest "Two resultfruitless fleet advances"
  • Works for me
• suggest "During the ensuing operation, Schlesien was the second ship in the IV Division"
  • Sounds good
• link SMS Schleswig-Holstein
  • Done
• "night march" is an odd phrase Perhaps "run"?
  • Someone must have fixed this already
• rmeoved
  • Ditto
• I can't get the sense of "so they could be used ashore, with a battery of 10.5 cm (4.1 in) and 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns" do you mean that not only were the main guns removed, but also the secondary batteries? perhaps insert "along" after the comma?
  • Must have gotten rewritten a few too many times - the 10.5s and 8.8s were the only guns left aboard the ship
• suggest "She had made several training cruises in the Baltic..."
  • Fixed
• Swinemünde is italicised, but we're not referring to a ship here are we? Either way, link?
  • The apostrophes are right next to the brackets - must have been a typo
• suggest "only carried the remaining batteries of 10.5 cm..." if that is what is meant?
  • This should be clearer with the fix about the armament revision in 1918 - let me know if this is still a problem
• suggest "her senior commandersofficers"
  • Fixed
• suggest "new heavy cruiser Deutschland"
  • Done
• suggest "went to Cape Verde in the central Atlantic."
  • Done
• suggest "she went on a tour of North..."
  • Good idea
• "six of her 15 cm guns" where did these come from? Which begs the question of what went on with her main battery after she came out of reserve in the inter-war period
  • These were added in 1926-1927 - have added details on that from Dodson.
• "she was ordered to go protect" is a bit colloquial, perhaps drop "go"
  • Done
• there is a typo in the link to German destroyer Z39 causing a red link
  • Good catch
• the point in the lead about the use of her guns after she sank needs rectification
  • Fixed

That's me done. Nice work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nate, were you planning to respond to these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, I got a little side-tracked with other things - I'll get to these today. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional source review

Although I don't want to give the impression I'm cutting Nikkimaria's grass, I thought I'd add an additional technical source review from a naval perspective. The sources used for this article are all of high quality and reliable, and what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Lenton's German Warships of the Second World War p. 38–39 provides further information about the armament changes in 1944, bunker capacities and some other minor detail. If you don't have it to hand I can add information from my copy or post it here for you to add. It would be preferable if Dodson was consulted for comprehensiveness, as it seems to be the most recent scholarship on this class. Spotcheck not conducted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added some details on the armament revisions from Dodson - if Lenton has anything to add to it, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Lenton p. 39 reckons she had a coal bunker of 436 tons. Also says "In 1944, the 5.9 in and 3.5 in guns were removed, and the AA armament increased to six 4.1 in (6 × 1), ten 40 mm (10 × 1), twenty-two 20 mm (4 × 4 and 3 × 2) guns". This obviously conflicts with Dodson, so not sure how you'll handle that. Also, fn45 has a = between the page nos. instead of an ndash. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a note with the details from Lenton - Dodson himself says there are conflicting details on the ship's armament, and given the chaotic state of things in Germany at the time, I doubt we'll ever know what's right. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I’m fine with that. Sources ok by me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

MOD

Looks good. Support subject to these minor modifications. Nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The ed17

Support, after a few copyedits I've made and assuming Peacemaker's comments above are addressed. Usual excellent work. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Support. I made two ill-links, don't know if we need red links for all these commanders who don't even have an article in German, and felt that once two "then" came in fast succession. No reasons not to support. The red link icebreaker has an image not on the commons but in German, - for the one creating that article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda - the commanders are all German admirals, either while they were aboard the ship or later in their careers. Eventually they'll have articles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

I'll have a look in this.

• She displaced 13,191 t (12,983 long tons), and had a full-load displacement of 14,218 metric tons (13,993 long tons; 15,673 short tons). the article uses long and short tons do the article should use both or just long tons?
• Should the first foodnote not have cite?
  • Explaining an initialism is a WP:BLUE thing
• Danzig is overlinked
  • Sarastro fixed that
• the German navy was reorganized as the Reichsmarine according to the Treaty of Versailles. Shouldn't the "German navy" be capitalised?
  • No, it's not used as a proper noun here - the proper name would be "Imperial Navy" (in that that's the translation of Kaiserliche Marine) - think of it as instead being "the navy of Germany"
• In early 1944, her anti-aircraft armament was strengthened considerably with the addition of two 40 mm (1.6 in) guns and twenty 20 mm (0.79 in) guns; there is already an "(1.6 in)" before this sentence
  • Removed
• Dreadnought's revolutionary design rendered every capital ship of the German navy obsolete, including Schlesien. same as above. Shouldn't the "German navy" be capitalised?
  • No, as above
• She then returned to training ship duties, and from January to March 1940 served as an icebreaker to allow U-boats to operate. Where did she operated as an icebreaker?
  • Hildebrand et. al. doesn't say, unfortunately - presumably in the Baltic, but I can't say for sure
• Icebreaker service again summoned the vessel to active service from January to April 1942. Again Where?
  • As above
• The year's autumn maneuvers were confined to the Baltic and the Kattegat, during which another fleet review was held in order to prepare for an Austro-Hungarian delegation that included Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Admiral Rudolf Montecuccoli. Is there a specific month when this happend? Because this could make some readers confused if you use seasons in the article, especially the people in the southern hemisphere. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope, I have not to wait longer than the French battleship Bretagne A-class review. Also hope this was useful. Cheers. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How was that? :P Thanks for reviewing the article :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Haha that was fast. You only forgot my first little comment and I added a new comment. Cheers. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: We have three supports here, but I just wonder would it be possible to get one more pair of eyes on this? Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the subject material? If all else fails, I may recuse and review it myself in a day or two. (Just to clarify, I have no concerns here, I'd just like a little more commentary) Sarastro (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment Aside from these last points, unless I'm being stupid, we are still missing an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, I removed the duplink for Danzig but there are a couple of others that maybe could be looked at. The only other issues I would suggest considering are consistency over alt text (some images have it, some don't; it should really be one or the other) and perhaps explaining the meaning of "five-minute ship" which may be obvious but could be clarified. Sarastro (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro - I've removed the other dup links and added alt text to the images lacking it. There was a note about the 5-minute ship nickname, which I've moved closer to make it easier to see. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review:

• File:Schlesien Panama 2.jpg: Broken source link.

• Fixed, good catch

• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101II-MN-1585-09A, Linienschiffe "Schlesien", "Schleswig-Holstein".jpg: Is that license really by the copyright holder?

• Yes - are you not aware of the Bundesarchiv donation?

• I was, what I wasn't so clear on was whether they have the right to license such a photo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think an individual FAC is the place to dispute their right to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Each image seems to be pertinent to the section it is in. ALT text seems adequate although I am mentally wondering whether it would be better to just say what the image is (as opposed to what it shows). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really have a sense of how to write good alt text (which is why I don't generally do it) - I'm open to suggestions if anyone has any. Thanks for checking these over. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 [19].

---

AirTrain JFK

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free).

The article was passed as a Good Article in October 2017, and was nominated for Featured Article status back in June. However, based on the feedback there, the prose needed to be cleaned up, so it wasn't promoted. I think I have resolved these concerns, so I'm nominating it again. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback.

Also pinging @AmericanAir88, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus, SounderBruce, and Tony1:, who left comments in the previous Featured Article nomination. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I supported the previous nomination. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Nothing changed in terms of images from the previous nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I supported the previous nomination as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox, such as daily ridership, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
  • I replaced with annual ridership. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• FN1 is incomplete
  • Added pages, and publisher. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Fn4: date doesn't match source. Same with FN129
  • Fixed. One was manual error, another was a numbering typo in YMD format (02 instead of 01) that carried over when I standardized the dates. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Fn5 is missing author. Same with FN100, 136
  • Fixed.
• FN7 is missing agency
  • Fixed.
    • Same with FN10, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I can't reach fultonhistory.com right now. I will check when I get the chance. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• FN10: not seeing that author at given source
  • Whoops. Fixed.
• FN11: title doesn't match source. Same with FN93
  • For #11, another whoops, another fixed.
  • For #93, the titles for print and web versions were different. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• FN12 formatting doesn't match other sources and publication date is overprecise
  • Fixed in {{Cite Routes Not Taken}}. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Date's fixed, formatting doesn't seem to be (now FN 17). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Be consistent in when you include ISSN
  • Fixed NYT without ISSN. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, sometimes - see for example FN105. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That was the only instance without ISSN; it has now been fixed. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• FN49 should use regular capitalization and should match format of FN36
  • Fixed.
• FN74: author name doesn't match source
  • That was an accident . Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• FN87: publisher shouldn't be italicized, and it's not clear what part of the source is being referred to
  • Linked directly to report.
• FN88: Scribd should be in |via=
  • Fixed.
• FN89: source link is broken
  • Archived.
• FN99: current author should be listed in |publisher=, and current publisher should be removed. FN102 should be formatted similarly
  • Fixed.
• FN101 is missing author and date. Same with FN119
  • Fixed.
• Fn103 is missing date
  • Fixed.
• FN131 appears to be a republication of FN130
  • Fixed.
• How are you ordering the Bibliography, and how are you deciding what ends up there as opposed to in footnotes? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The bibliography is alphabetical by author, or by publisher/title if author doesn't exist. A source is listed in the bibliography if different parts of the reference are cited at different points in the article. If it's the same one or two pages, I didn't put it in the bibliography. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Er... in the case of works without author, are you ordering by title, or by publisher? It doesn't make sense to do both at once. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: It is ordered by title. That's what is displayed first with the citation templates. This way, bibliography is in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • It looks like the first few are still ordered by publisher though. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria: OK, I have fixed it now. All entries are in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Okay - still some pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
              • @Nikkimaria: I looked at the Fulton History sources and don't see any missing agencies, including in footnote 10 (33d St. Terminal Picked for Kennedy Rail Link). Are there some specific examples I skipped over? epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review. I will resolve these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Replies above. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Pinging again, just in case. epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The article has been extensively modified and some references have been removed. Could you look over the sources again, or indicate that you can't do so? I would appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• FN7: November 1967 was when the report was commissioned, not when it was published

• Be consistent in how you format Daily News articles

• FN78 should include corporate author

• FN82: AAP is the author

• Suggest making the Bibliography a bulleted list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the quick response. I have addressed all of the above. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Taking a look now....comments below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There are alot of "proposal"s at the top of the History section. Recommend rewording to reduce....(e.g. just start section with 1968 plan)

• @Casliber: I've removed the excessive repetition of the word "proposal", if that's what you meant. epicgenius (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose clangers outstanding..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell

Oppose per 1a (prose, particularly flow), and 4 (summary style).

Extended commentary on prose and detail and line-by-line review, now resolved. —HJM

Detailed comments, written as I've read through (as far as the System section) which are 15 miles (24 km) away by road away from what? Or do you mean apart? The prose is a little dense in places, partly because of the level of detail on previous schemes. This is a common problem when trying to explain transport systems and their relationship to the local geography and I'm not sure how much can be done about it, but I would consider moving some of the detail to daughter articles and distilling it down to bare bones in the parent article. 6,400 words on an airport people mover is a bit much, especially considering it's front-loaded with a lot of information that's not directly about the system that was built. In late 1997, Giuliani agreed to the plan on the condition that the state reimburse the city $300 million of the system's cost, with the city paying the $300 million for the line from 2002 through 2017 Sorry, I'm lost. The state is going to reimburse $300 million, and then the cit is going to spend $300 million? Maybe I'm just being dense but I can't parse this. In 1999, the RPA published an unofficial recommendation What's an unofficial recommendation and why is it worth an entire paragraph? some $200 million of the funding could not be paid off using the PFC tax Because the PFC didn't cover it (in which case why not extend/increase it?) or for some other reason? The paragraph starting Community leaders supported the project needs a copy edit for flow; too many short sentences and use of "this" and similar make for a choppy read (other parts of the article could do with going over, you have a habit of introducing something in one sentence and starting the next with "this"). The Air Transportation Association of America (ATA) Can we distil this paragraph down to the result of the lawsuit? The court, judge's name, even the ATA, is completely extraneous to the AirTrain. The important bit is the result of the case meaning the public consultation had to be re-run. This would also hopefully cut out the two semicolons in quick succession, which contribute to the choppiness of the section. The By the time the AirTrain case appeal was decided in October 2000 paragraph contains a lot of repetitive and choppy sentence structuring. The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the crash Which one? Two are mentioned in the preceding sentences. Repetition: After the death, shortly followed by Following the fatal crash. With some clever copy-editing and just a little less detail, these two paragraphs could be shortened and merged. This was one of the reasons cited for AirTrain JFK's relatively high fare Relative to what? And tell us what the fare is so the reader can decide if they think it's high. Even before the AirTrain was completed, there were plans to eventually extend it to Manhattan. Suggest paring this back and pointing the reader to Lower Manhattan–Jamaica/JFK Transportation Project By the time the project was canceled, its projected total cost had risen from $6 billion to between $8.6 and $9.9 billion Projected cost, or funds spent? Following President Donald Trump's signing of Executive Order 13769 This strikes me as recentism, and the whole paragraph could be removed without any loss. On January 4, 2017, the office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo you've already introduced and linked Cuomo. 4, summary style: I think big chunks of the history section need to be split off into sub-articles and then summarised in the main article, making use of {{main}} to point readers to further information. The history section, by itself, is over 4,000 words long and the density of it makes it hard going. It's very well-researched and you've done an excellent job of compiling all this information, but a lot of it is not important to the scheme as it currently operates. I'd suggest either creating individual articles for some of the schemes, or something like Background to AirTrain JFK, to house all the detail and briefly summarising it in this article. The average reader wants to know that various schemes were proposed and some were almost nearly built but it took ~35 years before anything really happened; they don't want 4,000 words of detail on all the different proposals (some will, and they can go to the sub-article(s) for that). 1a, prose: You have a lot of very short sentences in quick succession, one example, chosen because it nicely illustrates the problem The idea was for Jamaica to be re-envisioned as a "regional center", according to the RPA, since during the average weekday, 100,000 LIRR riders and 53,000 subway riders used stations in the core of Jamaica. A proposal calling for a 250-room hotel above the AirTrain terminal was canceled after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.[87] The Port Authority estimated that the AirTrain JFK would carry 12.4 million passengers a year.[87] The Jamaica station's renovation was completed in 2006, three years after the system opened. You have a series of sentences that don't flow into each other at all, they're just a list of facts. As noted above, you also overuse "this", often at the start of a sentence; a lot of these could be eliminating by merging sentences, which would also help with the flow. And look out for ", with" constructions and "however". You might find Tony's advice helpful. Sorry to oppose, but I've spent several a couple of hours reading this in detail and trying to provide constructive feedback. I hope it helps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the comments, and it really isn't a bother; I apologize that you had to oppose. While I appreciate the issues you brought up regarding history, I don't think it would be helpful in this specific instance to split this into a "background" article. I just don't think there will be enough content for a subpage to justify splitting the article. There really aren't any other pages that I can link to such an article, so that page will basically be an orphan. Nothing against your comments in particular, but it just seems like the proposed solution doesn't really justify condensing the article to that extent. Your comments on prose are very helpful, so I'll try to address them. Prior to nominating the article, I've looked at Tony's advice page and cut these filler words as much as I could. Even so, I see there's still some work to be done, so I'll get onto that. epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Actually, considering that New York City airport rail link links to this proposal, maybe I can split the previous proposals off to that page. I'll think about it. epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC) In response to specific points: which are 15 miles (24 km) away by road - I added "apart" The prose is a little dense in places, partly because of the level of detail on previous schemes. - As I said, I'll think about splitting the article. I just don't want an orphan article about the previous schemes. In late 1997, Giuliani agreed to the plan on the condition that the state reimburse the city $300 million of the system's cost, with the city paying the $300 million for the line from 2002 through 2017 - The state will reimburse the city for its $300 million share of the cost. In 1999, the RPA published an unofficial recommendation - The RPA isn't an official government agency, so I trimmed it. some $200 million of the funding could not be paid off using the PFC tax - It was ineligible. I added some details. The paragraph starting Community leaders supported the project needs a copy edit for flow - Done The Air Transportation Association of America (ATA) - I trimmed some details The By the time the AirTrain case appeal was decided in October 2000 paragraph contains a lot of repetitive and choppy sentence structuring. - I've restructured it. The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the crash - There's only one NTSB. I don't understand what you mean. Repetition: After the death, shortly followed by Following the fatal crash. - Fixed This was one of the reasons cited for AirTrain JFK's relatively high fare - Added price Even before the AirTrain was completed, there were plans to eventually extend it to Manhattan. - Trimmed By the time the project was canceled, its projected total cost had risen from $6 billion to between $8.6 and $9.9 billion - Well, trimmed per the previous point. Following President Donald Trump's signing of Executive Order 13769 - Removed On January 4, 2017, the office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo - Removed per previous point. Regarding prose, I looked over the article again, and resolved many of the issues "However" or ", with". @HJ Mitchell: Hope this helps. There's really not more I can do unless I were to chop off the first two sections entirely. Let me see if I can merge it with the Program for Action article, and I'll get back to you. epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Update: As I mentioned on Harry's talk page, I've trimmed a bit from the History section. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC) That's some great progress. I had my doubts as to whether it was possible to address my concerns in the course of the FAC but now I'm sure they can. Nonetheless, I still think we have too much detail on the abortive predecessor schemes that could go somewhere else, and in general I think the narrative gets bogged down in minutiae in places. There's also more to be done on improving the flow, though reducing some of the detail will help with that. I picked a couple of paragraphs more or less at random and made these sample edits for eliminating excess verbiage/redundancy and for general flow. And see what you think of this edit; I won't be offended if you revert it, I might have been a little too drastic, but hopefully it shows what you can look for when considering which details are necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: No worries. I thought there was stuff that couldn't be trimmed, but turned out there was already a suitable article about the schemes . I'll take a greater look on Friday to see what else can be cut/improved. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Sure. I'll watchlist the article and the FAC but feel free to ping me if you want me to look at something in particular. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for your patience. I've trimmed a few more details and consolidated some sentences. Does this version look better? epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC) That's definitely progress but there's still room for improvement. Down to "curtailment of plan", I think we've now got the right balance so focus on that section onwards. I made a few more edits and managed to cull ~70 words from the first two paragraphs without removing any facts (but do double-check those edits) so there's work to be done. I'd recommend evaluating the rest of the section against my edits and seeing if there's anything more you can cull. Feel free to ping me at the end of the section and I'll happily go through it with you section by section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Thanks. I looked over the article again and found a few more details that were redundant; these have now been consolidated. Your edits look good so I don't think there are anything else to cut in that section. I do appreciate you taking a second look. epicgenius (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC) I'm still finding redundancy and other infelicities. Not nearly as much and not as detail-heavy as the first time I read through, but still not FA standard. Can you read through thoroughly from "Opening and effects" downwards and see what else can be done? I'm not averse to making a few edits here and there but it's your baby. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC) All right, I'll have a look later. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: I combed through the article one more time, and made a few edits to reorganize grammar flow and reduce redundant words. I may look at it again tomorrow. In the meantime, could you see if my recent edits align with what you're looking for? I want to know if I'm heading down the right path. Thanks in advance. I do appreciate all the feedback because it's helping me become a better writer. epicgenius (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, those are exactly the sort of edits I'm looking for. I'll have a look in more detail later tonight or tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Have you been able to look at the article yet? No rush, just wondering. epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Revisiting. Apologies for the delay. I think we're pretty much there. you'e done a good job of tightening the prose. I have a few more detailed comments from reading through the second half, but they're all relatively minor and I envisage supporting once those are sorted: Maybe make it clearer that December 17, 2003 was the final opening date? However, a proposal for a 250-room hotel above the AirTrain terminal had been canceled "however" and "had been" are both red flags ("however" is frowned upon at FAC, partly because it's over-used, and "had been" should normally be "was" for our style of writing). You could just distil this down to "a proposed hotel was canceled after" connects the airport's terminals and parking areas with the LIRR and subway lines at the Howard Beach and Jamaica stations I'd recommend losing the bit in red, and noting in parentheses which system the stations serve. It's almost the same number of words but doesn't leave the uninitiated reader needing to check anything. You can then remove the system names from the following paragraphs. Maybe note that terminals 3 and 6 don't exist, so it doesn't look like the AirTrain skips two terminals; that threw me for a moment In 2014, the most recent year for which statistics are available see MOS:DATED; also, is that still true (we'e in 2019 now, so that's quite a gap) Watch for overlinking and Easter egg links (the specific example that prompted this was [[Taxicabs of New York City|taxi]]) The very last paragraph in the current version is a bit choppy and contains another "however" that could easily be lost with a minor rewrite. I'd suggest swapping the order of the last two sections. As it is, the conclusion feels quite abrupt but the ridership section ends nicely in the present day an at the end of the journey. —HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the response. I appreciate the many hours of work that you have spent re-reviewing this. Here are some responses to your points in order: I made it clearer that December 17, 2003 was the final opening date. I condensed the hotel thing to "a proposed hotel was canceled after" I'd recommend losing the bit in red, and noting in parentheses which system the stations serve. It's almost the same number of words but doesn't leave the uninitiated reader needing to check anything. You can then remove the system names from the following paragraphs. - I removed the red part, but I kept the system names. The parentheses looked unwieldy, like it disrupted the flow of the sentences. Maybe note that terminals 3 and 6 don't exist - The table does say that terminals 2, 5, and 8 were formerly named 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 respectively. I updated ridership to 2017 stats. I checked for misleading links. The taxi one has been fixed, and I didn't find anything else outstanding. In the rolling stock section, the final paragraph has been split into two shorter paragraphs: one about operating specs and one about dimensions. I switched the order of the final two sections. I hope it looks good now. Thank you again for spending time to look at this page again. epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You've dealt with the last of my specific comments and the article reads much better now. I'm impressed. You've made a lot of progress in a short turnaround time. I feel the featured article criteria are met now, so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

---

@FAC coordinators: The image and source review are done, and the nomination has 4 supporters (including 2 who also supported the previous nomination). Is that sufficient? epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm a little concerned by the prose still. I can see quite a few issues in the lead alone. It is quite difficult to understand in places and the prose isn't really quite up to scratch. I'm not recusing just yet, although I am very close to doing. Sarastro (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Bombardier Transportation operates AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.": Not quite clear what this means. They run it with the Port Authority, or the Port Authority pays them to run it?
• "A railroad link to JFK Airport was first recommended in 1968, though until the 1990s, various plans surfaced to build a JFK Airport rail connection, though these were not carried out because of a lack of funding.": I've read this several times and can't understand it. At the very least, two "though"s in a sentence is not good. And I don't think the first "though" is quite the right word to use.
• "Meanwhile, the JFK Express subway service and shuttle buses provided an unpopular transport system to and around JFK. In-depth planning for a dedicated transport system at JFK began in 1990, but was ultimately cut back." I'm not too sure why we have "meanwhile" here; and what was cut back? The planning? Or do we mean that the scale of the project was cut back?
• "During construction, AirTrain JFK encountered several lawsuits, as well as a death during one of the system's test runs.": Do you encounter a lawsuit? And did the train have a lawsuit against it? Or do we mean someone else? And are we really equating lawsuits and deaths? Maybe something like "Among the problems experienced by [someone] during construction were a lawsuit and the death of [someone] during a test run of system".
• "Since then, several improvements have been proposed for AirTrain JFK, including an unbuilt extension to Manhattan.": As written, this looks like the proposal was for an unbuilt extension (i.e, an extension where the plan is to not built it, rather than a proposal for an extension which is not yet built.)
• "The AirTrain charges a $5 fare for all passengers entering or exiting at either Jamaica or Howard Beach, though passengers traveling within the airport can ride the system for free": Does the train charge? And we could cut "the system" here. And we have "passengers" twice in a sentence.
• "The AirTrain has consistently exceeded ridership projections since opening, and in 2017, the system had 7.66 million paying passengers and 12.6 million inter-terminal passengers." I think "these" would be better than "ridership" here, and we could cut "since opening". Also, I'm not sure we need a comma after 2017.

I think we need more eyes on this, particularly if these kind of problems are in the rest of the article. I wonder if Mike Christie could take a look? If not I will recuse and look further myself. Sarastro (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can take a look; will read it now and add notes if I have time tonight. I have ridden the AirTrain many times, but am not knowledgeable about railways. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sarastro1 and Mike Christie: I've fixed the issues both of you have described. I think the lead is probably the part of the article that needs the most improvement, since it was created really hastily. epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I fixed all of the issues Mike raised and he has given his support below. Could you see if there are any other things that might still need to be changed after I made these edits? I would appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Sarastro1's comments about the prose relate to the lead, and I see there's been some copyediting to the lead since his comments. I've been reading through the body and finding it in much better shape than the lead.

• The high levels of complaints were not uniform to all community boards: suggest "Not all community boards saw a high level of complaints".
• I don't think you need quotes around "boondoggle".
• By June 2003, a 50,000-square-foot (4,600 m2), 16-story building was being planned for Sutphin Boulevard across from the new station: which station -- Howard Beach, or Jamaica? From the following sentence it appears to be Jamaica, but it should be clear before then.

I've read through to the end of the history section and that's all I have so far. I'll come back to the lead once I've read the whole article. More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• It makes an additional stop at Lefferts Boulevard, which contains transfers to parking lot shuttle buses; the B15 bus to Brooklyn; and the limited-stop Q10 bus. "Contains" isn't really the right word; you have to walk to those buses -- they're nearby, but not "in" the station in any sense. You might consider mentioning the long-term parking accessible from Lefferts Boulevard here too -- you do mention it later in the article, but this is the first mention of Lefferts Boulevard and it's the main use for the station. Not a requirement, as I say, because it is covered later.
  • I addressed the first point. However, it would be weird to say "transfers to short-term and long-term parking lot shuttle buses...". I'll think about it. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

    What I meant was that most people get off at Lefferts Boulevard and walk to their car; it's in the middle of a giant parking lot. Yes, you can transfer, but if you're thinking like a user of the AirTrain, you go to Lefferts because it's in the parking lot where your car is, not to get on a shuttle. I think a reader of this article could be forgiven for not realizing that. The same applies to Howard Beach, in fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

    Thank you for your support. I know about this already, and I mentioned it at the end of the paragraph. The segment from Howard Beach to Federal Circle, which is about 1.8 miles (2.9 km) long, passes over the long-term and employee parking lots. epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• The Jamaica and Howard Beach stations are designed as "gateway stations", which are designed to give passengers the impression of entering the airport. Two uses of "designed". In what we do they try to achieve "the impression of entering the airport"? I mostly use Lefferts Boulevard, and only occasionally go to Jamaica or Howard Beach, so perhaps I've forgotten, but I don't recall anything about the look of the platforms that matches this description.
  • The source doesn't say, but I am guessing that this is because these are the terminals of AirTrain JFK, where you have to pay to enter or exit. If you enter through Lefferts, then you get to skip the fare, since you're already in the airport epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• The system consists of 6.3 miles (10.1 km) of single-track guideways and 3.2 miles (5.1 km) of double-track guideways. Not really a prose question, but does "single-track guideway" mean a single-track for the trains? It's two tracks everywhere, isn't it? I recall seeing trains pass each other between Howard Beach and Lefferts Boulevard, for example.
  • Yes. The structures carry a single track. In those cases it's where there are two parallel elevated lines. Like this example. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• The fare gates picture is tilted; I think it should be rotated a little anti-clockwise.
  • I will deal with that later. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Is it still the case that you have to pay if you leave the system at Howard Beach? It's been a year or two, but I don't recall paying the last time I parked at Howard Beach, though my memory is unreliable on this sort of thing.
  • Yes. There are turnstiles to enter and exit AirTrain JFK, as well as turnstiles to enter the subway. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• similar to what is also used on: perhaps "similar systems are used on" would flow more smoothly.
  • Done.
• Each car is 57 feet 9 inches (17.60 m) long and 10 feet 2 inches (3.10 m) wide, with similar dimensions to rolling stock used on the New York City Subway's B Division. "With" implies the introduction of new information, so it might be better to make this something like "...wide, which is similar to the dimensions of the rolling stock used on...".
  • Done.

Lead:

• Various plans surfaced to build a JFK Airport rail connection until the 1990s, though these were not carried out because of a lack of funding. "Various" is an exaggeration, isn't it? Looks like there were two: 1968 and 1987.
  • In the body, only these two are examined in detail, but the NY Times source mentions that there were 21 total. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• The system wasn't "the subject of" a death; suggest making this "..., and a train operator died...".
  • Fixed.
• You don't need "unbuilt" -- the sentence already says "proposed".
  • Fixed.
• The 7.66 million number does not appear in the body of the article; presumably it should since it's in the lead.
  • The exact figure does (7,655,901), but I rounded it. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Support on prose; the points above are addressed. Epicgenius, I've left a note on one point but it's up to you if you think it's worth doing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing comment: OK, I think we're good to go now. Just one minor point, which I won't delay promotion over. The duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have a few and I can't see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019 [20].

---

WAVES

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve), better known as WAVES. Pendright has been working on this article for several years. It went through GAN in 2016 and MILHIST ACR earlier this year. I have nominated the article for FAC on behalf of Pendright, per request on my talkpage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea of women serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II was not widely supported in the U.S. Congress or by the Navy itself. Still, there were those who believed otherwise and pressed the issue. Intense political wrangling followed, but in July 1942 the congress authorized the establishment of the WAVES as the women’s branch of the U.S Naval Reserve. For the first time, Women could now serve in the Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level, with a rank or rate consistent with that of their male counterparts. From 1942 to 1946, over 86,000 women served in the WAVES, where they worked in various professions and occupations. The Article was promoted to A-class on 18, April 2018. To those who choose to review the article, thank you. Pendright (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Criterion 1a, lead:

• "The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported in the Congress or by the Navy, although some members did support the need for uniformed women during World War II." You might drop the second "by". "members means members of Congress, I suppose; slight possibility it might refer to members of the Navy. Let's avoid the gendered "Congressmen" ... would "lawmakers" fix the problem?

The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported by the Congress or the Navy, although some of the lawmakers and naval personnel did support the need for uniformed women during World War II. Pendright (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "For enlisted, the eligible age was ..."—unsure what that means. "For the enlisted"? (i.e. the already-enlisted). Or "For enlistment"?

= "other ranks" in British English, and perhaps Australian. Not officers or NCOs. But perhaps there are readers equally unfamiliar. See Enlisted rank (or Other ranks for a range of links). Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Enlisted was changed to enlistment as correctly pointed out by the reviewer. In U.S. English, enlistment is described as the action of enrolling or being enrolled in the armed services. No entry rate or rank, just a recruit. Pendright (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "indoctrination"—most narrowly, yes, it is the right word. But several sources I consulted give it a "brainwashing" tinge. Cambridge English Dictionary: "1. to often repeat an idea or belief to someone to persuade them to accept it." Two examples are provided: "Some parents were critical of attempts to indoctrinate children in green ideology. They have been indoctrinated by television to believe that violence is normal." The second meaningn concerns "religious/political/ideological indoctrination". Perhaps a more neutral word? "training"? "induction"? There are other synonyms, too.

Substituted training for indoctrination - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Specialized training for officers was held on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities." ... training was "held"; perhaps "was conducted", but it's ok. And possibly, too: "Most enlisted members received initial training at Hunter College in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. Some women then attended ...".

Specialized training for officers was conducted on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women then attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities. Pendright (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• False match between fields and practitioners: "Many officers entered fields previously held by men, such as doctors and engineers"—medicine and engineering? And you mark gender in the next sentence, but not here (Many female officers).

Many female officers entered fields previously held by men, such as medicine and engineering. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• "At the same time, many of the women were experiencing hostility in the workplace by some of their male counterparts."—I think the first phrase could go. Simpler is better: "Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts."

Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts. Pendright (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• cause for ... I think better might be "source of"?

The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies, early on, was the source of many of the difficulties. Pendright (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Upon their demobilization"—who was being demobilized? The women or the bosses?

Upon demobilization of the officer and enlisted members, Pendright (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Now, this is a great topic, and I'd really like to see it promoted. Going by the lead, I think it needed a more-thorough copyedit before nomination—though the lead is hard to get right. I haven't looked at the rest. Do you have collaborators who could go over it with fresh eyes? (That is, editors who haven't yet worked on it?) Tony (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, I seem to have exhausted my circle of fresh eyes – but let me see what I can do elsewhere. Pendright (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: I have read through parts of the article and generally agree with your comments, that it could use a thorough copyedit and that the prose is not currently up to FA standard. I'm willing to have a look and see what feedback I can offer. Catrìona (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: I have made a lot of prose comments in the collapsed section below my support and am confident that the article now meets 1a. Courtesy ping in case you want to take another look. Catrìona (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona

Glad to support this promotion; collapsing extended discussion that has been resolved. Catrìona (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - Pendright (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

General Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Images, you should be careful not to allow images to break up headers, which unfortunately happens here. I’ve reviewed the MOS reference. Also looked at other articles, FAC and AC, and image-wise I don’t see any differences between them and those in this article. I’m ready to try to fix the problem, but I need a better grasp of the problem. Would you mind elaborating further? Pendright (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC) I apologize for not being more specific. In the "Uniforms" section the image exceeds the header, which is probably necessary, but it is awkward to then butt up against an unrelated image "A Campus view of Smith College", which I would recommend deleting because it is only tangentially relevant. The layout of the "Personnel" section is also awkward. Both the images are relevant, but they should be kept within the section. Personally, I might try using the {{multiple images}} template, either side by side or one above the other. If you aren't familiar with templates, I could try reformatting that part myself. Catrìona (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC) (a) Deleted image of Campus view of Smith College - Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC) (b) I'd apprecite any reformating help you are willing to provide. Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Done, see if you like it. I took the liberty of shortening the captions and ALT text a bit. The ALT text should not be duplicative of the caption, per WP:Alt text. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC) @Catrìona: I've not come across this way of adding images to the article before. It appears to have broken the links to the commons images. Factotem (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC) @Factotem: I've added the links manually. Catrìona (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Please see WP:Alt text; it is intended to describe the purely visual content of an image for the benefit of the visually impaired. For an example of alt text done correctly, see Bratislava Working Group. I’ve rewritten the alt text more in the prescribed manner. If you find fault with any of it, let me know. Thanks for the alt text rewrites on the stacked images, which look good. Is the image under Uniforms awkward enough to justify deletion? Pendright (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Please see MOS:CREDENTIAL (TLDR: in most cases, don't use titles like Dr., Mrs., etc.) Deleted Dr. from Dr. Ada Comstock image. Pendright (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Deleted Dr. from Dr. Chung in text - Pendright (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Why are these indented? They don't appear to be quotes. In More Than a Uniform, Winifred Quick Collins (a former WAVE officer) described Director McAfee as a born diplomat, handling difficult matters with finesse.[18] She also said McAfee played important decision-making roles in the WAVES' treatment compared to the men and in their assignments, housing conditions, and supervision and discipline standards. Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) In Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose. Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) The quote attached to Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name. is sourced so it's difficult to tell what information is from which source. Also, it's best to cite direct quotes to a secondary source where possible. Just taking a guess at what information is supported by which source, you could do something like: Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name. She explained: I realized there were two letters that had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So, I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps. References This is how the text read in 2016, before someone other than my self changed it: They also recognized the importance of a name: agreeing it should be one suitable for the organization envisioned. To Reynard fell the task of finding such a name.[12] In explaining how she came up with the nautical name, Reynard said: "I realized that there were two letters which had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps."[13]Raynard was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES.[14] Any suggestions? Pendright (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Well, from a Gbooks search, I can confirm that the quote appears in Hancock, and also on page 38 of one of the editions of Crossed Currents. If you can confirm that that's the same edition you used (see Factotem's comments below), I'll fix it myself. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC) I Confirm it's page 38 - read the comment, and thanks. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the fix, but it should read, Goodson P. 111, not 11. It confirms the tasking and 113 the commissioning Pendright (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC) @Catrìona: FYI - Pendright (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Background denied the benefits of their male counterparts This is a vague statement. Although not directly related to the article, consider adding a footnote stating how the benefits for women differed than those for men; it also isn't clear in the article if/how WAVES' benefits were different. (a) Footnotes: In May 1942, the U.S. Congress authorized the Women’s Army Auxillary Corps (WAAC), but chose not to install it as a branch of the U.S. Army. Instead, created it as an auxiliary unit, where the members were with the Army, but not in it. Consequently, the WAAC members did not have full military status and were denied such benefits as pensions, disability protection, and other rights granted to the male members of the Army.[1] However, in July 1943, the Congress refashioned the WAAC into the Women's Army Corps (WAC), providing its members with the same benefits and rights as the male members of the U.S. Army.[2] Pendright (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC) (b) The WAAC was created without full military status, but the WAVES were granted full military status as a branch of the U.S. Naval Reserve, with the same benefits and rights as male reservists. Pendright (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC) In her book, Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock quotes his reply: Suggest "He replied," (Alternately, state Hancock's source for the statement; she didn't seem to be a witness to the conversation) Here is the text: Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose (not in quotes). Why is this not just an account of relevant characteristics or qualities of someone being described? Pendright (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Bureau of Personnel Is this the Bureau of Naval Personnel linked above? Best to be consistent. Bureau of Naval Personnel - Pendright (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC) In Crossed Currents, the authors describe Chung and her involvement: Suggest breaking up this quote and paraphrasing in your own words, per Wikipedia policy to minimize quotes and brevity. Still, the Bureau of Aeronautics continued to believe there was a place for women in the Navy, and appealed to an influential friend of naval aviation, Margaret Chung.[6] A San Francisco physician and surgeon, Chung was known to have had an interest in naval aviation. Many of her naval friends referred to themselves as sons of Mom Chung. In Crossed Currents, the authors describe how Chung used her influence: Having learned of the stalemate, she asked one of these [sons], Representative Melvin Maas of Minnesota, who had served in the aviation branch of the U.S. Marine Corps in World War I, to introduce legislation independently of the Navy. On 18 March 1942 he did just that.[7] Pendright (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Is the political party of the politicians relevant to mention? Debatable, of course, but it's a historic fact, part of the story, and relevant as well. Pendright (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Maas's House bill was essentially the same as the Knox proposal, which would make a women's branch part of the Naval Reserve Suggest "Like the Knox propose, Maas' bill would create a women's branch of the Naval Reserve", unless there were other similarities that would be appropriate to mention in the article. Changed artice text: The Maas House bill was identical to the the Knox proposal, <> Went to the source and it says "identical" -Pendright (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) On 16 April 1942, the House Naval Affairs Committee reported favorably on the bill. which bill? Maas bill - Pendright (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC) But Knox asked the president to reconsider. You should be more clear on whether or not the bill passed and/or if Roosevelt signed it. The Senate committee eventually proposed a naval version of the WAAC, and the president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, approved it. But Knox asked the president to reconsider. Roosevelt only approved a Senate committee proposal. Pendright (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Creation of the program You state Because of her efforts, eight prominent women agreed to serve on the council. However, from the list that follows it looks like only seven of them served at once, and according to Google, Graham was a man. Phrases like "national authority" and "noted lecturer" are potentially WP:PEACOCK issues. Because of her efforts, several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. They included: Meta Glass, president of Sweet Briar College Lillian Gilbreth, a specialist on efficiency in the workplace Ada Comstock, president of Radcliffe College Alice Crocker Lloyd, dean of the University of Michigan Mrs. Malbone Graham, a lecturer from the West Coast Marie Rogers Gates, the wife of Thomas Sovereign Gates, president of the University of Pennsylvania Harriet Elliott, dean of women at the University of North Carolina Alice Baldwin, dean of women at Duke University, served after Elliott's resignation.[9] Source confirms it is Mrs. Graham as does Google - Pendright (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Ok, that looks good, except that we do not usually refer to women by their husband's name. If her husband was Malbone Watson Graham, professor of political science at UCLA, (which is what I got to when I googled Malbone Graham), what was her name? Catrìona (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Gladys, per Google - Pendright (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Her first-rate performance as Jacobs' assistant silenced any fears the Navy may have had about women educators. WP:PEACOCK Deleted - Pendright (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC) The task of convincing McAfee to accept and persuading the Wellesley Board of Trustees to release her was difficult, but successful. McAfee was reluctant to accept the position and the Wellesley Board of Trustees initially refused to release her, but eventually she was freed ...? but eventually she was freed - Pendright (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Mildred McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy. move this earlier in the paragraph, to explain why McAfee was chosen for the position The council knew the success of the program would depend on the woman chosen to lead it. A prospective candidate would need to possess proven managerial skills, command respect, and have an ability to get along well with others. Their recommendation was Mildred H. McAfee, president of Wellesley College, as the future director.[9] The Navy agreed. McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy.[10] Pendright (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC) who did not favor the WAAC concept, cut, already stated Cut - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Council members Advisory Council members Added - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC) each took it on themselves to write suggest "separately wrote to" As a matter of procedure or rule, a council usually acts as a body, not individually. That’s why I used this language. Women's branch of the Navy reserve odd capitalization, since this isn't the official name, suggest "women's branch..." Lower case - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC) "... Lieutenant Commander McAfee was simply told by the bureau that she was to 'run' the women's reserve and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions. Unfortunately, the decision was not made known to the operating divisions of the bureau." attribute this quote, and I would start it "McAfee was told..." (the hanging ellipses are distracting and unnecessary, imo) The bureau "told McAfee that she was to run the women's reserve, and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions."[19] -Pendright (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC) No plans existed to help guide her; in fact, no planning had been done, by anyone, in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act. Suggest "No planning had been done in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act." Deleted "by anyone" - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC) By August and September 1942, another 108 women confusing dates, do you mean "In August and September" or "By September"? Deleted August - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Recrutiting The age for officer candidates was between 20 and 49, with a college degree, or two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. The enlistment age requirements were between 20 and 35, with a high school or business diploma, or equivalent experience. The change has made this passage excessively confusing. I strongly suggest going back to the previous version, since this isn't any more help to BrE speakers. Suggested replacement: To be eligible for officer candidate school, the age requirement was 20 to 49, posses a college degree, or have two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. To volunteer at the enlisted level, the age requirement was 20 to 35, posses a high school or a business diploma, or with equivalent experience. Pendright (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC) led the way Excessively colloquial and vague. State exactly what is meant by "led the way". The WAVES were primarily white (and middle class) and they represented every state in the country. Although, the greatest number of WAVES came from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Pendright (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Knox said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body. consider a direct quote here Added quotation marks - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) @Pendright: I checked the source, and it seems like the sources quote the words "over his dead body" and this is attributed to McAfee's recollection of the conversation. You should be more clear about who is being quoted here since Knox would not have said "over his dead body". Catrìona (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) @Catrìona: Point well taken, however, this is the work of another editor, and includes all edits to the article sourced to MacGregor. I’ll gladly accept criticism for my work, but this is too embarrassing for me to keep my silence. That said, I plan to inform this editor of your findings and give said editor the opportunity to fix what you found. Pendright (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I don't know why you would think that; it seems entirely in character for Knox. The source is McAfee's recollection. I have adjusted the quotation so it matches the source. Although just a figure of speech, that is indeed what happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC) After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal immediately moved to reform the Navy's racial policies. He submitted a proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis to the president on 28 July 1944. Consider combining these sentences. And if it took him until July to submit a proposal, why "immediately"? After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal moved to reform the Navy's racial policies, and submitted a proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis to the president on 28 July 1944. Pendright (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC) His opponent Thomas E. Dewey made an election issue of it when he criticized the administration for discriminating against black women in a speech in Chicago. Suggest: The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized... The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against black women in a speech in Chicago. Pendright (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Immediately, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women on 19 October 1944. Better to use dates rather than vague descriptors such as "immediately" On 19 October 1943, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women. Pendright (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC) The first two African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills. Both, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December. The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. Pendright (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Enlistment of African-American women commenced the following week. unclear: do you mean African-American women in the enlisted ranks? The source used by the editor who contributed this information states, “and the enlistment of black women began a week later. Don’t know what the editor had in mind, but it seems reasonable to assume, in the circumstances, that the intent of the president’s order was to include both. Recruitment seems a better choice of words, because it is “the action of enlisting new people in the armed forces” (online dictionary). Pendright (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC) The promise of segregated quarters could not be maintained; each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. This comes off as NPOV. Try something like, "Because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company, segregated quarters were not practical" Changed per the above - Pendright (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC) It looked like this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. Regarding some of the above questions: After reading the original text over a few times, I have had some second thoughts about it. While I had no hand in the writing of it, I did have a responsibility to try and clean it up. Anyway, here’s the text after my tweaks - perhaps you could work some of your magic on it. Tweaked text: On 19 October 1944 (Correct date), Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women for service in the WAVES; the order went into effect the following week. The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. The idea of segregated quarters was an impractical arrangement, because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. By July 1945, some 72 African American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School. While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of speciality assignments and also accommodations, which was segregated on some bases. Current text: On 19 October 1943, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women.[27] The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. Enlistment of African-American women commenced the following week. Because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company, segregated quarters were not practical. "It looked like this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. Some 72 African American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School by July 1945. While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of specialty assignments and also accommodation, which was segregated on some bases.[27] Pendright (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Much improved! But what are you quoting starting with "It looks like..." and where does the quote end? Catrìona (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) The Tweaked text contains no such wording! Pendright (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Unfortunately, my tweaked version was developed from the text as written in the article, but after a close reading of the relevant MacGregor text (pages 87-88, 248, and Footnote 102), I’ve revamped my previously tweaked version to the following: The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against African-American women during a speech in Chicago. (Page 87.) On 19 October 1944, the President instructed the Navy to accept African-American women into the WAVES (Footnote 102, Page 87). The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. The recruitment of African-American women began the following week. (Page 87) The plan for segregated quarters was impractical, because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. By July 1945, some 72 African-American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School. While training was integrated, African-American WAVES experienced some restrictions such as specialty assignments and living accommodations, which were segregated on some bases. (Page 88) Those that remained in the WAVES after the war were employed without discrimination, but there were only five left by August 1946. (Page 248) Pendright (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Looks good, but I have one concern: by graduated from Smith College, it sounds like they graduated from Smith College via the traditional four year degree program. Also, you haven't introduced Smith College as the site of the Navy's training course yet. So I would suggest dropping this phrase. Catrìona (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Phrase dropped - Pendright (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Uniforms The WAVES looked professional and attractive in stylish uniforms created especially for them. I think it would be more NPOV to rewrite this to something more like: "The WAVES' uniforms were designed by New York fashion house Mainbocher to look professional and attractive." You should combine this with the following paragraph. Revised per suggestion and combined with following paragraph. Pendright (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Training The entire section could stand some copyediting for cohesion. For example, the statement that the officers' training was two months is in two places. Implementation of your suggestions (cited below) and some fine-tuning has, I believe, improved the cohesion of the section. Pendright (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Suggest combining first two paragraphs under "Officers" Combined - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC) USN (Retired), drop this, already implied by "recalled to active duty" Dropped - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC) United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School at Smith College if this is the official name of the training program, it should go in the first sentence of the section. The Navy chose Smith College at Northampton, Massachusetts, as the training site for WAVE officers. The facility offered much of what the Navy needed, and a college setting provided the proper training environment.[35] The nickname for Smith was the USS Northampton,[36] although the official name of the training station was the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School. Captain H. W. Underwood was recalled to active duty on 13 August 1942; then ordered to serve as the commanding officer of the School. Pendright (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC) lieutenants Should be clear in the text that this is junior grade, not a full naval lieutenant. Revised paragraph with Footnote: Following their training, the midshipmen were commissioned as ensigns in the women’s branch of the U.S. Naval Reserve and in the Women’s branch of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve (SPARS), or as second lieutenants in the United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve. The midshipmen included 203 SPARS and 295 women of the Marine Corps Women's Reserve. [Note 2] Footnote 2: Initially, the U.S. Navy provided the training of officer candidates for the WAVES, SPARS, and Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, but then in June and July of 1943, the Coast Guard and the Maine Corps decoded to operate their own training schools.[40] [41] Pendright (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa, became the new basic training center for enlisted WAVES. This paragraph may go into unnecessary detail about the exact schedule followed by the training programs. You might consider putting some of it in a note. Splitting off content into a new article Training of the WAVES is another option. Revised with Footnote: The recruit training routine began each weekday morning with classes and drill, and classes and drill in the afternoon. In the evening, free time and then study or instruction until taps. Saturday morning was the Captain's Inspection, with free time the rest of the day. On Sunday, church services were followed by free time until evening, then study hours until taps.[44] [Note 3] Footnote 3: This is a detailed look of how a recruit’s day was filled. Each weekday, Reveille was at 5:30 or 6:00 a.m.; breakfast at 6:30 a.m.; classes and drill for four hours before lunch, and classes and drill for another four hours in the afternoon. This was followed by an hour of free time, dinner, and two hours of study or instruction, lights out at 10:00 p.m. The Captain's Inspection was on Saturday morning, then free time until taps. On Sunday, Reveille was at 7:00 a.m., with breakfast at 7:30 a.m. Trainees then attended church services, followed by free time until 7:30 p.m., when study hours until taps.[45] Pendright (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Hunter College became the main recruit training center for enlisted WAVES; chosen because of its space; location; ease of transportation, and the willingness of the college to make its facilities available. Suggest: Hunter College was chosen as the main recruit training center for enlisted WAVES because of its space, location, ease of transportation, and the willingness of the college to make its facilities available. Revised in keeping with your suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Each recruit went through a balanced training program. She was instructed in Navy ranks and rates; ships and aircraft of the fleet; naval traditions and customs; and of course, naval history. Physical training and fitness were stressed. As the women marched in platoons to classes, medical examinations, and drills, their approach was signaled by singing, their voices providing the cadence for marching feet." Suggest paraphrasing this quote and integrating into the text. Pendright (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC) The boot camp training objectives for the women were intended to be similar to those of the men. The range of instruction included: Navy ranks and rate; ships and aircraft of the fleet; naval traditions and customs; naval history; and emphasis on physical fitness. As the recruits marched in platoons to classes and for drills, their own voices provided the cadence for marching feet. [48] Pendright (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC) @Pendright: The last sentence is copied directly from the quotation. I would recommend dropping entirely or rewriting, such as "The women marched in formation between drills and classes". Catrìona (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC) @Catrìona: Dropped - Pendright (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Assignments/Personnel/Demob Initially, they were prohibited from serving in commands afloat and outside of the country. I assume you mean: "Initially, they were prohibited from serving on ships or outside of the country." Yes, changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC) The officers served in many professional capacities, including doctors; attorneys; engineers and mathematicians; and chaplains. Suggest "The officers served as doctors, attorneys, engineers, mathematicians, and chaplains." Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC) The enlisted WAVES undertook jobs such as aviation machinist; aviation metalsmith; parachute rigger; control tower operator; radio operator; yeoman; and statistician; as well as working in areas such as administration; personnel, and health care. Although some of the enlisted women had the opportunity to work in fields previously held by the men, most worked in a secretarial or clerical position. Suggest: "Most enlisted WAVES worked in secretarial or clerical positions in administration, personnel, and health care. A few took over jobs typically held by men, such as aviation machinist, aviation metalsmith, parachute rigger, control tower operator, radio operator, yeoman, or statistician." Most enlisted WAVES worked in traditional jobs, such as clerical, health care, or storekeeping. A few took over jobs typically held by men, such as aviation machinist, aviation metalsmith, parachute rigger, control tower operator, radio operator, yeoman, or statistician. Pendright (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) The WAVES enjoyed many successes in the workplace, but they also suffered from a degree of intolerance. Some of the problems sprang from contradictory attitudes of the men who supervised the women. Often, the women were underutilized in relation to their training, while others were assigned roles to which they were not physically suited. In some cases the women were utilized only out of dire need. The mission of the WAVES was to replace the men in shore stations for sea duty, which led to some hostility from those who did not wish to be released. The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies early on also contributed to the difficulties. The bolded words imply a value judgement which is best avoided. Suggest: "The mission of the WAVES was to replace the men in shore stations for sea duty, which led to some hostility from those who did not wish to be released. Due to the contradictory attitudes of their male superiors, some WAVES were underutilized in relation to their training, while others were assigned roles to which they were not physically suited. In some cases the women were utilized only out of dire need. The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies early on also contributed to the difficulties." Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Wanting to serve her country in the time of need was a strong incentive for a young woman during World War II; thousands of them saw fit to join the WAVES. With some, it was the lure of adventure, for others it was the professional development, and still others joined for the chance to experience life on college campuses. Some followed family traditions and others yearned for a life other than as a civilian. This could be more concise and neutral. Perhaps: "Many young women joined the WAVES out of patriotism or family tradition. Others were motivated by adventure, professional development, or the experience of life in the military or on college campuses." Changed per suggestion - ```` During the course of the war, seven WAVE officers and 62 enlisted women died of unspecified causes. This sounds like other women might have died of specified causes. I would cut the phrase "of unspecified causes". Dropped _ Pendright (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) The WAVES left behind a legacy of accomplishment, which helped to secure a place for the women in the regular Navy. Attribute this opinion, for example: "Ebbert and Hall argue that the WAVES' accomplishments helped to secure a place for the women in the regular Navy." Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) @Pendright: It looks like you've addressed all of my suggestions except for one thing above that I added later: In the lede you have: Mildred H. McAfee became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain. On leave as President of Wellesley College, McAfee was an experienced educator and highly respected in her field. I think this could be shortened, because the fact that she was president of Wellesley already implies that she was an experienced, respected educator (which may be a WP:PEACOCK issue to say in Wikipedia voice). How about: Mildred H. McAfee, on leave as president of Wellesley College, became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain. If you fix this I will switch to support. Thanks for your thorough work on this article! Catrìona (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Mildred H. McAfee, on leave as president of Wellesley College, became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain. Pendright (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Source Review by Factotem

General

• No unsourced paragraphs found;
• The statement that Dr. Ada Comstock was "...President of Radcliffe College (1925–1943)..." in the image caption is not sourced either in the article or in the image description over at Commons (and the WP article on her gives her years as president as 1923–1943);

Changed, 1923 is correct - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That she was president still needs a source. Factotem (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)–

It’s sourced in the text under Creation of the program, along with the other council members – citation 9, Ebbert & Hall page 3 2.

According to the GBooks snippet, the source states that she was president, but does not give the years of her tenure. Factotem (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This New York Times source confirms her tenure as president. However, each time I try to cite it, the results raise red flags. Could I prevail upon you to cite it?

Fowle, Farnsworth (December 13, 1973). "Ada Comstock Notestein Dies; President of Radcliffe, 1923–43". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-03-18. Pendright (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what problems you were experiencing. You successfully added the source to the bibliography, and I was able to add an inline ref citing that source to the caption. No matter, all good now. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

THANKS! Pendright (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• The information provided in the captions of the two images in the Personnel section is unsourced. Strike that. The way they are formatted prevented me from accessing the commons descriptions. I was able to do so from a revision in the article history before that formatting was applied, and verify that the captions are sourced to those descriptions. Factotem (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Technical checks

• References formatted correctly;
• Not sure it's necessary to link locations in the bibliography, but just pointing out that New York in the last publication is not linked.

Linked - Pendright (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

External links

• Ext link checker does not report any serious issues;
• The ISBN number provided for Ebert and Hall's Crossed Currents relates to the 1999 edition of Crossed Currents: Navy Women in a Century of Change, published by Potomac Books. This is a 400-page book. The rest of the bibliographical information, however, specifies the 1993 edition published by Brassey's. Worldcat lists two different editions of works by Ebert and Hall published by Brassey's Washington facility in 1993, both with the different title of Crossed currents : Navy women from WWI to Tailhook. This one has the ISBN 9780028810225 and runs to 321 pages, while this one has the ISBN 9780028811123 and runs to 341 pages. As well as apparently being two different publications, the three different paginations might affect the page numbering in references sourced to the work;

Bibliography:

Corrected Ebert to Ebbert

Added subtitle: Navy Women from WWI to Tailhook

Corrected ISBN # to: 0-02-881022-8

Confirm: 1993 edition

Pendright (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe we're expected to use consistent ISBN formats at FAC, which in this case is ISBN-13 (i.e. 9780028810225, though I don't know how that should be hyphenated). Factotem (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Confused! The ISBN listed in the Biography is the ISBN that is contained in my 1993 edition. Pendright (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Using https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter converts that ISBN-10 number to 978-0-02-881022-5 in ISBN-13 format. I'm not even sure consistent ISBN formatting is a rule for FAC, but it gets picked up on every time, so I just go with the flow. Factotem (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed per above, thank you! Pendright (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Also: is her name Ebert or Ebbert? Catrìona (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct name is Ebbert, in the process of changing - Pendright (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ebbert completed - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Goodson's Serving Proudly has the tagline "a history of women in the U.S. Navy" which I think could usefully be added to the title so that it reads Serving Proudly: a history of women in the U.S. Navy, especially given the ambiguity in titling identified above for Crossed Currents;

Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Similar. Full title of Hancock's book is Lady in the Navy : a Personal Reminiscence;

Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Similar. Full title of Yellin's book is Our mothers' war : American women at home and at the front during World War II.

Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality and reliability of sources

• Nothing to indicate any problems here. I have made the assumption that university and military presses are reliable, and found nothing of concern in an admittedly quick search for information about Brassey's and Free Press.

Comprehensiveness

• A Gbooks search for United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve) did not reveal any potential sources not already used in the article.

Spotchecks I was able to access the MacGregor and Hancock works, though the last two references to Hancock (pp. 216 & 232) were not available in the GBooks preview.

• The statement "The legislation that established the WAVES contained nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of people of color, but the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white" is sourced to MacGregor pp. 74–75, but I see nothing in that source to suggest that the Navy Department made a conscious decision, only that the WAVES "...celebrated their second birthday exclusively white."

  "No black women had been admitted to the Navy. Race was not mentioned in the legislation establishing the WAVES in 1942, but neither was exclusion on account of color expressly forbidden. The WAVES and the Women's Reserve of both the Coast Guard (SPARS) and the Marine Corps therefore celebrated their second birthday exclusively white. The Navy Nurse Corps was also totally white. In answer to protests passed to the service through Eleanor Roosevelt, the Navy admitted in November 1943 that it had a shortage of 500 nurses, but since another 500 white nurses were under indoctrination and training, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery explained, "the question relative to the necessity for accepting colored personnel in this category is not apparent" (pp. 74-75) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see nothing there that explicitly supports the statement "the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white". It would be accurate, based on that source, to say there were no coloured recruits, but not accurate to state a reason why there were none. Factotem (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Would this work:

The legislation that established the WAVES was silent with respect to racial type, but the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white.

Pendright (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

'Fraid not. The source does not state that the reason why the WAVES was exclusively white was due to a conscious decision by the Navy Department. Factotem (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How about this: The legislation that established the WAVES was silent with respect to racial type, but Knox said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body. Pendright (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's consistent with the source. Factotem (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed per above - Pendright (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• The statement "Those that remained in the WAVES after the war were employed without discrimination, but there were only five left by September 1946" is sourced to MacGregor p. 247, but that information appears on p. 248. Also, the source dates its information only relative to VJ Day which, I believe, was in August, so where does September come from in that statement?

  "on V-J Day; a year later that number had been reduced to 5 black WAVES and 1 nurse".(p. 248) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And VJ Day is in August, so specifying September in the article is incorrect. Factotem (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Chaged page number to 248 and September to August - Pendright (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing issue:
  • In the article, "...black WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations."
  • In the source, "Although black WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations..."
• Paraphrasing issue:
  • In the article, "...the rationale was to teach the fundamental traditions of life and work in the naval service, focusing on administrative procedures."
  • In the source, "...the aim was to teach the basic fundamentals of life and work in the naval service with emphasis on administrative procedures..."

The objective was to prepare the candidates with a base understanding of the naval environment, while stressing administrative policy. Pendright (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's all. [[User:|Factotem]] (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• • So what's the issue? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording in the article is too close to the wording in the source, hence copyright concerns. The second example is, perhaps, borderline, but the first is almost an exact copy. Factotem (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

What copyright concerns? It is a public domain text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding, per the guidelines on avoiding plagiarism detailed here and here, is that even public domain sources should not be copied verbatim or too closely paraphrased without attribution. An inline citation is not by itself sufficient attribution, and the best way to avoid accusations of plagiarism is to summarise the source in one's own words. Factotem (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

G'day, not an area I know much about, but in the first instance would something like this work: While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of specialty assignments and also accommodation, which was segregated on some bases? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would work for me. Factotem (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I had a go at adjusting the wording to deal with both instances. These are my changes: [21]. I hope this helps, but if there are any concerns, please feel free to revert and adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Those changes are fine by me. Factotem (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite all. Given that I found two issues of too-close paraphrasing, I did a little more digging. The Earwig copy-vio tool reports "violation unlikely", but with a low level of confidence. It also identifies that the first three sentences in the lead are almost a verbatim copy of text published on the Stony Brook University library web site. Factotem (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: I’ve never been on any University of Stony Brook site, until I read your comments. Since then, I found that the text to which you refer was published on 3 March 2018, while the WAVES article was already approved as a GA on 16 February 2016. BTW, in case you did not observe, the site has no substantive information on the general history of the WAVES. Pendright (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't occur to me to check through the article history to see which site copied which. Well spotted. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcing All issues above have been addressed, and I can see no reason to oppose based on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - Pendright (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You had the same query during the article’s ACR, and the response to it is cut and pasted here:

File:Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

On 18 March 2018, this image was substituted for the one I had originally posted.

The helpful editor who made the improvement shared this information with us:

Hi there. I checked the image file at the Commons. The marginal text on the original version states that it is from the Radcliffe Archives, and the Schlesinger Library posted the file at Flickr in 2014, stating that there are "no known copyright restrictions". The institution itself has made the image available, so the licensing tag used when it was uploaded at the Commons in 2016 is appropriate and sufficient. The image depicts Ada Louise Comstock in her professional capacity at Radcliffe, and is stamped with an archival ID number. Since the institution's library posted the image at Flickr, it's evident that "the institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control ... or has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions". Further discussion could take place at the Commons. Pendright (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Pendright (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Pendright, on the home run now! It seems so long since we discussed this before the AC review. I've just made a few edits, all minor. Please undo any you don't agree with. Below are a few small suggestions to consider...

Thank you - Pendright (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• lede says "The WAVES were primarily white, but 74 African-American women did eventually serve" while the Recruiting section says "By July 1945, some 72 African-American WAVES had undergone recruit training" - is the discrepany of 2 intentional?

Source says 72, corrected - Pendright (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• "... although the official name of the training station was the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School." - add wlink to United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School?

Linked - Pendright (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• "After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal moved to reform the Navy's racial policies..." - including the exact date makes it read as if Forrestal acted that very day. How about just "After his death in April 1944..."?

After his death in April 1944, his successor Forrestal moved to reform the Navy's racial policies, - Question: Do you think Forrestal is supplemental and should be set off by commas? Pendright (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It reads fine to me but I'm not too confident with punctuation! JennyOz (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• taps - there are 4 mentions. It appears from its article and per this image, that as the name of a piece of music, it should take a capital T each mention. (Similarly to Reveille.)

All four now uppercase - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Their design services were secured (without cost) through the efforts of Mrs. James V. Forrestal, wife of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy." - many readers will take umbrage at a woman being called only by her husband's name (even if it was more common back then). Can I please respectfully ask that this sentence be changed to something like: "Their design services were secured (without cost) through the efforts of Josephine Forrestal, a former fashion editor at Vogue and the wife of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy." ? (It wasn't just because she was his wife, she had experience and contacts. If you agree, you'll need to add this NYT article as an extra ref.

Great idea, changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Although, the greatest number of WAVES came from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio." - I'd remove "Although" ie start sentence with 'The' and I think "number" should be 'numbers'. Maybe also link Pennsylvania?

Chaned per suggestions - Pendright (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• The end sentences for both of the Training subsections, ie for Officers and for Enlisted personnel are nearly identical:

• "Unlike the training on the college campuses, the training offered at these facilities was coeducational."
• "Unlike the training on the college campuses, the training at these facilities was coeducational."
• Maybe the second one can be tweaked to 'these facilities were also coeducational.'?

Chaged per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bibliography
  • Fowle, Farnsworth ... Retrieved 2018-11-20. - date format is different to MacGregor, Morris J., Jr. ... Retrieved 30 March 2018.

Changed to agree - Pendright (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Hancock, Joy Bright - add authorlink

That is all I have for now. I look forward to supporting your nomination. Just let me know if you need any clarification of the changes I just made or of any of my suggestions above. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Bibliography: I could use some clarification on the following: Hancock, Joy Bright - add authorlink? Aside from this, I think I have responded to all of your comments – if not I stand ready to do so. Pendright (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added the authorlink but happy for you to remove or ask another reviewer if it's okay. JennyOz (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JennyOz: By way of explanation: I suspected that was the intended meaning, but since I remembered linking her in the Background section, I was a bit confused. While the reference to her survived the ACR, it did not survive the FAR. So thanks again for your keen eye. I wonder, though, if linking her in the body of the article might be more consistent. Pendright (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pendright: Oh yes, definitely retain her link in the body. If it's overlink that you are concerned about, MOS:REPEATLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" so, from my understanding, authorlinks are fine to add, even if that person is already linked elsewhere. My understanding is that the "helpful" is that it reinforces author credibility, especially if the reader hasn't noticed that the author is already included within the article, but we could ask a coordinator if you're still concerned? JennyOz (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@JennyOz: No problem, thanks again. Pendright (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Pendright: I am very happily adding my support. I salute your dedicated work with this article! Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your support and kind words. Pendright (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ian

Recusing from coord duties, I missed this at MilHist ACR so taking the opportunity to review here. Pls let me know any issues with my copyedit -- outstanding points:

Thank you for your edits and the opportunity to respond to them. As for the edits, some did attract my attention:

Recruiting:

The had to possess a high school or a business diploma, or have equivalent experience.

The is probably intended to be they? And the lead will need changing to correspond with the body of the article.

Sorry, yes, my typo (now fixed). Could you explain how the lead needs changing to correspond with the body now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

My mistake! Pendright (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Background:

As auxiliaries, women would serve with the Army rather than in it

Why auxiliaries? Why not as an auxiliary?

I felt it better to match plural with plural ("auxiliaries" with "women") but I guess either is fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A reasonable conclusion on your part – I went singular because it was a specific auxiliary. Anyway, thanks! Pendright (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mildred H. McAfee image:

she was ranked lieutenant commander.

Would adding the indefinite article a smooth it out a bit?

Pendright (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC

Perhaps this is an EngVar thing but leaving out the indefinite article is more common in my experience.

Another possible EngVar thing is your edits that change "aged" to "age" -- "aged" (verb) reads much better to me that "age" (noun). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I bow to your superior experience. Pendright (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reynard quickly formed the Women's Advisory Council to meet with Navy officials. Gildersleeve became the chairperson. Because of her efforts, several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. -- I'm unsure whose efforts we're referring to in the last sentence.

Gildersleeve became the chairperson, and because of her efforts several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. Pendright (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve corresponding with the WAAC legislation -- doesn't make sense to me grammatically; do we mean the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve corresponding with the WAAC legislation, or the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve corresponding with the WAAC legislation, or something else again?

On 25 May 1942, the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve for the U.S. Navy should parallel that of the original WAAC legislation – where women would serve with the Army rather than in it. Pendright (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• McAfee played important decision-making roles in the WAVES' treatment compared to the men -- I think I get what's meant by compared to the men but if you could clarify then we might be able to express it even better.

She also said McAfee played an important role in policy making in matters such as how the women would be treated compared to the men, with respect to assignments they would take, as well as their housing conditions, supervision, and discipline standards. Pendright (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• The focus of their advertising campaign was patriotism and the need for women -- feels incomplete, the need for women to free up men for overseas service for instance?
  • Response to this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The focus of their advertising campaign was patriotism and the need for women to free up men for overseas duty. Pendright (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• McAfee demanded good taste in all the advertising -- the mind boggles, did someone advocate bad taste?

McAfee demanded good taste in all advertising, determined to cast the WAVES in a ladylike fashion. She said, "Advertising must appeal to conservative parents, schools, and churches as well as to the young women themselves." Pendright (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Stopping there for the moment, will return later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Captain H. W. Underwood -- we seem to have first names for other COs rather than just initials.

Herbert W. Underwood - Pendright (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES -- you describe her as a commander later (under Personnel) so it might be worth adding her final rank here as well (e.g. later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, rising to commander)

Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, rising to a commander, was tasked with selecting a name. Pendright (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Other officers attended the Naval Technical Training Command School, while others trained to become aviation instructors. -- we have a mix here of where some went and what some did; can we expand slightly to say what they did at Naval Technical Training Command School and where they trained as aviation instructors (and did this actually mean training to teach people to fly, in which case I'd say "flight instructors", or training to teach other aspects of military aviation such as wireless, navigation, aerial gunnery, aircraft maintenance, etc)?

Other officers attended the Naval Air Technical Training Command Schools in Corpus Christi, Texas, and Hollywood, Florida, to train as air navigation instructions. Unlike the training on the college campuses, the training offered at these facilities was coeducational. Pendright (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• The recruit training routine began each weekday morning with classes and drill... -- we seem to go into detail about the typical training week for enlisted recruits but not for the officer recruits; I think the article should be consistent in this regard (if the typical training weeks were similar, perhaps give the detail in the officer subsection and then just say in the enlisted subsection that it was similar).

You’re right, there is an imbalance of information between the two. The several sources I used in the article seemed short on officer candidate information, but longer on enlisted recruit training information. A lame argument! Anyway, after reviewing most of these sources again, the only addition I found for the officer candidate’s is: They took physical education and they drilled. But, there is an enormous difference between how each was prepared for life in the Navy. While I’m not a Navy historian, I am a U.S. Navy service veteran and have come to know something about this military service. Whether it is relative or not, I can’t say but it is worth mentioning. The officer candidates are midshipmen and go to officer candidate school, where they study a curriculum. The enlisted folks, on the other hand, are recruits and go to boot camp, where they receive training. I’ve scrutinized the six publications that deal with the WAVES and my efforts have not put a dent in this imbalance. One thought might be to summarize some of the enlisted material. What do you think? Pendright (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Tks for all that, Pendright -- yes, I think you could afford to trim the enlisted info slightly to redress the balance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Slightly is all I could manage! Pendright (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• The Assignments section feels a little thin in comparison to the other sections -- if you tell me this is reflective of the sources' weighting then fair enough, otherwise I think it could use a bit more detail, say another paragraph's worth (the issues noted in the second paragraph could be expanded upon as well, perhaps with some examples).

I tweaked the first paragraph, added a second paragraph, and reworked the third paragraph. Pendright (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Another became the only female nautical engineer in the entire U.S. Navy -- even if she's not notable in WP terms, it'd be consistent to name her since we've named Grace Hopper in the previous sentence.

Elsa Gardner - Pendright (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Most enlisted WAVES worked in traditional jobs -- given the next sentence I assume this means jobs traditionally performed by women in the civilian world, but might be worth clarifying.

Most enlisted WAVES worked in traditional jobs (i.e., the jobs most women had done in civilian life), such as clerical work, health care, or storekeeping. Pendright (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Seven WAVE officers and 62 enlisted women died -- at the risk of going into too much detail, can we say something about the causes of death, e.g. transport accidents, or accidents during training?

Beyond what is in the article, my sources are silent on accidents and deaths. Pendright (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• The wartime assumptions that prohibited the women from duty in any unit designated as having a combat mission carried over with the 1948 Act, which effectively incorporated the women into the service organizations, legally keeping them from being integrated into the heart of the military and naval professions for more than a quarter of a century. -- I'm not sure I understand how women could be "effectively incorporated" into the services and at the same time kept from being "integrated into the heart of the military and naval professions"; perhaps come clarification is needed.

I'm still wrestling with this! Pendright (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

On 30 July 1948, the Women's Armed Services Integration Act (Public Law 625) was signed into law, allowing the women to serve in the regular Army or Navy on a permanent basis..[59] But, the wartime prohibition of women serving in any unit having a combat mission was carried over into the 1948 Act, which still prohibited the women from serving in any unit designated as having a combat mission. While the legislation was an extraordinary advancement for women, it effectively kept them from being integrated into the mainstream of the military for more than a quarter of a century. Though the WAVES no longer existed, the obsolete acronym continued in popular and official usage until the 1970s.[60] Pendright (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone through the changes to the article arising from my comments and tweaked/trimmed in places. Assuming I've introduced no errors, I'm happy to support, and thank Pendright for his ready engagement re. the above suggestions/queries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Pendright (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Support with the caveat that I wrote a small part of the article. During the A-class review I complained about the treatment of racial discrimination, which I felt was being soft-pedalled in line with the sources, many of which felt the issue was too sensitive to handle honestly. Pendright offered to let me rewrite it, which I did. Of course the same sensitivities aroused passions at this review, for which I apologise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your contribution did cause a bump or two along the way, but it's germane to the story, and you deserve thanks for shining a light on it. Thanks too for your continuing support of this article. Pendright (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2019 [22].

---

Siege of Berwick (1333)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is an examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, Serial Number 54129, Casliber, and CPA-5: Apologies for the delayed response. I somehow managed to delete this from my watchlist. Many thanks to all four of you for taking a look at this. Apologies for the high incidence of errors and infelicities which you have kindly picked up and pointed out. I have, I think, addressed all of the points you have raised below.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I will surely review this soon (I have a few other reviews to finish first). FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

• I wonder if this[23] monument photo could be useful, perhaps in the aftermath section? Or maybe it is too tangential?

There is a separate article on the battle, which features this image prominently. I have tried to concentrate very much on the siege, lest I be accused of gratuitously creating an article which would be best merged with Battle of Halidon Hill. It seems to me that it is part of the aftermath of the battle, not of the siege.

Now we're at it, what is the rationale for separating the two articles? Seems they would fit snugly into one (here)? FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) well, if anything, combined the resultant article would be ~80,000 bytes, and per WP:TOOBIG—not policy by any means, of course—articles that size probably should be divided. Imho only, it might be undue. ——SerialNumber54129 15:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That is increasingly being ignored as Internet gets faster, though, see the size of recent FAs Maya civilization and Cleopatra (both more than double the size of what the combined article here would be)... FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I am clearly not opposed to loooong articles myself; but I'm not particularly comfortable with assuming the internet speed of readers outside the West, tbh. Although clearly the articles are connected, they deserve discrete treatments. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm interested in knowing where the distinction is drawn here, though. It is not entirely clear from reading the article. As for 80 kb articles, I'd say that's well within average size of recent FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a necessary question, certainly: perhaps a move discussion is indicated? Apologies, though, to you for not allowing the nom to answer, and apologies to the nom for hijacking the thread. ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: No problem, this is Wikipedia - hijack away. You brought up a couple of points which hadn't occurred to me.

@FunkMonk: Give me a little longer and I will come back on this.

@FunkMonk and Serial Number 54129: You have put your finger squarely on a reductionist dilemma. There is, so far as I can see, no logical boundary. The lumpers and the splitters will have to fight it out. However, a few reasons for a separate article, in addition to the points Serial Number 54129 raises, spring to mind:

1. The MilHist tradition of separating out battles from campaigns, where sources permit. Eg there is an article on the Normandy Campaign in WWII, a separate one on D-Day, five more for the individual landings plus four covering the various operations of the 6th Airbourne division on D-Day alone. Plus articles on various commando, Ranger and resistance activities and on the air bombardment, the naval bombardment, the logistic arrangements, etc, etc. Similarly the Battle of Waterloo has at least ten articles on the two week campaign.
2. The siege seems to have received a fair amount of coverage from RSs independent of the battle.
3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One can reasonably assume that readers consult it for a digested view of a particular topic, with clear indicators to related topics, rather than a text book size review of everything related to it in the original article.
4. In this particular case I would have thought that someone wanting information about the battle would not wish to wade through the minutiae of the siege, and to a lesser extent the reverse. Much as a reader wanting information on English Bulldogs would not wish that to be bundled into Canis lupus familiaris on the entirely logical grounds that they are all one species. At which point the H. s. sapiens discussion occurs to me and I realise that I am getting well off topic.

I will leave it at that for now. If it ends up in a formal move discussion I'll dig into the policies properly, but so far I haven't turned up anything directly relevant.

• Link Yorkshire?

Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• "announcing that it was Scotland who was" Is it common to refer to countries as "who?

No, it's not. Corrected.

• Why do measurements have imperial units first? Given this is a UK topic, I'd expect the metric system to be primary here.

I'm not with you. It has imperial units first because it is a UK topic, per WP:UNIT.

• "Based on Sumption" Why not give date as well?

Because that's in footnote 47, cited immediately after "Based on Sumption".

• You say both Robert the Bruce and Robert Bruce', should perhaps be consistent.

Apologies, I thought that I had picked up all of those. Done.

• "the attacks by land and sea had brought the town was to a state of ruin" Seems "was" is superfluous.

It is. Removed.

• I wonder if it would be more pleasing to the eye if the trebuchet image was right aligned; it would then "aim" towards the text (rather than away), similar to how we are encouraged to place images of people so that they face the text.

Done.

• "Alexander Seton was responsible for the defence of the town." You should introduce him, like you do others. Now, I only know he was the governor by this line: " William Seton, son of the Governor".

Good point. Done.

• "A 19th-century view" Why not just give the date? Artist could be linked as well.

Because it seems to me to be superfluous and potentially distracting detail. To my mind giving the precise year would actually not be as informative as giving the general period. Similarly re the artist; the image is meant to represent a whole era's view of the battle. If you feel that it is failing to do that, then fine; I can remove it. If you think that the date and artist need to be more accessible than clicking on the image I could add a footnote.

• "If Berwick were to be saved immediate action on the part of the Scottish guardian was unavoidable" Direct quotes should be attributed in-text.

Only if the quote is an opinion, which this is of course. Thanks for picking that up. Done.

• "To save the lives of those who remained Keith, who" I'm pretty sure there should be a comma before the name too.

Done.

• "Edward III had for his queen he knew that Bamburgh" This seems nonsensical.

Correct. Some text had gone missing. Fixed.

• "after a Scottish army bypassed him and advanced on York, where his queen was staying, devastated Yorkshire and defeated" and "after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying and devastated Yorkshire" seems like you repeat something without being aware of the repetition. Perhaps you could make it clear that this is a reiteration.

Oh dear. I hadn't spotted that. Both reworded.

• "and William Keith was to be allowed" You don't need to spell out full names after first mention. You've usually just said Keith until then.

Fixed.

• "Sir William Keith and the Earl" Likewise.

Fixed.

• "Sir Alexander Seton in turn did homage" Likewise, and why only refer to him as Sir all the way down here?

Incompetence? Both fixed.

• Douglas "had little choice but to re-cross the Tweed and face Edward's army" again needs attribution, though I'm not sure why this and other such quotes can't just be paraphrased.

Paraphrased.

• "but this would guartantee to loss of Berwick" Guarantee the loss?

Correct. Thanks. Fixed.

• "the future Richard III, in 1482." Could add "of England" just to make it clear for everyone (even unfamiliar readers) where the town went to.

Good point. Done. A little differently than you suggest.

• Pretty much ready to support, just want to make sure if something more is on its way considering your comment "You brought up a couple of points which hadn't occurred to me", as well as thoughts on separation of the two intertwined articles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk My comment re the "couple of points" was an encouragement for SN54129 to hijack, as the comments he had already made included some germane points which had not and probably would not have occurred to me. There is no more to come from me other than the fairly casual musings on lumping and splitting above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - this article looks good to me now, and I can't say I know enough about the subject to give any qualified opinion on whether the two articles should be separate or not. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Interesting read. Queries below:

The Siege of Berwick took place in 1333 when the Scottish-held town of Berwick-upon-Tweed was captured by an English army commanded by King Edward III (r. 1327–1377) after a siege of four months - I know it is prudent to have the article name in the sentence. I wish there was some way of reducing the repetition of "seige", maybe "The Siege of Berwick took place over four months in 1333, ending with the capture of the Scottish-held town of Berwick-upon-Tweed by an English army commanded by King Edward III (r. 1327–1377)" or something like that...?

Good thinking. Done.

Berwick was a prosperous town; according to... - you could subtract the" Berwick was a prosperous town" segment as it is explained in the following segment - let Edington's words speak for themselves.

Done.

propter incursiones Scotorum cum incendijs ac multas alias illatas iniurias regno Anglie - should this be italicised?

It certainly should. Done.

Apologies for the disjointed response; only part of what I thought I had written seems to have actually happened.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, support on comprehensiveness and prose. A nice little read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review

<placeholder>I'll get to this in the next couple of days; I think I've got most of the sources. ——SerialNumber54129 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi SN, given you have sources, could I ask you to spotcheck for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (something I'd usually request at an editor's first nom but didn't), as well as undertaking the regular source review for formatting and reliability? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, Ian Rose. ——SerialNumber54129 12:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• This revision reviewed.

Sources used.

• The following are all undoubtedly high-quality and generally academic sources: Barrow, Blackenstall, Brown, Corfis + Wolfe, de Brie, Forster, Geldard, King, MacDonald Fraser, Maurer, Maxwell, McKisack, Nicholson, Oman, Ormrod, Prestwich, Robson, Rodwell, Rogers, Strickland + Hardy, Sumption, Weir, Wyntourn.
• Creighton is dated; since it is a general history, does it say anything that hasn't been said much more recently—and if it's only referencing Balliol's disinherited, a more up to date piece of scholarship is suggested.

Crieghton was duplicated by Weir. I am not entirely sure why I left him in. Now removed.

• I'd like to question—without prejudice—what makes the following reliable sources? Northumberland Tourist Office, the Battlefields Resource Centre, the book by Grant (which seems to be an illustrated history, but I haven't got it, so if you suggest otherwise AGF kicks in!), and Seton. The latter I'm slightly concerned about—not only it's age, but you know it was printed directly from Setons own MS—no review, no editing, and IIRC it consists of his—very individual!—view of his own family. If not actually autobiographical, it lacks the independence I think we expect at a FAC-level source. Still, as ever, I am open to being (un)convinced... :)

Grant replaced by Ormrod (2012) p 159. Text altered to reflect new source.

Northumberland Tourist Office replaced by a new source - Pettifer.

Battlefields Resource Centre replaced by a new source - Bradbury.

Seton terminated with prejudice.

Formatting

• Since Ormrod and his Edward III are used as a reference, he can be omitted from the "Further Reading" section.

Done.

• We are encouraged to archive (and to provide links) for websites used, see WP:LR; it's probably not necessary for something like the ODNB who track their own pages, but the Tourist Office, etc., if they are kept, should certainly be archived.

Only the ONDB is now unarchived. Trying to clarify for myself for what the requirements are, the best I can find is the guideline "Citing Sources": "consider archiving the referenced document when writing the article"; is there anything a bit firmer? If I am reading your comment correctly, you are suggesting that it is acceptable at FAC that some links not be archived, while a requirement that others are; this (like so many things on Wikipedia) is new to me and if there is some clarification as to which is which you could point me to it would help me to avoid future errors.

• I see some author links, and most not. I assume you chose only to link those with WP articles, but I think consistency is more important, so would suggest all or none. And per WP:REDYES, this can be an encouragement for others to create said article. Up to you which way you go though.

I have been "encouraged" by previous assessors to link authors with articles as a minimum. All author links removed.

• Another point regarding consistency is the Gbooks links. Although it may at first glance seem helpful to our lord and master—the WP:READER—this opinion from Iridescent offers an alternative—and I think extremely useful—perspective on why not to link to Gbooks, which I admit I find wholly persuasive.

I am not sure as to the action needed here, if any. Are you requiring me to either Google link every book, or none; ie be consistent. Or pointing out your and Iridesent's views for information?

• You're currently using a mix of surname/first name and surname/initials; select one and stick with it.

I had been told that I should consistently transcribe what it says on the book's title page, but full names now replace initials.

• 13-digit ISBNs, IIRC, should be in the format 123-4-56789-012-3; see Brown, Geldard etc.

Even if that does not match the title page? Eg Ormrod.

• The Steel Bonnets published by HarperCollins, not Collins Harvil  :)

Done.

• Ormrod's ODNB entry can be simply linked to the page rather than the individual section.
• Prestwich's Edward I is noted as part of the Yale Monarchs series, yet Ormrod's Edward III is not?

Done.

• Likewise, Sumption's book could be noted as being vol.II in the The Hundred Years War series?

Done.

• Corvis + Wolfe is (I think) the only work you've listed as being publisher/town/UK. No need for UK, although NY is correct for Rochester.

Sloppy of me. Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Spot-checks

• 4b: Nicolson, p.19, check.
• 7: Wyntourn, p.395, check.
• 12: Ormrod, p,212, check.
• 13: MacDonald Fraser, p.38, check.
• 16: Prestwich, p.471, check.
• 19b: Sumption, p.130, not in source (but is in Nicholson so can be removed with no loss.

Done.

• 19c: Sumption, p.130, only covers Balliol's earlier arrival; augment with Nicholson p.26.

Done.

• 19d: Sumption, p.130, source mentions 1319 ("In the third week of July, Douglas was forced to take the step which every Scotch commander since the early days of Edward I's wars had learned to avoid at all costs. He recrossed the Tweed and offered battle to the English army.") but not the size or recruitment of Douglas's army. Try Nicholson, p.29.

Done.

• 19e: Sumption, p.130, touches on catapults (no mention of trebuchets?); Nicholson provides Crabb's background, pp=26–27—although note Crabb without the e.

Added source equating catapults to trebuchets. "two catapults … [t]his clearly means that they were counterweight trebuchets."

• 19f: Sumption, p.130, no mention of Seton at all (or his spirited defence), although the ref does back the exhaustion of the garrison.

Seton and his defence removed. (I have found the reference I used for this, which I had removced as being a bit old (19th C) to be reliable but omitted to remove the material it cited. (D'oh!))

• 19g: Sumption, p.130, Sumption is not as detailed as this, merely stating that "{tq|on 28 June the Warden of the town agreed to surrender in two weeks unless by then he had been relieved...When Berwick failed to surrender on the appointed day, Edward began to hang hostages, beginning with the son of the garrison commander and continuing at a rate of two a day}}"—no mention of Thomas, his father or 11 July.

Further source added.

• 19h: Sumption, p.130, not in source. If you get rid of the Sumption ref (and the Seton becomes redundant too, as it happens), and add Nicholson p.39 n.2, that's the thing covered.

Done.

• 19i: Sumption, p.130, check.
• 19j: Sumption, p.130, destruction of Tweedmouth and Edward's refusal to be distracted, check; the "Douglas entered England on 11 July, the last day of Seton's truce" needs a source. Suggest Nicholson p.29.

Done.

• 19k: Sumption, p.130, not in source; but covered by the Nicholson (as usual!) that's already there.

Done.

• 19l: Sumption, p.130, not in source.

Replaced.

• 19m: Sumption, p.130, check.
• 19n: Sumption, p.130, re. "On the following day...chosen by Edward III", check. But Duns, and its details are covered by Nicholson, p.36.

Done.

• 19o: Sumption, p.130, no mention of Falkirk, Stirling Bridge, or marshy ground; Dupplin Moor stands up. (The marshy ground can be sourced to Nicholson p.36 if you want)

The unsourced battles deleted.

• 19p: Sumption, p.130, The quote is found in Nicholson, p.39, not Sumption.

Sloppy. Apologies. Done, using Hall. Who, on examination is citing good old Nicholson, so replaced with him.

• 19q: Sumption, p.130, check.
• 19r: Sumption, p.130, Sumption only described English casualties as "light"; but the figures are covered by the other two refs, so the good lord can be removed here.

Done.

• 19s: Sumption, p.130, for the general fact of surrender, check; but the detail—Keith, March, witnessing executions "just out of bowshot" and the indentures are not.

Frustratingly I can't find my source for this. Possibly back in the UK. I have added Tuck to cover the indentures and deleted the rest.

• 20: McKisack, 117, check.
• 21a: Nicolson, p.21, should be pp.20–21.

Done.

• 26b: Nicholson, p.23, should be pp.23–24.

Done.

• 27b: Nicholson, p.24, check.
• 31: Nicholson, p.26, check.
• 32: Nicholson, p.27, redundant.

Removed.

• 34: Nicholson, p.24 n.2, check.
• 36: Nicholson, pp.26–28, just p.27.

Done.

• 37: de Brie, p.281, check.
• 38b: Nicholson, p.28, check.
• 40a: Nicholson, p.29, check.
• 52: Nicholson, p.41, source uses the phrase "shown no quarter" rather than "murdered"; suggest "killed" per WP:WTW.

Done.

• 60 Maurer, p.204, check.

Comment

@FAC coordinators: Although the spot-check might look scary, it looks worse than it is—It's only the Sumption that's been an issue, which is a general history of the period which would be used to back the main themes alongside a specialist source. It's clearly a case of information being removed and a corresponding ref not (re)moved with it, and in many cases, the information is found within other sources already used, which I've dug out. As to the general treatment, with the exception of a couple of queries above, the range of sources is broad, well used, and comprehensive. Nothing of any consequence is missing. The tweaks above—are merely tweaks, and I should emphasise that there were absolutely no copyright violations or close-paraphrasing issues apparent. Best of luck with this Gog the Mild, these are pretty superficial issues, all things considered. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: What a wonderful review. Many thanks. I shall start working through it. (I am hoping that not having access to my hard copies is not going to hold me up.)

Yes, it was the coverage in Sumption that inspired me to start researching the topic, so I have probably over-relied on it. Anyway, more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: And, finally, I think that I have finished. See what you think. Apologies for taking so long. I have missed my paper sources and found it frustrating and time consuming tracking things down on the web. On the plus side, I did discover Tuck, who has been useful around the edges. Anyway, thanks for your patience and your helpfulness. Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Greetings Gog. We meet each other again, on this article. I did found some issues (not a lot). Of course I didn't mention them in the article's A-class review.

• "Balliol's force of some 2,000 men met the Scottish army of 12–15,000 men." --> "Balliol's force of some 2,000 men met the Scottish army of 12,000–15,000 men."

Done.

• Why are there two the same citations (ref 10) next to each other in the sentence. "until its final re-capture by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the future Richard III, in 1482."?

To be doubly safe? Fixed.

• The reign of Philip VI, King of France is wrong his reign didn't start from 1327–1377. He was king in 1328 until his death in 1350. Twenty-seven years earlier than the article says.

Thank you. (For some reason I have attributed Edward III's reign to him.) Fixed.

• Can Richard III have a reign period too?

No. There is no reference to Richard III in the text, so I feel that allocating a reign to a Duke would confuse a reader.

• "The walls stretched for 2 mi (3.2 km) and were up to 40 in (3.3 ft; 1.0 m) thick and 22 ft (6.7 m) high, protected by a number of towers, up to 60 ft (18 m) tall." Can you change the "18 m" to "18.2 m"? Also I don't think the "0" in "1.0" is necessary.

I quite agree re the 1.0, changed. The 60 ft is an approximation, so I feel that having the conversion to approximately the same level of accuracy. You are spot on to note that I have been inconsistent, so I have changed the 6.7 m.

• "Edward arrived at Berwick with the main English army on 9 May, after leaving Queen Philippa at Bamburgh Castle 15 mi (24 km) south of Berwick." Can you change the "24 km" to "24.1 km"?

No. Again, spuriously accurate. (Are we talking centre to centre or wall to wall; by road or in a straight line? It is approximately 15 m, the true distance may be 14.87305 m but a reader doesn't want to know that.)

• "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 ft (180 m), 2 mi (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." 600 ft is 182 m. Also it's not necessary to use two times "(3.2 km)".

See above re 183 m. I am probably being blind, but I can only find "(3.2 km)" once; I would appreciate it if you point out the second mention for me.

• There is one in the Prelude in the sentence "The walls stretched for 2 mi (3.2 km) and were up to 40 in (3 ft; 1 m) thick and 22 ft (6.7 m) high, protected by a number of towers, up to 60 ft (20 m) tall." and one in the Relief force in the sentence "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 ft (180 m), 2 mi (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

D'oh! Thank you. Fixed.

• "Crossing the Tweed to the west of the English position, the Scottish army reached the town of Duns, 15 mi (24 km) from Berwick, on 18 July. On the following day it approached Halidon Hill from the north-west, ready to give battle on ground chosen by Edward III." same as above the "(24 km)" isn't necessary.

Again, I can't spot the second mention. Could you help my failing eyesight and narrow it down for me? Thanks.

• First one in the Siege section "Edward arrived at Berwick with the main English army on 9 May, after leaving Queen Philippa at Bamburgh Castle 15 mi (24 km) south of Berwick.". Second one in Relief force section in the sentence "Crossing the Tweed to the west of the English position, the Scottish army reached the town of Duns, 15 mi (24 km) from Berwick, on 18 July." CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

And double D'oh! Done.

Again, this looks nice. I hope my (second) involment in the article was usefull. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Once again thank you for your eagle eyes. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: You're welcome Gog it looks pretty good now. I'll give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• king of Scotland Capitalize king as it's a title and thus a proper noun.

Both done.

• a spirited defence but by the end comma after defence

Done.

• opportunity to fight but this would guartantee missing comma and a typo

Done.

• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: And yet again, thank you. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Most unusually, I have read through this article without making a single note to suggest a change. A fine article, clear, v. readable, well balanced and widely sourced. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 17:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

All image appropriately licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz

Hi Gog the Mild, just a few suggestions...

• "In Scotland Archibald Douglas was Guardian of the Realm..." links to Douglas (died 1333) but at "Minor raids into Cumberland were mounted by Sir Archibald Douglas", a later Douglas is linked?

Correct. Archibald Douglas was the John Smith of 14th century Scotland.

• Edward I replace the old - replaced

Done.

• the English army's supplies.[31] The English army included troops - 2nd "English" can be deleted here?

Done.

• by sea from Hull - wlink Hull

Done.

• short truce from King Edward.[36][32] - tweak ref order

Done.

• along with eleven others.[18][41][40]- tweak ref order

Done.

• on to the waiting spears.[54][18]- tweak ref order

Done.

• captions - 15th century depiction v 19th-century view - hyphen consistency

Done.

• should this article have the Template:Campaignbox Second War of Scottish Independence?

Oops, missed one. It certainly should. I had to check to convince myself that I had really missed it. Thanks for picking that up. Done.

• sources Brie, Friedrich - out of alpha order

Done. And Hall.

• sources McKisack, May (I think but not sure that Mc names are sorted alphabetically with Mac names but I can't now find where I read that. Can anybody confirm or contradict?)

I had assumed straight alphabetical listing. Happy to be corrected. I have left as is for now.

An enjoyable read! Thanks Gog, JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi JennyOz Thanks for the input. A little embarrassing to have so much for you to pick up at this late stage. All points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• Edward III used this as a casus belli and invaded Being extremely pedantic, shouldn't that be casus bellum (singular war, rather than plural)?

(butting in) ...err, the "belli" is genitive or dative singular not nominative plural (which would be bella anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Beat me to it by seven seconds. :-) Cas Liber has explained it more elegantly and eruditely than I had.

I stand corrected on this one! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately for the Scots, he died "unfortunately" is editorialising

Reworded.

• "gateway from Scotland to the English eastern march" Do you need the quote marks there? It seems like a standard English phrase, and as it is the quote is unattributed.

Umm. It looks referenced to me. Cite 8?

Apolgies, I should have been clearer. When you have a quote in the prose, you need to note in the prose who you're quoting (eg Wikipedian Harry Mitchell described it as "excellent work", not just the article was "excellent work"). See MOS:QUOTE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Quote marks removed.

• Same issue with "the first town in the British Isles to be bombarded by cannon"

Cite 37? Nicholson? I am looking at it right now. Or have gone mad, always a possibility.

Tweaked.

• Suggest turning abbreviations off (using |abbr=off) in the conversion template in the prose.

Done.

• "as thick as motes in a sun beam" Who is this quoting?

Apologies. Nicholson, cited 6 words too late. Now repeated after the quote.

Tweaked.

• English casualties were reported as 14, with some chronicles giving a lower figure of 7 per WP:NUMERAL, I believe it's preferable to spell out "fourteen" and "seven"; also, connecting two phrases using ", with" is sub-optimal

Numbers spelt out. What construction would be more optimal? Delete "with" and use 'give'? (If it is, then done.)

• "remained a bone of contention throughout the Middle Ages" Who are we quoting again?

Apologies again. Once more the cite had drifted to the end of the sentence. Now duplicated.

Tweaked.

Excellent work in general, just a few minor things to address and I fully expect to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Thanks for dropping by. Your points above now addressed. I was looking at reviewing your Midland Railway War Memorial when I get the time. Skimming your user page, I hope that you got as far as the Brunswick while you were in town? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Replied above on quote attribution. Any thoughts on the MRWM would be very welcome when you get chance. I've never actually been in the Brunswick. I was born in Nottingham and used to live between there and Derby, but whenever I was over that end of Derby it was always to catch a train. I still have family in the area and more scattered around other parts of the Midlands so I try to get up at least once or twice a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Harry Sorted. I think. One phrase taken out of quotes; three attributed in text.

Well if you are that way again and fancy an informal introduction to the Brunswick, give me a shout. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I might well take you up on that next time I'm in the area! In the meantime, nice work here. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing comment: For consistency, either all the images should have alt text or none of them should. At the moment, we have a mixture. But that is not worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How careless of me. Alts now added. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2019 [24].

---

Irritator

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a carnivorous theropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil, with one of the most peculiar namesakes for an extinct animal. It is my second FA nomination of a spinosaurid and, if it passes, will become Wikipedia's third spinosaur FA. I expanded and improved it over the course of nearly three months as part of a joint project, with FunkMonk's FAC of the contemporary Thalassodromeus, to pay tribute to the palaeontological fossils lost in the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro fire this year. The article has passed its GA and DYK nominations, received a peer review, and been copyedited by the GOCE. Beforehand, I'd also like to make clear that the two blog articles cited[25][26] are written by Darren Naish, a published palaeontologist who is respected in his field. So I think it should be fine in regards to WP:RS. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I had my say at the peer review[27], and this is certainly one of the most thorough and well-illustrated dinosaur articles I've reviewed. Good job! FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - me too. Looked at peer review and quibbles addressed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments by Lusotitan

I have no doubt this will pass, but I'll still do a run-through to see if there's any small details I could suggest improvements on. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• To start, the "palaeoecology" section should be "palaeoenvironment" in this case, similar to the Baryonyx article. The subjects of what it preyed upon and its aquatic habitat preference are both fundamentally questions of its ecology, so excluding them from a "palaeoecology" is out of place. In some articles with sprawling palaeobiology sections on the physiology of the taxon, like Tyrannosaurus and Edmontosaurus, I advocate for just moving the sections to the latter header. But here it's the entire palaeobiology section, and since there's an obvious divide of the way the animal interacts with its environment as opposed to what that environment was like, simply re-naming the last section as was done for the Barynoyx article would seem like the appropriate change.

You make a good argument. I changed the header name, though with one alteration; I named it "Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography", as was done for Ceratosaurus, since it also discusses biogeographical implications. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Any more comments, Lusotitan? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll give a review Saturday, currently buried under schoolwork. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Lusotitan, did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Proceeding with review:

• The genus name comes from the word "Irritation", reflecting the feelings of paleontologists who found the skull had been heavily damaged and altered by the collectors. - irritation should not be capitalized, as it is a single word and not a full statement in quotes.

Whoops! fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is known from a nearly complete skull found in the Romualdo Formation. - I would say "Romualdo Formation of the Araripe Basin" to avoid any confusion when it's said both it and Angaturama come from the Basin in the next paragraph.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• The species name challengeri is an homage to the fictional character Professor Challenger. - using the species name alone without the genus name is generally considered improper, but it's not a huge deal either way (i.e. I leave it to the preference of the author); additionally, it might be worth saying that Challenger is from the works of Doyle, as opposed to just saying he's "a fictional character", but again I leave this to the judgement of the author.

I just removed challengeri then, since it's not too neccessary either. As for your second comment, it's the result of a suggestion by Jens Lallensack in order to remove unecessary details from the lead. I added Doyle's name back, though without pointing out The Lost World, which should be a good compromise. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• —known from a snout tip that was described in 1996— - perhaps note that it was later in 1996, so avoid confusion on why it's the junior synonym?

Good idea, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Although this has been proven otherwise - I would prefer the more neutral "this has been question" of "cast into doubt" or something along those lines.

Went with the second option; more concise. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Spinosaurid skeletal material, some of which could belong to Angaturama, was retrieved from the Romualdo Formation, allowing for a replica skeleton to be made and mounted for display at the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro in 2009. - is there a particular reason Angaturama is singled out here instead of saying "Irritator or Angaturama" or merely "the taxon"? Also, I'd say "Other spinosaurid skeletal material..." at the beginning of the sentence.

Changed to "Irritator or Angaturama" and Added "Other spinosaurid skeletal material". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Between 6 and 8 meters (20 and 26 ft) in length - it should be made clear this is a range of estimates as opposed to a range of sizes known from different individuals.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Irritator challengeri's holotype remains the most completely preserved skull found for a spinosaurid. - I think "most completely preserved spinosaurid skull yet found" would sound more natural, personally. Up to author's judgement.

Definitely sounds better IMO, took your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Fossil evidence is known of an individual that ate a pterosaur, possibly from hunting or scavenging it. - shouldn't this be "either from" and not "possibly"? Unless a serious third possibility is on or has been put on the table.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• At the time it was assumed to be the skull of a giant basal pterosaur, or flying reptile, since the Chapada do Araripe region is famous for its copious pterosaur finds - I can't read the non-Englsih source myself, but does it explicitly say that it's a basal pterosaur they thought it was? This seems an odd assumption given the pterosaurs from Brazil at that time are all pterodactyloids...

I can read Portuguese and the source says they thought it was a "primitive pterosaur", though I'm not sure if this is used in Portuguese as a synonym to basal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Two years earlier, Frey and Martill named a new pterosaur - I would say "Frey and Martill had name" since this happened before and not after.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Irritator challengeri is the first dinosaur described from the Romualdo Formation - was the first.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• previously designated the Romualdo Member of the Santana Formation - based on the Santana Group there doesn't seem to be a Santana Formation anymore at all, perhaps this should be noted?

This is pointed out in the first paragraph of Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography, but I added "then" before "Santana Formation" here, to serve as a nod to this fact. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• and its holotype specimen represents the most completely preserved skull known for a spinosaurid. - see above comment about this wording in the lead.

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would put the first two sentences of the paragraph of the above three comments at the end of the paragraph, with the information about its assignment to the Romualdo Formation coming first. This is a more natural flow of information, talking about how we came to know it came from the formation and then noting why this is important.

Rejigged according to your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Known skull elements as interpreted by paleontologist Jaime A. Headden; the snout tip is from the Angaturama specimen. - I would say "Known skull elements of Irritator..." since the image is in the section about Angaturama.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, although the two specimens evidently do not belong to the same individual - again, I don't like this wording. I'd say something more like "Though they therefore concluded the two specimens do not belong to the same individual...".

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Besides skull elements - are there further skull elements than the two specimens, or is this just in reference to them? I'd prefer this be made clear here if possible.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• given that the last two - "given that both"; "last two" implies more taxa were listed beforehand.

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bone histology indicates that this individual was a subadult, so the mature animal may have been much larger - is the word "much" itself used in the paper? If not, this should only say "larger" without exaggeration.

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• MN 4819-V comprises a largely intact pelvis, some dorsal (back) and caudal (tail) vertebrae, five sacral (hip) vertebrae, a partial right tibia and fibula (shin and calf bones), most of the right femur (thigh bone), and part of an ulna (forearm bone).[23][25] It also has the most complete hand known from a spinosaurid, including metacarpals, phalanges, one carpals, and one claw. - this all seems like information that should also be in the postcrania section of "History of research".

I don't see the need in repeating this information, and think that it's best to stick with "the most complete spinosaur specimen retrieved from the Romualdo Formation is MN 4819-V, a partial skeleton lacking the skull." for the discovery section, as is done for Irritator's skull (the specific bones are not mentioned in discovery either). IMO this more precise anatomical information is more relevant for the description section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• The first mentions of Spinosaurus, spinosaurid, Baryonyx, and Suchomimus should all be linked in the classification section.

I thought that according to MOS:DUPLINK, terms are only to be linked once in the main text? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would note somewhere that as a spinosaurid it belongs to the superfamily Megalosauroidea. Noting at some point that it is a theropod may also be worth doing.

Done, it's especially useful since one of the cladograms actually shows Megalosauroidea. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Although much of the holotype's morphology turned out to be greatly different - I find this a bit unclear, I'd say "turned out to be greatly different than thought by them" or something similar.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• The nostrils of Irritator were shifted far to the rear of the skull - in the classification section it's said this was more recently disputed, which seems important to note somewhere in this paragraph. It's sort of alluded to when it says it had less retracted nostrils than Spinosaurus, but this doesn't seem clear enough to me.

Used "far back from the tip of the snout" instead, which sounds less extreme. Did this for the lead as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Although to a lesser degree - to a lesser degree than what?

Than most known spinosaurs, added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• usually marginal and coastal habitats - could "marginal" be linked anywhere? I myself am unfamiliar with the term and surely general readers will also be.

There seem to be no links for the term, and the relevant definition for it is missing from the Wikitionary as well[28]. Could it just be redlinked to marginal habitat? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• more-terrestrial - I see no reason for a dash here.

Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• osteosclerosis therefore might have been the norm in the Spinosaurinae - is "the norm" proper terminology? I always thought it was slang.

Huh, I've never heard anything about it being slang, and at least two other dino FAs use it.[29][30]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would again link terms such as Spinosaurus and Baryonyx in the first mention in the palaeobiology section.

Again, I thought MOS:DUPLINK didn't allow this? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• and overlies the Crato Formation - link "Crato Formation".

Already linked in history of discovery. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Generalized locations of spinosaurid fossil discoveries on an Albian-Cenomanian map, 113 to 93.9 million years ago - I would make it clear this only reflects discoveries from that time span.

Done, I'll do this for Oxalaia as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up both maps, the size diagram and the nostril diagram

Scaled up all four images, I also went ahead and removed the "D" in the second map, which is left over from when it was a multiple-map image. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:Spinosauridae_Size_Diagram_by_PaleoGeek_-_Version_2.svg: National Museum of Brazil link is dead. Same with File:Irritator_Life_Reconstruction.jpg

Replaced both links with an Internet Archive snapshot. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure File:Irritator_at_sunset_by_PaleoGeek.png is needed

Are you suggesting I remove the image? Not sure how that would be beneficial for the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What benefit do you feel it's currently providing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It provides a closeup restoration of the animal's head (as there is already one for the full body), and gives readers a tangible example of how its head might have looked like in life. Especially since the skull remains are only thing that can be confidently attributed to Irritator at this time, it is less speculative. Multiple restorations in a dinosaur article aren't exactly unusual, either. From what I've seen, if there is room for such an image, and it is relevant to the article, then it is typically added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:Спинозавр_-_новая_реконструкция_(flipped).jpg: what is the source underlying this reconstruction? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ibrahim et al. (2014), added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the image review, Nikkimaria. I've answered all your comments, with one question. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Hmm, this seems to be receiving little attention, similarly to Thalassodromeus's FAC. I think I'll ping some of the WikiProject Dinosaurs reviewers to see if they're interested (perhaps IJReid could take a look?), though I would highly appreciate opinions from non-expert readers as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems it is a general issue:[31] Perhaps Lusotitan will return too? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by IJReid

Yeah why not I'll start looking over it shortly. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Only thing for Discovery: What year was the Irritator fossil found? All other details seem included, but the first paragraph noticably lacks any date or year. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk also asked this during the peer review.[32] I couldn't find any sources that mention a date, and since the fossil was dug up illegally by local collectors, it makes sense why that would be. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've gotta object to the significant use of bracketed explanation terms in the end of Description. I've never heard the tibia or fibula called "shank bones" before. It might be a regional thing but they are the "shin bones". Stuff like "manus (hand)" cn just link to manus|hand so the manus word is hidden, to reduce the overall bracketed words that are rather distracting. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to (shin and calf bones) since only the tibia is a shin bone, I was mostly going off of Brachiosaurus here[33], where "shank bones" was used, though now that I think of it I haven't heard that term either. I hid/removed a few bracketed terms besides manus (anatomy), such as ungual => claw, pubes (pubic bones) => pubic bones, and pelvic (hip) bones => pelvic bones. Are there any other ones I should do? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that looks to be everything from me support IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 07:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• I think we still need a source review for formatting and reliability.

Indeed. Lusotitan of course still has to do his review as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Also I don't think PaleoGeekSquared was subjected to a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing at their first FAC, which is normal practice, so I'd like to see one here. Both these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, well, it was my first FAC, so I wasn't aware of many of the procedures. Anyways, thanks for bringing it up! I've put up the request. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's generally up to the coords to ask for spotchecks to be performed and I overlooked it that time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Any idea when the source review might get done? It's been a little while now... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator note: It may be worth asking someone to take a look. Perhaps FunkMonk or Casliber would be able to oblige? And unless I'm being stupid, I think we still need the formal source review. Sarastro (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Earwigs copyvio clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• I took the liberty of spacing the isbns with this tool.
• FN #64 - used once, material faithful to source

Alright. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• FN #10 - used once, material faithful to source...but what makes it a reliable source?

I never even noticed this source; it appears to have been here from before the article's expansion. Either way, it's not needed, since all the information in it is a repeat of Martill et al. 1997. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• FN #33 and #34 - both used once, material faithful to source (do we need both?)

Seems like no, kept the Guardian one. Any more suggestions, Casliber? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the sourcing. Otherwise lots of good peer-reviewed papers etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing comment: I am promoting this now, but two little points to consider. First, in "The holotype skull was thoroughly prepared before being redescribed in 2002", "prepared" is a little vague (we use "cleaned" in the main body. Is that better?). And in the references, we need to be consistent over whether we give the location of a publisher (e.g. compare ref 37 and 46). But neither of these is worth delaying promotion for. Sarastro (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The thing is, though, without the context given in the main body, "cleaned" makes it sound as if they washed the skull or something of the like. Plus, I think most general readers have at least heard of specimen preparation before. The location parameter has been removed from all citations. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:48, 19 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 [34].

---

Pyramid of Unas

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the smallest of all Old Kingdom pyramids, but perhaps also one of its most significant. The walls of it's subterranean chambers are covered in hieroglyphic inscriptions, the first of their kind, which guided and guarded the deceased's soul into the afterlife. I think it's about on par with my previous FAC nomination, so I'm taking the opportunity to nominate it. I've undertaken several copy-edits, and I think my writing has perhaps even improved from last time – which I hope will reduce the burden for reviewers this time around... I hope. Thanks and Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

A couple of points on spelling etc from a first canter through, before I get down to a thorough scrutiny of the article.

• We avoid contractions like "don't", "who'd" and so on. See MOS:N'T. There are a few in the current text, which would be better as whole-word phrases.

• Done.

• "antichamber carrée" looks to me like a misspelling of the French "antichambre carrée", though I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.

• You are quite correct.

This looks an interesting article, which I think I'll enjoy reviewing. More soon. Tim riley talk 23:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll just insert green text between pointers I believe I've dealt with. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Location and excavation
  • "Entry into the pyramid, though, was first gained by Gaston Maspero who examined the substructure of the pyramid" – I think you could remove the last three words and avoid repetition without damaging the sense.

• switched to "it's substructure" Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Nationality of various Egyptologists – I wonder what is gained by knowing that they were variously British, Prussian, Italian and so on. I can never find anything in the Manual of Style when I'm looking for it, but I think I have seen advice to avoid mentioning people's nationalities unless they are relevant.

• Removed. You don't get much out of it Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Pyramid
  • "small size, thus it is more likely" – "thus" is not a conjunction. A simple "and" would do the job.

Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "the extensive quarrying that was necessary" – I think I'd omit "that was"; "that would have been" would work, but "the extensive quarrying necessary" is clear.

Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "cartouche" – could do with a blue link.

Linked Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Substructure
  • "….a small chapel. The chapel…" – perhaps "It" to open the second sentence?

Yes, of course. How annoying reading the same words right next to each other. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "stela" – another word unfamiliar to the lay person – can it be linked?

Linked Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "for 'offering table.'" – The MoS asks for double, not single, quotes, and punctuation after the closing quotes.
  • "a 'corridor-chamber'" – more single quotes. A few more later.

Double quoted both, and done the same elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "Near burial chamber's west wall" – missing a "the" before "burial"?

Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "painted, however, whereas" – stronger stop than a comma needed before "however" (or you could leave the comma and change "however" to "but", perhaps)

Would a semi-colon work, or would it need to be a period? Thinking back on it, yes a semi-colon works in this situation. I try to minimize my use of however, but in this sentence I think it fits better. "But" is a bit too soft here. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Pyramid Texts
  • "Unas' Pyramid Texts are the oldest" – Just "They" would avoid repetition, and might flow more smoothly.

I had it that way originally, and then I changed it. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "from whence" – although you can find this construction in very respectable sources (including the King James Bible) some people object to it as a tautology, as "whence" means "from where". Fowler advises against using "whence" at all (a bit antiquated), but recommends that if it is used, it should be without the "from".

replaced whence with where. I think whence sounds better here, but if it's frowned upon so be it. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If you prefer "whence", I suggest you stick with it. Fowler's view (like mine, too) is only a matter of personal preference. Tim riley talk 08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "journey toward new life.[46][45]" – do you want the references in this order? (I ran across one nominator recently who preferred to list citations in order of importance rather than just in numerical order, but the latter is usual.)

I like numerical order myself, but in this case Allen, as an expert on these texts specifically, is more authoritative than Lehner. I'll have a think about it, though. I changed order in numerous places, however, I've left the non-numerical order is some places where the first citation is more important (primarily Allen in Pyramid Texts and Verner in Mortuary temple, though a few others as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Tenses – "the Ba leaves" but "the Ba faced" etc – a bit inconsistent in this para.

Good point. Rewritten into a consistent past tense. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Valley temple
  • "evidence their high quality craftsmanship" – I don't think I've seen "evidence" used as a transitive verb before, but a quick check in the OED confirms that use.

Originally it said "are evidence of", but I just figured I could shorten it by verbifying evidence. I was aware though of its verb form already. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "south sides, each had a portico" – stronger stop than a comma wanted.

Full stopped. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Causeway
  • "preexisting" – the OED hyphenates this.

Hypenated Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "A 'slit' was left" – not sure why the word is in quotes.

Removed quotes Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "Archaeologist Peter Clayton" – You have avoided false titles so far, and this one rather sticks out. In the following para you have another, followed by the Grimal reference, where you avoid it.

Accidental I'm sure. I recalled that you had mentioned the need for definite articles before false titles in BrEng. Apparentl AmEng doesn't care. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • "a team led by Egyptologist Christiane Ziegler" – I wonder if it is necessary to introduce every expert with the tag "Egyptologist"? It occurs 15 times in the text and one begins to notice the repetition. In the case of C Ziegler, for instance, I think it is clear from the context that she is an Egyptologist.

I've removed 9 instances of Egyptologist from the article – if you're leading excavations or investigations of a pyramid, it can be inferred that you're an expert. It does get repetitive, I agree. I usually add them so that it is clear that I'm introducing an expert, not Joe Bloggs from down the street with his homemade arsenal of thermite and C4. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Mortuary temple
  • Storerooms – you refer to them extensively, but I'm curious to know – I don't think you tell us anywhere – what they would have been designed to store.

Primarily offerings and items for the cult, such as food offerings for the, aptly named, "offering ritual". The rooms were probably also used during the pyramid's construction to store food for the workers. The Serdab's three recesses may have been used for cult offerings, may have housed statues of the king, or, possibly, the room may have been a representation of the Amduat where Horus was buried after he was slain by Seth. In this case the rooms would house the "human head, falcon wings, and feline rear". I'll try to write up a couple of sentences for both the storerooms in general and the Serdab specifically. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic, now you're making me read French.[35] Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I've added a sentence clarifying the purpose of the storerooms; my statement that they were probably used to store food for workers during construction relates to the Fourth Dynasty projects at Giza but not the Fifth. I've also added a footnote clarify "expanded influence", and I've added a footnote to address the complexity of the Serdab's function. That's about all I could think to do. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Notes
  • I found footnote C fascinating. I suppose it wouldn't fit easily into the main text, but it's a pity.

I added the footnote in because I figured that a laymen reader would be left wondering why "their mere presence" gave them "efficacy", but trying to elaborate in text would be too difficult. It is a pity though, I agree. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sources
  • If you have authorlinks it would be best to have Verner linked from the first, rather than the second, mention. I'm also not sure how you pick which authors to link. If Altenmüller, Grimal and Verner, why not Allen, Budge and Dodson (and possibly others who also have WP articles – I haven't checked them all)?

I link whichever authors I know have Wikipedia articles. I should add those links in the clean-up phase before noms though. It just slipped my mind. That said, I've linked as many authors as I could. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article and look forward to adding my support for its promotion. Tim riley talk 10:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the review, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Let me know if you have any other items for me to address. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Clear, evidently comprehensive, a good read, balanced, and beautifully illustrated. Tim riley talk 08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Would like to see the lead tightened; though think the article from a first pass is rather terrific. Some trivial stuff:

• a tradition that carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, both kings and queens; maybe simplify by saying 'monarchs' rather than 'rulers', so "kings and queens" becomes redundant and we have less words, if that is indeed the case

• I think this quote sums up why I'm being specific with "kings and queens": "What is remarkable is that these kings' texts were almost immediately used in queens' tombs, and thereafter were quickly taken over by nonroyals, then eventually made available to almost anyone" Leonard Lesko(2001) p. 570. Their discovery in the tombs of consorts is significant itself. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Which is all very fine and interesting, but for the article body, not the lead. Sentence now reads "This tradition carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, both kings and queens, through to the end of the Old Kingdom", without the context you mention here. Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Point taken, removed "both kings and queens" from the sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Features of the texts - vague, say that it is either the contents or the style of the hieroglyphics.

• No longer stated due to other changes. Removed in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Unas situated his pyramid - fussy - "built"

• Done. Just a note, I had definitely meant "of" in that sentence. Sekhemket and Djoser are people Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, makes sense. I obv need more coffey. Ceoil (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• which themselves formed - drop "themselves"

• Done Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• comparable to the one that Khufu had built for his pyramid - comparable to that leading to Khufu's pyramid

• Done Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• A long wadi was used as a path for the causeway. The terrain here was difficult to negotiate and contained previously built structures. - "A long wadi was used as a pathway. The terrain was difficult to negotiate and contained previously built structures." Still, older structures needs to be explained as to what there were and how the impeded pathway, if included in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Partly done. I need to check, but I believe the "structures" are primarily superstructures from tombs. Checked; buildings and tomb superstructures. All three sources say that they had to be torn down, Verner adds their re-appropriation to this. Should be clear now. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Another factor that inhibited the monument's size was the extensive quarrying necessary to increase the size of the pyramid. The words "Another factor" make this sentence seems fragmented and separate for the narrative thrust; can you weave in better.

How does "The monument's size was also inhibited due to ..." sound as a replacement for "Another factor that inhibited the monument's size ..."? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fantastic. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• The core of the pyramid was built up six steps - is there a better word that core; "foundation" or something. To note none of the six steps are explained, so its kind of a tease.

• Ah, I see now. I had meant "six steps high", rather than "in six steps". "Core" is the preferred term in sources. File:Neferirkare-Pyramide.png shows what I mean: light and dark grey are the core, beige is the casing. Does this help? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Nebet's mastaba contains four niches. Schoolboys will have a field day with this if it hits main page and they get this far, but not sure what you can do to distance the noun from "four niches"

Recesses it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Adjacent to the north face of the pyramid was a small chapel. - construct is backwards, can you say "A small chapel was situated...." Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "A small chapel was situated adjacent to the pyramid's north face". Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

To note, to delegates, very interested in this article and will do the source review separately, at latest by end of next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil: I have many of these sources on hand and intend to do a source review this weekend, so you don't need to feel obligated to do it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You would have a far more firm grasp than me, so that seems sensible, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Entry was first gained by Gaston Maspero who examined its substructure in 1881 - some clarification of terms needed here; mostly around "studied" vs "physically" entered. Its clear in the body of the article, but maybe not in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Done. I think. In any case here is what I did. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• but significant due to the discovery of ritual and personal spells – Pyramid Texts – incised into the walls: This is a bit disjointing and uneven for the lead, which should be crisp and clear for the disinterested skim reader; should it be ritual and personal spells or something. You need to be mindful that the lead later jumps to "Features from the texts", maybe place these two claims closer together, so there is a logical flow. Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Done. This works quite well in this case. For the latter issue, how about: This tradition carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, through to the end of the Old Kingdom, and into the Middle Kingdom through the Coffin Texts, which form the basis of the Book of the Dead? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• This seems much better. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Supporting on prose, on the basis that my remaining issues above are quibbles, and this article is rather excellently written. Not that your off the hook on the points above rnddude, but the page is certainly very impressive and certainly FA standard. Noeting that the source review is being conducted by an editor very familiar with the literature. Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, and all the work you've done on the article. I am always quite stunned that you can remove 40 bytes from a single sentence while I struggle to remove a similar amount from an entire section (I seem to add at least half as much as I remove). I think I've addressed everything, let me know if I missed anything or you find anything else. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The article is fascinating and really well put together. More please. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A. Parrot

I'll get to the source review later today, but for the moment I want to point out that the terms for components of the soul are usually italicized and lowercased in Egyptological writing: ka, ba, akh. That would also be consistent with how you format another foreign term, serdab, although it's Arabic and not Egyptian. Ancient Egyptian concept of the soul, the article that covers these concepts, isn't in good shape but needs to be linked here. Ceoil: should ka, ba, and akh be linked to the respective sections of the article, or would that count as duplicate linking? A. Parrot (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A. Parrot, I wouldn't know and will leave it up to you; duplicate linking is small stuff to worry about, and have faith in your opinion. Anyhow, very pleased to see you here, am familiar with your work and informed content reviews are hens teeth. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The text would have to be reworked a bit to provide an organic place to link the overall article, so it seems easiest to link to the individual sections. A. Parrot (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems fair and np with the duplicated. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

To correct myself: ka and ba are already linked to their respective sections, but akh needs to be. As does akhet (hieroglyph). A. Parrot (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Done – both links made, and heaps of italicizations. Should I also italicize Duat and Akhet, and any other such words? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say. Egyptologists always seem to capitalize Duat, usually but not always without italics. There isn't any consistent practice for the horizon: Akhet, Akhet, and akhet all have precedents in Egyptological writing. Lehner, for example, always italicizes it but isn't consistent with capitalization. I'd say it's up to you. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I've seen all manner of variations for these myself. I'll leave as is on the basis that it's a proper noun/name, which are typically left with italicization per MOS:BADITALICS. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• "From soon after Thutmose III moved the capital of Egypt from Thebes to Memphis in the Eighteenth Dynasty…" Although I can't preview the pages that support this statement, the notion that there was one capital that different kings moved from place to place is perpetuated by many RSes but not really correct. Pharaohs had multiple residences. It's exactly in the Eighteenth Dynasty that the split is most pronounced. Setting aside the aberration of the Amarna Period, Memphis and Thebes were the most important royal cities during the Eighteenth Dynasty, and while the proportion of royal institutions in Memphis may have increased over time, it seems to have been a gradual process. You can dodge this problem by saying "Beginning in the reign of Thutmose III in the Eighteenth Dynasty…"

• Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Although Egyptian terms like ka and ba are explained well enough, some other terminology needs a bit more explanation, such as "apotropaia" and "ferry spells". I know what they mean, but the causual reader won't. Regarding "apotropaia", when somebody asked for explanation of "apotropaic power" at the FAC for Isis, I changed it to "protective magical power". Maybe something like "protective spells" or "spells to ward off dangers", with that same link to apotropaic magic, would work here? For ferry spells, maybe "spells to allow the king to travel through the afterlife by ferry". A. Parrot (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Apotropaia -> protective spells. Removed the ferry spells reference. The only example of a ferry spell that I could find in Unas' corridor was PT 321 which calls on the ferryman to fetch Unas' ladder. Hellum doesn't get more specific then mentioning "ferry spells", so I've removed it as an easier solution.. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Both changes look good to me. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• The sources used are excellent, incorporating some of the most authoritative sources for this topic (especially Verner). Only two are remotely questionable, and both are used carefully: Budge, the modern Egyptologist's bugbear, is used only as a source for one possible translation out of three, and PhD theses are sometimes dubious but Ćwiek isn't used to source anything remotely controversial. I'll spot-check them this evening or tomorrow.

• Best avoid using theses if possible, and esp if uncontroversial should be easy to swap out. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There's already a second reliable source there cited to the same material. I added Cwiek because they say a bit more about the inscription than Verner does. I can remove it if desired. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's a problem with the entry for Jiménez-Serrano. This seems to be an entry for a journal article that he published in SAK, but it uses the "Cite book" template rather than "Cite journal", and the title of the article is missing.

I was tripped up by the use of an ISBN instead of an ISSN. World Cat just says e-book. I've changed the template, and added page numbers. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good now. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's also some inconsistency in capitalization of titles. Very finicky, I know, and I've fixed most of it myself, but for future reference: book titles are capitalized, unless they're French, because French seems to have different capitalization rules. Journal articles and chapters within larger books can be capitalized or in sentence case, but they should be consistent either way. Most such entries on this list are in sentence case, but the title of Wegner 2001 is capitalized; would you rather decapitalize it or change the other titles to match? A. Parrot (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was using whatever casing the source used. If it was sentence case, I wrote sentence case. If it was capitalized, I capitalized. Easier to change 1 source to sentence case, than a dozen to capitalization. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are a couple of points about the Pyramid Texts that the sources cited here definitely say but are, unfortunately, questioned by other sources. "Though [the Pyramid Texts] first appeared in Unas' pyramid, their archaic writing style indicates that many of the texts were already ancient by this time" and "These consist of some of the oldest texts, dating back to the early archaic period" are both questionable. There is widespread agreement that the PT are older than this pyramid, but nobody knows how old. The dates that Lehner gives for different categories of texts are very conjectural, and I don't even know what they're based on. The strongest evidence of the existence of some parts of the PT before Unas's time is an offering list from the reign of Sahure that closely parallels a passage of the PT, but that's little more than a century before Unas, not exactly ancient from Unas's perspective and certainly not the Archaic Period.

• I've rewritten the first cited sentence with a footnote on the offering list. I've removed the second cited sentence completely, though I do feel the need to note that the dates, though conjectural, are not Lehner's invention. Refer Smith p. 115: A few would date their composition as early as the predynastic or the early dynastic period, but evidence to support this is lacking. Included is a footnote to some of Morales' works. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Good job of getting up to speed on this stuff. Bad luck that you picked a pyramid on which the scholarship is in flux! Maybe next time you can pick a nice boring one like Neferefre's. A. Parrot (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• The second point is Allen's argument that the PT are organized based on the spirit's movement out of the Duat and into the Akhet. Harold M. Hays challenged this hypothesis in a 2009 paper that you can read here. According to Hays in The Organization of the Pyramid Texts (2012), Allen admitted in an academic discussion (though not to my knowledge in writing) that the hypothesis was unsound, and Following Osiris (2017) by Mark Smith treats the hypothesis as dead. A. Parrot (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have somewhat expanded the second paragraph to give a fuller view of the belief system, and then closed it by relating it back to the function of the texts. Most specifically, I've explained the significance of the Akhet, what an akh is and added a sentence on mutu. Truthfully, I could have just said: The akh is the resurrected spirit of the deceased. The texts serve to enable the transformation into an akh. However, I prefer a fuller view. I've removed all cosmographical references from the next two paragraphs. Unfortunately, as far as I was able to find, Hays doesn't get into depth on the content of any one pyramid, and I could only get a preview of Smith (2017). I have a balance now between Hays and Allen, with additions of a few other sources. I'm thinking that your opinion would be valuable in the interim. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Most of the citations look good, but I've found a couple of irregularities. The text "…the main pyramid, constructed six steps high from limestone blocks" is cited to Verner 2001d, p. 332, but I don't see mention of the six steps on that page. It could easily be on the following page, which isn't included in the Google Books preview that I'm able to access, but if so the range of the citation should be expanded.

• Yes, it's on the next page, and in the last paragraph. To quote: the core consisted of six layers, built of rough blocks of local limestone that became gradually smaller as they neared the top of the pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Citation 100, to Strudwick 1985 p. 57, looks like it should be p. 56, and citation 102, to p. 67 of the same book, looks like it should be p. 57.

• Both are on p. 56. Fixed the two, and a couple additional instances of the same error. Thanks for noticing. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcing, after finally getting around to finishing the spot-checks. But I'm not entirely done with the review; I have a few suggested wording changes, so look for them to show up late tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi A. Parrot, this one has been quiet for a while but doesn't look so far from promotion. I really would like to see at least one more comprehensive review though, so would you be able to return soon? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose: So you want me to look over the prose? I guess I can do that over this weekend. Mr rnddude, I'll put any prose comments I have below this one. A. Parrot (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Di-did you just ping yourself A. Parrot. I suspect Ian Rose that that was meant for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(smacks forehead) Yes, that was what I meant to do. A. Parrot (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• The most significant problem I see is that the numbers on File:Unas' Mortuary Temple.png don't entirely match up with the caption. In the caption, number 12 is supposed to be the cult pyramid and 13 the courtyard surrounding "the pyramid" (not sure if you mean the cult pyramid or the main one). In the image, number 12 is missing and number 13 is labeling the cult pyramid. The caption is missing number 14, which appears on the image.

• That's really strange because I already fixed that File:Unas' Mortuary Temple.png (look at the history) but apparently the image reverted itself (on my computer) when I was fixing the borders. it's actually re-reverted itself on my computer again to including both an uneven border and the numbers error. Wtf? Fixed in any case. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes new versions of images take a while to display properly. A day or two, even. I know from personal experience that it's very frustrating! A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No, in this case it reverted itself on my computer when I was fixing the bordering. I fixed the numbers saved and uploaded. Then I was being bugged by the border so I fixed that as well. However, for whatever reason, the file had returned to its pre-upload state. I'd say failed save, but, how could I upload the fixed image (and you can check to history to see that the second version has the right numbering, but the third doesn't) if the file didn't save? Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I think it would be helpful to make clearer the relationship between the temple and the main pyramid—that the offering hall with the false door sat next to the base of the pyramid. If possible, you might even want to alter File:Unas' Mortuary Temple.png to include a label for the main pyramid, as a diagram is often easier to understand than a text description.

• I've done extended the image to include a segment of the main pyramid labelled as such. Better? Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. I think I'd prefer the numbers within the image file itself to be a little larger, but I won't insist on it. A. Parrot (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think the Pyramid Texts should be named in the lead, especially because the Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead are as well. Ancient Egyptian funerary texts is more important to link in the lead than the CT or BD. Perhaps "…significant owing to the discovery of the Pyramid Texts, spells for the king's afterlife incised into the walls of its subterranean chambers. This tradition of funerary texts continued…" ? A. Parrot (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Done. I used to have Pyramid Texts named in the lede, but it looked awkward surrounded by endashes to separate it from the statement, so I just removed them. This is a good suggestion though. Implemented. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude:: My apologies for not participating in several days. I really doubt I'll be able to do a comprehensive review and am relieved to see Jens Lallensack picking up the slack. I don't know if I'll have anything else to add to this FAC, except to raise a problem with this sentence: "They are the oldest, smallest and best preserved corpus of religious writing from the Old Kingdom." This is an inaccurate conflation of what the two sources cited in this sentence say. The PT are the oldest large body of religious texts from ancient Egypt, as stated by Malek in the page cited for this sentence, but they aren't the earliest religious texts period (if nothing else, the short funerary inscriptions from private tombs in the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties also count as religious texts). Unas's copy of the PT is, as Allen writes on the page cited here, "the oldest, smallest, and best preserved of the Old Kingdom sources" for the PT (some later copies of PT spells are probably shorter than the original pyramid inscriptions and might be better preserved). I have an idea for how to fix this problem, but it's a bit complicated to explain in an FAC comment; would you object if I make the edit myself so you can see what you think? A. Parrot (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• A. Parrot - Sure, make any edit you think is necessary. I actually intentionally included "corpus", meaning "collection", because I'm aware it's not the oldest bit of religious writing from the time. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude:: OK, it's done. A. Parrot (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• A. Parrot - Generally good, but a very small question. "These 283 spells are the" - is the repetition of "283 spells" necessary, or do you think it can be tightened to just "These are the" or "These spells are the"? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude: I wrote "283 spells" to distinguish it from the 1,000 also mentioned in the preceding sentence, but maybe "These spells" is clear enough. Feel free to change it if you think so. A. Parrot (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Unas_Pyramidentexte.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's tagged as "no known copyright restrictions" by the Brooklyn Musuem, though they add that it may actually still be copyrighted. Damn. The only other image of the texts is a derivative of the first, so it's out as well.[36] The only other image that may work is File:Ounas-chambre2.jpg or how about this image that CC-BY 2.0:[37]? Nikkimaria Mr rnddude (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Either of those should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Done. I used the flickr image uploaded at File:Burial chamber in Unas' pyramid.jpg Mr rnddude (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack

1) Lead

• Nothing in the lead about the pyramid itself. Type and dimensions would be helpful. On the other hand, structures like the causeway appear to be discussed in excessive detail.

• I don't think it's necessary to add the dimensions to the lede. The pyramid's size isn't particularly significant here, save for that it's small. The causeway is detailed because of all the significant discoveries made there (in large part because of it, not just around it). The pyramid and mortuary temple follow a standard design found in all the pyramids from Djedkare Isesi to Pepi II (6 other pyramids). It's all in the IB anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not completely convinced; dimensions give the reader a first impression (to know what is "small" you need background), and the IB should be an addition, not a substitute. But it might be more a matter of taste, the decision is yours, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• "[T]o know what is 'small' you need background" - I agree, but consider that for a moment. Imagine I make the statement "Unas's pyramid is 43m tall". Is that tall or short? The answer to a laymen is likely "tall". It's the shortest pyramid built in its time, but unless you already have the background knowledge that the other pyramids of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty are between 52.5m and 73m tall, then how would you know? The laymen reader needs to be told that Unas's is a midget pyramid, that's what is important. That's not it though, it's that I'd be repeating the same information three times, and twice in the same section. It seems very much pointless, like adding an image caption and then incorporating that caption into the text. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just south of the upper causeway – It does not help to give geographical directions when the orientation of the causeway was not discussed beforehand. I think you need an introductory sentence listing the components of the complex and how they are located.

• This is what I've done. I've clarified that the entry into the temple is on the east side, and that the causeway connects to this entry. The concern is somewhat confusing to me. The causeway's orientation is irrelevant to the location of an object in relation to it. Whether it is running east-west, or north-south the object being south of it's end would still be in the same location (that is, south of the causeway). To paint the picture: if you take the orientation of this page to be N-S and this . to be the object, drawing a line NS from it or EW to it won't move the object. Moreover, if the object was south of a point halfway along the causeway, then the causeway could not be oriented NS because that would render the object inside the causeway. As stated in the article, the pits are south of the upper end of the causeway. The causeway ends at the mortuary temple, so the reader is well informed that the pits are south or south-east of this. At best, the reader now knows that the causeway connects to the east side of the temple rather than to some point in its middle (though if it connect in the middle, then the pits would necessarily be inside the temple). That's about as helpful as I can make it. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Access to the site required the construction of a long causeway – would be helpful to add "from the lake".

• There are two places in that sentence that I can add "from the lake" to that would make sense. Which do you mean: "Access to the site from the lake required the construction of a long causeway ..." or "Access to the site required the construction of a long causeway from the lake ..." The former would probably be better since the site was accessed "from the lake". Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure, what would be the best? I was simply concerned that the purpose of the causeway does not become clear enough. Why was a causeway needed to get access? For me, it makes only sense in light of the connection to the lake, so this should be mentioned. Or I misunderstood something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've added "from the lake", but I'll consider rewriting that sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• I rewrote the sentence to read: A long causeway, anchored at a nearby lake to the valley temple, was constructed to provide access from the lake to the site. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• a long causeway, comparable to that leading to Khufu's pyramid, which was anchored at a nearby lake with a valley temple. – Unclear whether the "which" refers to the causeway of Khufu's or that of Unas. Instead of comparing it with Khufu's pyramid (which does not help when the reader doesn't know about Khufu's pyramid) it might be better to describe it instead (was it inclined, leading up a ramp? Was it roofed?). These questions came to mind while reading.

• You have a valid point about describing the causeway which I had not done. I've added a sentence after it reading "The causeway had elaborately decorated walls covered with a roof, which had a slit in one section allowing light to enter illuminating the images". Whether it was inclined, or by how much, I don't know, and I've not read about it in my sources (or I'd have mentioned it). I'd personally say that the causeway was like a tunnel given its construction, but that's my interpretation of what I've read and not how any source describes it. I've also modified the preceding sentence for clarity. I'm amenable to removing the Khufu pyramid comparison, if its being retained is somehow a problem, but, I must say that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone reading this article is unaware of Khufu's pyramid, the only surviving wonder of the ancient world. Amended on 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC): I removed the comparison. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• The most important fact, the Pyramid texts of Unas Pyramid are the oldest ones, is not mentioned in the lead.

• I've added that they were first written in his pyramid. Much of the text is older than Unas' pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

2) I think the description of the pyramid itself is too short compared to the info given for the structures surrounding it. Comparing with the German Wikipedia's article, which is featured already, I see several possibilities for expansion.

• The pyramid's core was stepped, but with the encasing, was it originally a stepped pyramid or a true pyramid? Maybe deserves a mention.

• No step pyramids were built after the Third Dynasty in the Old Kingdom - the only possible exception is Neferirkare's pyramid, which appears to have been built as a step pyramid and then converted into a true one. The core is generally stepped, but the casing forms it's true shape. You can see this in the image in that section if you look closely at the fine limestone slabs and then the crude limestone core. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Does not hurt to add a "true pyramid" somewhere, though? This article will be read by people without much background knowledge on pyramids, and since the nearby Djoser pyramid is a stepped one, I would defenitely mention it, probably even already in the lead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• This was a surprising pain in the neck to do. It's a given that almost all pyramids built after the Third Dynasty (bar two to my knowledge) were "true/smooth-sided", so it's unlikely a source will preface "Pyramid of So-and-so was a true pyramid". I cited the depiction in Lehner's book, a table in Aude Gros de Beler's The Nile (2000), and a general note on smooth-sided pyramids in Bard (2015). I prefer "smooth-sided" as a term to "true" (it seems to confuse people a bit "what's a true pyramid?" – "a pyramid with the geometric shape of a pyramid"). In any case, done in both lede (first sentence) and body (towards the end). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• According to the German Wikipedia's article, it was the steepest king pyramid of its time. Maybe this deserves mentioning?

• Mmm... none of the articles or books I've read mention this, though I'm aware that it is about 2-3 degrees steeper than the other late Fifth and Sixth Dynasty kings pyramids (each being between 53 and 54 degrees). Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• The pyramid was already plundered during antiquity, with all artifacts removed but some portions of the mummy. This is what I read in the German Wikipedia. I completely miss this information here; the mummy fragments are mentioned but without stating what happened to the rest.

• So, I copy-pasted the entire section of the Unterbau from the .de wiki article into google translate to find what you're talking about. I didn't find it. Could you provide me with an exact quote and the source used, because I've read nothing of the sort relating to Unas's pyramid. I've read similar statements in other pyramids, but not this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have good news in regards to this. Edwards mentions that while the tomb was undamaged, its sarcophagus had been robbed of its contents. I've added that in to the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• What was the origin of the stone? Tora, Egypt?

• I'd assume that the casing limestone was sourced from the Tura quarries, while the core was locally sourced. I checked a few obvious sources for this information, but I have not been able to get explicit confirmation—the specific cited source, Verner 2001d, only says that "The casing was made, as usual, of carefully dressed blocks of fine white limestone". Lehner 2008 says nothing of this pyramid's specific construction, but in a different chapter makes a general statement that "[t]he fine limestone for the outer pyramid casing was quarried at Turah and transported across the Nile valley". Lehner also writes "Each pyramid ideally had a quarry close at hand that supplied the bulk of the stone for the pyramid core". Lucas writes "Although limestone was quarried generally in the immediate vicinity of where it was required, the better qualities were obtained from special localities ... for example those at Tura (Troja), Ma'asara, Ayan (Ma'asara Tura), and Gebelein ...". I've added this to the Pyramid section of the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I miss something on the preservation state. Have the missing stones been robbed, or was it natural weathering? As I read from the German Wikipedia, the encasement stone has been robbed, while the core part was of poor quality and was thus eroded by weathering, leading to the very ruined appearance of the pyramid.

• Mmm, yes that's probably correct. Most likely in the New Kingdom, the casing was removed for other projects. Notably, Khaemwaset conducted works on Unas's and other pyramids during this time. The inferior construction method employed by the Fifth Dynasty kings made them more susceptible to the effects of weather and contributed to the ruined states of the pyramids. However, that's an extrapolation of my own knowledge and other writing. I don't have a citation to provide next to any such statement, and, I'm guessing, from the lack of a citation in the .de article that the author over there didn't have one either. I can't do anything about this. Sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I found a reference to the adverse effects that the construction technique had on Unas' pyramid in an image caption. I expounded very slightly that this statement holds true for all the Fifth Dynasty pyramids. I haven't found anything else despite scouring at least a dozen sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• The pyramid contains spolia of older buildings. Worth a mention?

• I don't have access to Labrousse, Lauer and Leclant's Le temple haut du complexe funéraire du roi Ounas to confirm the statement. I've tried finding the source without success. I don't recall seeing it mentioned in any of the 50 sources that I've used in the article (if it had been mentioned I almost certainly would have added it). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• The complex is situated between the pyramid of Sekhemkhet and the south-west corner of the pyramid complex of Djoser, in symmetry with the pyramid of Userkaf situated at the north-east corner, in Saqqara. – This sentence is within the section "pyramid"; info on the complete complex might be better placed in the "Layout" section?

• Good point. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

3) Location and excavation

• and connects a line running from the pyramid of Sekhemkhet to the pyramid of Menkauhor – "lies on a line" maybe?

• Done Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Person attributes are inconsequent. Sometimes they are introduced with "Archaeologist" or "Egyptologist", but in other cases are not introduced at all.

• Refer to Tim Riley's review above. "'a team led by Egyptologist Christiane Ziegler' – I wonder if it is necessary to introduce every expert with the tag 'Egyptologist'? It occurs 15 times in the text and one begins to notice the repetition. In the case of C Ziegler, for instance, I think it is clear from the context that she is an Egyptologist." Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• OK. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• The pyramid was briefly examined by John Shae Perring and soon after by Karl Richard Lepsius; – both need a date.

• If I had a date I'd have given it. The de.wiki article uses the same source that I do, just a different edition. Die Pyramiden 1997, vs The Pyramids 2001 (same source, translated). The exact quote: "However, it did not escape the attention—if only fleeting—of Perring and, shortly thereafter, of Lepsius." No dates provided. I checked Lehner 2008, no dates prior to 1897. The best I can do is give a speculative c. 1842–1843 for Lepsius, which I can source as the years he visited Giza, Abusir and Saqqara. For Perring similarly c. 1835–1837, for the same reasons. My concern there would be synthesis, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• an architect and Egyptologist Alessandro Barsanti – "the" instead of "an"?

• Yes. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Later excavations by Cecil Mallaby Firth, from 1929 until his death in 1931, followed by the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer from 1936 to 1939 – not the best prose imo, perhaps "followed by those of the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer"?

• Done Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Moussa and another archaeologist Audran Labrousse [fr] – needs a comma, and the [fr] is non-standard and not used elsewhere in the article.

• That's an interlanguage link. We don't have an article about him, but fr.wiki does. I can add one to Joachim Spiegel for de.wiki, but there's nothing for Mounir Basta I'm afraid. Double comma added. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

4) Images

• "Upright" attributes should only be used when a larger image is appropriate according to MOS:IMGSIZE, which is not necessarily the case here? Instead of having very large pictures, I would try to include much more pictures.

• The images are rather tiny without it. I've removed one that was completely unnecessary, the mortuary temple and pyramid texts images really need the upscaling – the numbers in the mort. temple are difficult to read, and there's little hope you'll notice the hieroglyphs in the sarcophagus chamber. "Much more" - I wouldn't, the article already contains 9 images and 2 maps with only two short article sections without illustration (excavation and later history). That said, I think you have a point about "additional maps". I'll follow up on that when I get the chance. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I tend to disagree. It is important to keep standard thumb size in order to allow the user to use his personal "preferences" to have the images across Wikipedia exactly the size he wants. This only works when image size is uniform across articles. In my case, for example, the images in this article are way too large and destroy the layout, as I already use a larger image size for my account. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Only registered editors can change the size of the image that is displayed to them. I set the images according to how unregistered readers, to quote MOS "the vast majority of readers", are going to see them. The mort. temple without any upscaling is too difficult to read. The smallest I can make that image is 1.15. At 400px, you'll have no problem reading it, but at 220px, which is the what all non-editors see, you'll have trouble with several of the numbers (probably even with 1.15 upscaling). I've reduced all the other images scaling to 1.2. Log out of your account and take a look at it. The images are small for the majority of the readers. MOS:IMGSIZE makes no comment about keeping a "standard thumb size" to suit personal preference. It states "Only where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use upright scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width." It even suggests 1.3 as a possible upscale for revealing fine detail (which is what most of the images in the article had been set to). I'm really not happy with the Sarc chamber image being at 1.2, the detail of the hieroglyphs and facade is best seen at 1.4. That's about as far as I'm willing to go without a consensus that I'm wrong. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• In particular, we need additional maps, not just the one of the mortuary temple. [38], [39], [40] would all be very helpful, or even necessary to be really able to follow the description.

5) Causeway

• where gaps formed as a result of the wadi – I do not understand this part. Was the wadi eroding the causeway, resulting in gaps?

• No. It's just that the wadi isn't man made and so isn't uniform. Re-worded. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I miss some general description how the causeway was constructed. It had side walls, and a roof?

• Both the walls and roof have already received mention in the article. I'm not sure what you're asking. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• You mention them, but only while describing them in detail, assuming that the reader already knows they are present. It already would help to add the word "roofed" somewhere right at the beginning of the causeway section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've added three sentences giving dimensions and details on the causeway. Solid suggestion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• The discovery of a similar relief painting on the blocks of Sahure's causeway casts doubt on this hypothesis. – But why?

• This one's my fault. I've clarified that we're talking about a decline for the Bedouins during Unas's reign because of the climatic change in the middle of the millenium. Since similar relief artwork has been found in an older pyramid, the hypothesis that some significant decline occurred during Unas's reign is doubtful. Hope that's clearer. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Grimal briefly mentions the same scene – the same scene elsewhere? Or precisely the one seen in Unas pyramid?

• The same scene in the same spot. There's only one such scene. The Sahure one is similar, but not the same. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, so why do you need to state this after all? You could just write "Grimal suggested that this scene foreshadowed …", which feels more concise to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)  

• Is a good point. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

6) Additional points

• Comma usage seems to be a bit off:
  • Their irregular placement, resulted in the northern storerooms being twice as numerous as the southern.
  • Remnants of a granite false door bearing an inscription concerning the souls of the residents of Nekhen and Buto, marks what little of the offering hall has been preserved.

• I've cleaned these two instances up. I'll look at the rest in the coming week. Busy irl, only able to leave a few basic comments and clean up minor details. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Please check for other instances.
• In this case, it too has been completely destroyed. – why is "in this case" needed? How do we know the dimensions if it has been "completely destroyed"? Maybe change to "largely destroyed"?

• Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Leaning oppose for now, as issues appear to be too numerous. I will be happy to switch to support when things are addressed, however. First comments above; comments on other parts may follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Jens Lallensack I've attempted to address all of your comments. I've acted upon some of your comments, and left comments under others. I've skipped the maps for the time being because I will need to check them myself for accuracy. The third map, for example, that you link is almost certainly wrong. Unas's causeway was about 720-750m long, the scale of the map implies around 450m in length. On top of that, the causeway looks very weirdly drawn and conflicts with other images of the causeway I've seen. There's several things that I would like to have been able to resolve, but can't because {{citation needed}}. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, will take a new look soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Seems that access to literature is a problem. The work "The pyramid of Unas. A Piankoff, 1968" also is not cited, although it appears to be one of the principal sources. I understand that such sources are difficult to get, but did you try the resource exchange? For the Piankoff book, I should be able to access it via my local library if you are interested, but not before the second week of January. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. With regard to Piankoff... it's a translation of the Pyramid Texts found in Unas's pyramid. It'll make an interesting read if you want to know what the texts say, though I already have a book on precisely that from 2005 (which also covers the PT's in Teti's, Merenre I's and Pepi I and II's pyramids). I don't know if the book also contains any particular information of the pyramid itself (maybe on the pyramid and substructure, but not on the temples or causeway). Feel free to check it out, but I don't think it is what you think it is. I strong disagree that "access to literature is a problem". I've used 50 different sources, and was unsuccessful in getting 1. Oh well. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies if I was unreasonable. Good catch with the robbed contents, this is important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is something I do not understand about the "Pyramid text of Unas" section, even after several reads:

• The north and south walls are dedicated to the offering and resurrection rituals – The walls of the burial chamber, right? Or is this about the gable only? (maybe state for clarity)

• Yes, of the burial chamber. I've added "of the chamber", as the previous sentence says "in Unas's burial chamber". Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• The writings on the west gable in Unas's burial chamber – aren't the hieroglyphs preserved only the eastern half of the burial chamber? (maybe something to add as well?)

• Most of the west half of the burial chamber wasn't inscribed with PT's, as stated in the previous section the walls around Unas's sarcophagus were painted to resemble the facade of the royal palace. The only part of the western burial chamber that had PTs was the west gable. As to preservation, Unas's are the best preserved of any corpus. I'll add a sentence on why that is. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• The Egyptologist James Allen identifies the last piece of ritual text on the west gable of the antechamber – but nothing more on the antechamber?

• Ah, I see the issue. I'll leave an explanation here, but I'll need to fix that in the article. There are two types of texts in Unas's pyramid: ritual and personal (I intentionally left the categorization out because each source identifies categories differently). Unas's burial chamber is dedicated primarily to ritual, except the west gable which has apotropaia (protective magic). His antechamber is primarily inscribed with personal texts, except for the east wall which also has apotropaia. Hence "the last piece of ritual text" comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Done Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• The penultimate paragraph again describes the different walls. Are these the same walls that have been discussed in the paragraph before? Or is this now about the antechamber? Is not clear to me.

• Antechamber, I'll clarify that, refer above comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Done Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• The passage before the antechamber also has hieroglyphs, what about those? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good catch. IIRC, the passageway was used as a run-off for the texts on the east wall. I'll check first. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Added a sentence on this. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• A small chapel was situated adjacent to the pyramid's north face – but none can be seen in the picture of the entrance. Maybe add that this chapel is poorly preserved, and was inferred based on the offset of the pyramid? Anything about the function of the chapel?

• The chapel is destroyed, but was inferred based on both precedent and trace findings. I'll add that in. As to function, it's unclear at best, but I'll see what I can scrounge up. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've written a sentence about the function of the north chapel. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the double mastaba, maybe add that no pyramids for queens are present, in contrast to some other complexes? This might be an interesting background information, explaining the significance of the mastaba.

• I think I read somewhere that Unas' decision to bury his wives in a mastaba is a departure from the standard practice of the time; both Djedkare Isesi and Teti had buried their wives in pyramids, as did Pepi I who had at least 9 queens' pyramids (for wives and daughters) built next to his pyramid. I'll see if I can find where I read that. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Done, and added a sentence on the pharaoh's children's tombs. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Any info on the cult pyramid? Dimensions? Inclination? Function? Mention/description of the internal chamber? Currently it is mentioned without any further information, I think it deserves more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• The only work that I know contains the dimensions of the cult pyramid is Labrousse, Leclant Lauer Le temple haut du complexe funéraire du roi Ounas 1977. The one I can't find. I've checked Lehner 2008, Hellum 2007, Edwards 1993 [Orig 1947], Wilkinson (2000) and Verner 2001d. Wilkinson's book is a summary of every valley and pyramid temple discovered, and even it doesn't have the dimensions. Verner has an index containing the dimensions of every pyramid and cult pyramid that is known. Of the Fifth Dynasty, four complexes neglect to provide information for the cult pyramid. Two because they don't have them (Neferirkare Kakai and Neferefre), one which has so thoroughly been destroyed that the dimensions for the main pyramid are unknown (Menkauhor) and one for a reason I don't know (Unas).
  I've checked which libraries in Australia host the book. There are three, the nearest one is 500 miles (900km) away from me and the one after it is 700 miles (1200km) away. To put it in a German perspective, if you were in München you'd need to drive to Aarhus, Denmark for the near one, and to Göteborg, Sweden for the one after it. For that book, I can only suggest checking what libraries around you might have it. The only other book that might have it, is Rainer Stadelmann's Die ägyptischen Pyramiden 1985 (in German). Beyond that, I don't know of any work that gives that information. The function of the cult pyramid is disputed, though one hypothesis is that it held the pharaoh's Ka. I'll add that in tomorrow when I have the chance (this is a late night reply). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, function would be disputed in most cases, but a "the function is unclear" would already be an important information for a reader with little background. As for the Lbrousse et al. book: The local library of the Institute of Egyptology in Bonn has it; no problem for me to go there and have a look. Will do that the next days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Very much appreciated. The book was originally published in French, so if you need any assistance let me know. You might also be able to find the mention of spolia somewhere in the book (according to the de.wiki article it's somewhere between page 120 and 128) if you want me to add that in as well. The measurements are likely to be given in coudées (cubits) and the French term for cult pyramid is pyramide satellite. Thanks again. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Got it now, its on the way to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

support now – all the above has been addressed, and the article largely improved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Support form SN54129

Opposing on the absolute dearth of semicolons, and that "indeed" is not used once.

Changing to "support". Nice article, and clearly passes the criteria. ——SerialNumber54129 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for input

I'd like to turn your attention to this alt caption, and to the image generally. I used a reference image from Kurt Sethe (1922) (link for convenience) to create the map now in the article. I used the image scale, alongside a measuring tape and "pixel measurements" to try and re-create it as accurately as possible. There are some minor measuring errors of up to 10cm (the antechamber has a difference of .25m and is 3.5m, but that's because Sethe writes that the antechamber is 3.5m long, in contrast to Lehner's 3.75m quoted in the article text). I know the errors are there because Sethe writes that the first three registers of hieroglyphs (PTs 1–203) are spread across 4.065m of wall, whereas my wall is 3.98m (8.5cm/4-5px off). Using a measuring tape on his image I get 3.84m, which doesn't help, but his entire sarcophagus chamber is off by 14cm/7px (7.16m/8.6cm instead of 7.3m/8.8cm) which I've manually rectified. I guess my pixels are more accurate than his hands (but not really as you'll see in a moment). None of this would be overly important, the mortuary temple and valley temple are based off images that have no scale provided for example, except that I'm giving approximate measurements throughout the alt text. My concern here is obviously OR. I don't know how else to explain to the reader, who is reading the alt text because they cannot see the image, that the granite starts a bit ahead of the portcullis, and ends well behind it, except through the approximate measurements provided. I checked the 1.5m and 3.4m measurements and they match the reference image near exactly (1.5m and 3.41m). I also checked the 9.7m measurement and it's off by .62m because I forgot to do a conversion on the scale (I used 1.3cm as 1.3m instead of 1.2cm as 1m = 2*30cm errors = 60cm error). The image has now been corrected. It's now 9.08m which is either dead-on, or off by 8cm – it depends whether my measuring tape reads 10.8cm or 10.9cm which comes out to 9m or 9.08m using Sethe's scale (1.2cm per 1m). Does anyone have a suggestion on what I should do, or should I do anything? I've noted that the measurements provided are based on the scale in the image (50px = 1m). Pinging reviewers: Tim riley, Ceoil, A. Parrot, Jens Lallensack, Serial Number 54129, and co-ordinator: Ian Rose. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Apologies in advance if I misunderstand your question. But if it's inconsistency between sources which you are unable to resolve, then the simplest course of action is probably a footnote—or perhaps hidden text—pointing this out to the reader; caveat emptor, etc., so at least they can then come to a judgement based on the same evidence you have.

Incidentally, the folks yon at the WP:IMAGELAB are good with this kind of thing, if you want to save yourself a job of work. Having said that, they can only be as accurate as the sources (I guess) so might end up with the same issues as you have found.

Notwithsatnding the amount of altext  :) I recommend you enlarge the image as it has intricate detail (esp. text) that can't be appreciated at that size. See my suggestion here, using an |upright=1.5 parameter; although the image can be enlarged by clicking on it, that does present WP:ACCESS issues for some. Hope all is well! ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quite prompt response. The source conflict is fine to handle, no it's just that Sethe doesn't give measurements for everything, he gives a scale. I'm wondering if my measurements using that scale and noting them in the alt text is acceptable, particularly given that my measurements can have a 1mm/8cm error. I used a lot more words than necessary to convey that. As to enlarging the image, I actually tried 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 2.0. Eh, it's difficult to read at all of those sizes, except 2.0 which is simply too big, and 1.5 conflicts with the header of the next section. I though about enlarging the text, but not all of it can be. I'll think about it. Thanks for your review as well btw. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - reping cause I'm a dolt who doesn't use "Show preview" all the time. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll just leave it as is with a note that this is Sethe's measurements. It'd be quicker for me to catch a plane to Egypt, walk into the substructure of Unas's pyramid with my measuring tape, and redo all the measurements myself, than to try and rectify all the disparities between Sethe's text, Sethe's ungefährer map and other sources. Perfect is the enemy of the good here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think this is just about ready for promotion, but can I just check that A. Parrot has nothing further to add? Sarastro (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: No, I have nothing to add. A. Parrot (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2019 [41].

---

Apollo 11

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Kees08 (talk)

Apollo 11 was the first manned landing on the Moon. We're trying to get the article up to Featured in time for the 50th anniversary, which is in July next year. Article has been overhauled, and is already had an A class review that included image and source reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

All looks very good so far. A few comments,

• "upper stage". Doubtless it was but I'd use "ascent stage" as you just used that.

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The landing was broadcast on live TV to a worldwide audience." This seems a bit unclear. The landing itself was filmed through one of the LM's windows, if I recall correctly, but was it shown at the time? I don't see that mentioned. Are Armstrong's first steps meant?

  Change to the first steps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "[The launch of Sputnik I] precipitated the Sputnik crisis, and triggered the Space Race.[10] President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and initiating Project Mercury,[11] This reads like he responded to an already-existing space race, rather than reacting to the launch of Sputnik, if you get what I am driving at.

  No, but changed to "Eisenhower responded to the Sputnik challenge by" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "This choice of mode meant that the spacecraft could be launched by the Saturn V rocket that was then under development.[20] " maybe "... launched by a single Saturn V rocket, that was ..."?

  I meant as opposed to Nova (rocket), but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Can synonyms be found for some of the "tested"s describing the earlier Apollo missions?

  "Test" is more technically accurate, but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• " The support crew developed procedures in the simulators, especially those for emergency situations, so these were ready for when the prime and backup crews came to train in the simulators," the repetition of "in the simulators" could be avoided.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Can the symbolism of the eagle having an olive branch in its claws be explained, hopefully specifically related to "we came in peace for all mankind"?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• At some point in the article, it might be worth mentioning the space flown items sold from the Armstrong estate at high prices earlier in 2018. Possibly in connection with the PPKs.

  Thinking about it. Have added it to the Neil Armstrong article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  I even bought some of those items :). Just wish I was able to get more! Kees08 (Talk) 23:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• You say the astronauts each had a PPK. I'm not certain about Apollo 11, but for Apollo 15, there were two each, one with maximum weight eight ounces that got to go in the LM, and one that stayed in the CM maximum weight five pounds. There were probably large numbers of mission patches, state and national flags and similar things, probably made of beta cloth, that might be worthy of mention, that NASA presented to people.

  Much smaller on Apollo 11. There were five 0.5-pound (0.23 kg) bags; three stowed on Columbia before launch and two on Eagle. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "At Scheer's suggestion, the CM was named Columbia after the Columbiad, the giant cannon shell spacecraft fired by a giant cannon (also from Florida)" I think Columbiad is the gun, not the shell.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site selection: I think you should say flat out (it can be pieced together, but still) that they wanted a large flat place on the lunar equator and that the Sea of Tranquility fulfilled this. It might also be worth stating that science was not a major consideration in the site selection in the way it would be later.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Saturn V SA-506, the rocket carrying the Apollo 11 spacecraft, heads out of the Vehicle Assembly Building and down to Launch Complex 39" I think the stately pace would justify "moves" rather than "heads", with "toward" for "to", perhaps. Watch your complete sentence captions needing periods.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Was EASEP considered part of the LM for purposes of making a comparison with Snoopy?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The command and service modules were mated on January 29, and shipped from the Operations and Checkout Building to the Vehicle Assembly Building on April 14.[56]" Is "shipped" the best choice of words?

  Probably. Changed to "moved". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "(5,357-long-ton; 6,000-short-ton) " Not sure you need the dashes before "ton".

  It's caused by the MOS, which wants the hyphens in adjectival form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning the crew being awakened prior to launch and the traditional breakfast?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• It might be worth knowing which of the astronauts performed the TPE maneuver.

  Collins did it. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "At 17:44:00 Eagle separated from the Columbia.[6] Collins, alone aboard Columbia, " There seems inconsistency as to whether you refer to these craft with "the" before it. Similar problem later with Hornet.

  Removed "the"s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Despite the importance of the 1201 and 1202 program alarms, the extended discussion feels a bit out of place when no doubt the reader wants to press on to the landing. Can some of it be put in a footnote?

  It helps build the suspense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• The landing section feels a bit skimpy. Cannot more be said about Armstrong maneuvering the lander to its eventual safe landing point?

  I took care of this while addressing someone's else's point. Kees08 (Talk) 23:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• You mention the astronauts working at the MESA at some length but do not give any clue as to what work they were doing there.

  The MESA is just a storage bin. The article described them taking objects from it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Ascent Stage" seems inconsistently capitalized.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Armstrong's and Aldrin's space suits are displayed in the museum's Apollo to the Moon exhibit.[155] " I understand that closed a couple of weeks ago.

  Aw, crap. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think you could say more at some point about the cultural significance of the first landing, that Armstrong's first steps are one of those moments where people remember where they were.

  They'd have to be over 50 years old. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• People who were alive at the time, obviously.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Something could be said about what Collins did with his time in lunar orbit.

  Anything in particular? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I know there was no SIM bay yet, but were there scientific experiments he carried out? Did he take photographs? Did he have an organized program of activities? I realize Apollo 11 did not stay long on the Moon's surface, but some detail would be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That's all for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to watchlist this Hawkeye; let me know what you need help taking care of. Kees08 (Talk) 05:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering if you're all set on these yet, I know you want to move this FAC along. Could you ping me?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Looks like we need to add what Collins did during the mission, and address the cultural significance (something another reviewer requested). I will give you a ping when I (hopefully soon) address these. Kees08 (Talk) 04:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Expanded the section on what Collins did during the mission. Kees08 (Talk) 22:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support I've looked it over and all looks good. Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

MOD

Excellent work! Support on prose; please check my copyedits. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack

Very well written, although I got an impression that some points are discussed in great detail (e.g., "Prime crew", "backup crew") while others lack important information. Most obvious in the landing section, and I think this is one of the most important parts. It does not describe how Armstrong was maneuvering, how he finally found a landing spot, the visibility problems due to a stir caused by the engines, and so on. In other sections, I would have loved to read something about personal relationships between the astronauts. Above all, the decision who will be the man to set foot on the moon first, and how this influenced the relationship between Armstrong and Aldrin. Also, did they had to change suits before EVA?

Minor points:

• An early and crucial decision was the adoption of lunar orbit rendezvous, under which a specialized spacecraft would land on the lunar surface. – Would be good to add what the "rendezvous" exactly is.

  Hm, I edited those sentences extensively and must have forgotten your original request. It is much better than before I think, but I suppose I do not describe lunar rendezvous still..do you want me to add that in still? Kees08 (Talk) 23:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  I added an explanation of rendezvous. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• What makes spaceflownartifacts.com a reliable source? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's collated from the Apollo documents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Hawkeye, I was not sure so I had removed it prior to your comment in this diff. Feel free to restore the information if you believe that to be an RS. Kees08 (Talk) 23:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  It was in response to comments about. I've restore it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: I added more detail to the landing and am addressing the other points. When you said you would like to see more detail in other sections, were you listing out examples and wanting me to find the rest to expand, or were you listing the specific areas you would like to see expanded? Kees08 (Talk) 21:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Armstrong and Aldrin (and astronauts on the later Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions) wore their space suits the whole time they were on the Moon. To get ready for an EVA, they donned overshoes, gloves, helmets and back packs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• While Buzz gets a bit of flak about wanting to be first, Alan Bean (the LMP on Apollo 12) and Bill Anders (LMP on Apollo 8) actually had the LM door moved to facilitate this, but management ordered it moved back again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Good points; I hope to write a section containing all of that information to balance it out, unless you beat me to it (or do not want me to write it). Kees08 (Talk) 23:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  I've added a paragraph on the crew's personal relationship to the end of the "Prime crew" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions so far, looks great. No, as soon as something on the decision "who is going to be first on the moon" is added, I am entirely happy. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Started a section which can use a little more work. I only have two sources with me, but Collins' first book would be a good additional source since he was close to the issue and it was published near when the mission occurred. Kees08 (Talk) 21:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Woof. I could write an entire article on that. I did not include what Aldrin perceived his reactions to be, or what Armstrong and Collins perceived Aldrin's reaction to be. I tried to include the behind-the-scenes decisions and what Aldrin perceived the rationale to be. What do you think of it now? Kees08 (Talk) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

In both First Man and Carrying the Fire they discuss how some thought Armstrong was 'exercising his commander's prerogative', I could include that if you think I should. Kees08 (Talk) 03:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that is much more than I was asking for. Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I reviewed this at its ACR, but have read through it again. The article is in excellent shape, and I have the following comments. Please note though that I might be without an internet connection for the next few days, so it may take me a while to respond:

• "An early and crucial decision was choosing between lunar orbit rendezvous" - can you say when this decision was made?

  Yes, and changed all that around because I did not have the complete story. Date the decision was announced is included. Kees08 (Talk)

  The story is a long and complicated one - whole books have been written on the subject, which has its own article. Agree with the decision to date it from the public announcement on

• "Apollo 11 was the second all-veteran crew " - I'd suggest tweaking this to "Apollo 11 was the second all-military veteran crew" as the term could also be referring to the previous space experience of the astronauts

  The intended meaning appears to be reflected, since the article is referring to the second time all of the astronauts have had previous space experience. Armstrong was actually a civilian astronaut. Kees08 (Talk) 06:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  As all three had served in the military and "veteran" without anything else is most commonly used in reference to military personnel, I'd suggest tweaking the wording to clarify this then. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps. How is the wording now? Hard to rephrase that sentence. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  Looks good Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• "fueled by Aldrin's fondness for Scotch" - this is a bit indirect. Was he drunk?

  "Drunk" is such a harsh word. Collins just says he became red faced and voluble. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  To throw a little bit of fuel on this, all three astronauts have different stories for this event. Might be better to remove it and replace it with more generic interactions (I have some in mind), and save the story for the book.

Kees08 (Talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• This hasn't been addressed yet. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Nick-D: Not sure if you are out of town yet, but I have addressed this issue. Kees08 (Talk) 02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• "In May 1969, Apollo 10 flew to within 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) of Site 2" - was this the lunar module's decent to near the moon's surface, or did the command module pass over at this altitude?

  Specified Kees08 (Talk)

• When did Eagle reach Columbia after taking off from the moon? (the time it took off and the time it was jettisoned are noted, but not the time of the rendezvous)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The crew were also warned that they would not be in a full-lift (heads-down) attitude when they entered P67." - what this means is a bit unclear

  It means they would still be face up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The remains of the ascent stage lie at an unknown location on the lunar surface, after being abandoned and impacting the Moon" - this is stated earlier in the article. I'd suggest that one of the instances where this is mentioned (perhaps the first?) be removed.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Were the discoveries of armalcolite, tranquillityite, and pyroxferroite the only significant scientific discoveries other than the astronauts personal observations which arose from Apollo 11?

  It was the only ones that the astronauts personally did. However, a lot of interesting science has resulted from the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. Apollo 11 was intended as an engineering mission, not a scientific one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  I added the types of rocks they found, probably nothing more to add than that. Kees08 (Talk) 18:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• As a bit of a bigger ask, the article would benefit from a paragraph or two on the political, cultural and technical significance of Apollo 11. Nothing in the body of the article explicitly fleshes out the statement in the lead that "Apollo 11 effectively ended the Space Race". This would also allow the excellent quote which concludes the article to be placed more firmly in context. The section could discuss the impact the landing had on people around the world (with many people alive at that time remembering exactly where they were when Eagle landed), and its influence on the subsequent space program - for instance, some sources argue that the public rapidly lost interest in the space program after Apollo 11, and NASA has never been able to reignite strong/sustained interest, even when manned landings on Mars or a return to the Moon are proposed. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's more that Congress lost interest in funding it. Public support was always soft. There was a brief moment in 1957-62, but afterwards traditional American antipathy towards science reasserted itself. During Apollo 11, a lot of opponents were swept up in the wonder of it all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  Drive-by: if you do include some reactions, don't forget to try and work in J.G. Ballard's quip: "If I were a Martian I'd start running now!" Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  I checked out a book called 'The Race' by James Schefter that I thought might cover the issue. Unfortunately, the last lines of the book after describing the Apollo 11 landing are 'The race was over. America won.' I will see what else I can find. Kees08 (Talk) 23:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  Note sure if you want updates, but they help me keep track of the work remaining. It is a lot closer. Added in the positive and negative reactions for balance, which was reflected in the sources I was reviewing. Plan to add in a paragraph on the decline in public interest, while not going into too much detail since this is not the Space Race article. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Wehwalt and Nick-D: What do you think of the section as it is now? Kees08 (Talk) 06:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  Looks OK, let me think about it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  I also think this is OK. It could be expanded a bit - for instance, were there different reactions in the Soviet Bloc and third world than in the US and its allies? (as I understand it, the Soviet government took being beaten to the Moon with good grace, not least as it was still ahead of the US in other aspects of its space program and its moon program had been a fiasco). It would be helpful to clarify "some called Apollo 11 the turning point of civilization" - who are these "some", and what did they mean by this? Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Nick-D: I have added the paragraph you requested. Let me know what you think. I removed the quote, it was not all that important to the section. I do not think I will find good sources on third world country reactions to the landing, and I am not sure it is needed either. Kees08 (Talk) 03:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize I did not take care of the fondness of scotch comment yet. I will take care of that tomorrow. Kees08 (Talk) 07:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm supporting as I'm going to be out of town for a few weeks from tomorrow and won't be able to follow this review. My comment about the need to clarify "a heated discussion followed that evening, fueled by Aldrin's fondness for Scotch" has not yet been addressed, but I'm sure it will given the strong track record of the nominators and their comments in relation to this above. Nick-D (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes to fix

I am working on something else and found an error I want to fix later. If I find others I will collate them here. Kees08 (Talk) 23:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The astronauts planted a specially designed U.S. flag on the lunar surface," - as I wrote in the Lunar Flag Assembly article, the flag was not specially designed, although the entire assembly technically would have been.

  Tried re-wording this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  Looks great now. Kees08 (Talk) 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Saw at least one kilometres, should be kilometers

  Could only find one. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks! Holiday travels will soon be over and I should have more time for this then. Kees08 (Talk) 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still on holidays for a couple more weeks. I have a complete copy of my digital library, and a box of books I brought with me, but I don't have all my books. Currently I am reading Space in the American Imagination (1997). We could use a cultural historian like Lindleyle; I'm a techno-military historian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Did you mean to link to a user with only a few edits? I am back from travels and now have a library card; if there is anything I should check out let me know. Otherwise I will mostly use my personal collection to address the comments given to us so far. Kees08 (Talk) 03:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• File:Apollo 11 photo map.svg is a re-colored image based on this USGS PD image. Lunar surface journal content is typically copyrighted, as the page the image is found on indicates. Obviously the copyright claim could be invalid, and they do not specify the copyright on the individual photo (they typically do not). As long as we properly attribute who recolored it, can we keep this image?

@Nikkimaria: Would you have a second to answer the copyright question I have above? Kees08 (Talk) 01:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO the colouring is not sufficiently original to garner new copyright under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking at it. That is where I was leaning, mostly wanted to have it documented that we discussed it somewhere. Kees08 (Talk) 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Updated the source and the authors according to this discussion. Kees08 (Talk) 03:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Dead links: the link in ref. 169 is dead. There are further dead links: under "External links" the "Apollo Anniversary" item from National Geographic News, and under "Multimedia" the Smithsonian 3-D model item

  Out of curiosity, what is the FA policy for dead links? I know GA allows them, wondering when that becomes disallowed. Kees08 (Talk)

  The relevant policy is WP:Nutshell: Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. It is generally held that means that link rot must be repaired in Featured Articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted the dead external links, that area needs further cleanup anyways. Fixed the dead link in ref 169. Kees08 (Talk)

• Retrieval dates missing from refs 8 and 189

  Done Kees08 (Talk)

• Ref 144 lacks source and publisher information

  Do you think that citation is necessary? I brought it up in the A-class review, we already have his quote cited, not sure we need to cite the verse as well (so a reader could prove that he quoted the Bible correctly maybe?) Kees08 (Talk)

  I thought the readers might like to look it up for the actual context. I did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  Do you know how to cite the Bible? I am fine with it staying, I tried to figure it out and was at a loss. I can try again if you do not. Kees08 (Talk) 04:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  I used a template to link to Wikisource, not sure what else to do on this. Kees08 (Talk) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Refs 173 and 192 should give publishers rather than web addresses

  Fixed Kees08 (Talk)

• Ref 194 shows hyphens in page ranges

  That is as it should be. The document uses the (section number)-(page number) style, it is linked if you want to double check. Kees08 (Talk)

In general the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have one question for you above, the rest have been addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Is there anything else you suggest I do? Kees08 (Talk) 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No further action required on sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Brian. Kees08 (Talk) 02:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Apollo 11 photo map.svg: The source link should point to a file page, not to the image directly.

  Fixed. I added some words to make it easier to find it on that page as well. Kees08 (Talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like all the images are pertinent to the section where they are mentioned. ALT text is mostly lacking though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I will keep adding alt text as I find time. The closed captioning on File:AP11_FINAL_APPROACH.ogv is still in work also. Kees08 (Talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing comment: For consistency, I think we should either have all alt-text or no alt-text as we are a little betwixt and between right now. But I don't think that need hold this up any further. Sarastro (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2019 (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) 13:53, 10 January 2019 [42].

---

William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 00:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thing, a rare thing: possibly a genuinely nice feller from the English middle ages; certainly one historian has described him—near as dammit—as being the only honest man of his era. And yet, you will (not!) be surprised to hear, in the words of Edmund Blackadder, for all his goodness, he still managed to make a "fat pile of cash" out of the King he was so loyal to...and who was himself almost permanently broke! The article has received a possibly adequate GA review, and a detailed going over by KJP1 at peer review (Thanks again); hopefully we're not too far off promoting Will. As ever, respect also to the original page creator. Many thanks in advance to all who choose to give up their valuable time here—it's always appreciated. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 00:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It has also now received a thorough copy-edit from The One Like User:Miniapolis, many thanks there too  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mr rnddude

• References

• Citation 30 - pp. 121122. I suspect 121–122.
• Citations 58, 116 p. xxx +n vs Citations 64, 70 p.xxx+n. Space or no space?
• Citations 111, 116, 131 have double periods "..". Not sure why.
• Bibliography exceptionally clean and without a single error showing up. Great.

Cheers; all cleaned up. The odd thing about the ".." is that they didn't show up in a ctrl+f search either; still, I think I caught them all.

• Notes

• Note 10: Indeed, at this time, relations between Westmorland and Henry IV - Mmm... is "indeed" necessary here?

Gone.

• Note 9: the enormous sum of nearly £5,000 - Any chance we could get this figure in more modern terms as well?

Yeeees; I've added the template. I'm not overly fond of making this kind of comparison, as I said at the peer review, but since your the second editor to request it we can call that a consensus. It's a curiously specific figure for such a long time ago...

• Note 8: Anthony Steele, on the other hand, dates de Ros' appointment quite precisely to between 14 July and 16 September 1403, but also says that Furnival replaced him in December the next December.

• Problem a) "in December the next December" Que?

Quite.

• Problem, or perhaps question b) Are the appointment dates provided here the start and end date, or a range of just the start date? If former, nvm, if latter then "quite precisely" is a bit subjective.

Clarified; Steele is talking about a range of dates for the appointment, which lasted—he says—until Dmr the next year. Removed "precisely" since, clearly, a range of two or three months is anything but precise.

• Note 2: Possession was was usually - Drop one was.

One was.

• Family and Bequests

• By his wife Margaret Fitzalan, William de Ros had four sons, John, Thomas, Robert and Richard. They also had four daughters, Beatrice, Alice, Margaret and Elizabeth; de Ros also had an illegitimate son, John, by a now-unknown woman. I fail to see why you separate sentence 1 and 2 with a period, but then sentence 2 and 3 with a semi-colon. I get we're trying to be all fancy with semi-colons and the suchlike, but I think just a period will do.

What's fancy about a semi-colon?! However, I've reworked it into what I believe you will consider a great improvement...

• Charles Ross suggested that de Ros's - Either you are another victim of the enforcement of MOS:POSS, or you have some unintentional s's. You use s' throughout the notes (I'm reading backwards for CE purposes), and a mixture of s' and s's in the article body.

Indeed. There was a couple of others; think I caught those also.

• provides full confirmation of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests, that Ros was a man of just and equitable temperament - Serious question, are you just using quotes when people are speaking incomprehensibly cause you don't get what they're saying either? or are you just trying to make me suffer? The heck does "of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests" supposed to mean?

I've removed the "of".

• ... which church has de Ros family armigers throughout. - Uhhh... this reads like a question. I think "church" isn't necessary here.

I've got rid; it was an unnecessary detail and lengthened the sentence equally unnecessarily.

• Later years and death

• ... although died after a military skirmish outside Paris two years later - although [he] died.

Mildly disagree that it's essential to retain the object to an intransitive verb; although not vehemently enough to debate it of course.

• His mother had drawn up her will in January 1414 ... - Whose mother? Henry V's, William de Ros', someone else? same question with ... of which he was an executor. It's not clear to me from the previous sentence is all.

Clarified: de Ros both times.

• Question regarding the quote in the top right hand corner. Was de Ros' drunk when he wrote that? or is that what early 15th century English looks like? Like, I've read Shakespeare, but I don't recall "neghst" being night (or is that next?) and "greet noumbre pf men aurmed and areyed" being great numbers of men armed and arrayed.

Well, the pf was a blatant typo; but the rest of it, yeah. Transcribes as: "At Wraby in the shire of Lincoln, the Saturday next after the Feast of St Michael, did assemble a great number of men armed and arrayed against the peace, to lie in wait against the same Lord de Ros". Remember, yer man Shakespeare was writing in early modern English, which was only became formed in the mid-15th century, so sometime after de Ros is writing in what was still middle English. We may, of course, to choose to thank our stars that it's not old English, which—from Beowulf—would be Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagum / þeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon :)

I'm slightly wary of making such a transcription, though, as it may smack on WP:OR; although I am regularly assured it wouldn't be. But the odds on finding a source with that particular quote in it are slim to nothing, and yet a mistranscription would mislead the WP:READER. Know what I mean?

• Looking pretty good so far, will take a break here for a while and come back soon to keep working through. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Great review, Randomity Guy :) many thanks! I've attended to most / replied to all your suggestions. Look forward to the rest of your wares  :) cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Regional disorder

• Although, say modern historians, the case was not uncommon in its basic facts

• a) Modern historians say/argue/suggest or According to modern historians.
• b) Which ones? or is that just what the source says?

Yep, changed both.

• As a result, the case–heard before the Lord Chamberlain and the Archbishop of Canterbury–took over three weeks to hear. - Heard then hear in the same sentence. Can heard be replaced by argued? you know as in "arguing your case" or would that render a different meaning?

No, it's a good point; I eventually went with "three weeks to determine", I wanted a word that means the case was presented, argued and adjudged all in one.

• The Chamberlain and Archbishop requested the attendance of not just de Ros himself ... - don't need "himself" here.

Himself gone.

• ... "knyghtes and Esquiers and Yomen that had ledynge of men" for him" - One too many quote marks.

Well spotted; gone.

• ... that a nobleman of de Ros position ... - I believe de Ros' rather than de Ros

Done.

• ... and that de Ros had shown forbearance - "that he had shown", as you'd already named him in the previous clause ^above^.

Agreed, changed.

• ... de Ros was no exception to the phenomena of local conflict himself. - Don't need himself here, either.

Ditto.

• Theirs was only a temporary ceasefire, however, and the following year de Ros sponsored a second arbitration between the two parties, which they promised to abide by on pain of a 500 mark fine - Change "theirs" to this. Remove "only" and "two". Tell me, is anything meaningful lost?

2/3—I think "only" is worth retaining in order to emphasise that it wasn't intended to be temporary.

• In such efforts, one modern historian has suggested that de Ros' "reputation for fair-mindedness" ... - Why not just tell me who?

Because it's yet another bloody Given-Wilson that's why! :D

• Royal favour

• This he had not done; indeed, if anything, his opinions were even more entrenched than before. Tighten: He refused; if anything, his opinions [entrenched further/were further entrenched] (16 words vs 8/9). The key to good writing, it seems, is to convey as much as possible in as few words. I learnt that from Ceoil and Tony1's FA guides, admittedly.

Quite  :) adjusted!

• He was burnt to death, possibly, according to the sixteenth-century martyrologist, John Foxe, in a barrel, in London's Smithfield - Geez what a way to go. Cheaper I suppose, don't need the extra wood to build a bonfire around a large stake.

I deed, Henry IV's austerity measures eh!

• Historian Mark Arvanigian - You're going with BrEng I suspect, so just mentioning the lack of a definite article before a false title. I didn't realize it was a thing in BrEng either, but apparently it's an Americanism.

Cheers!

• ... such as this gave de Ros patronage to dispense of his own - I think you can end this sentence at dispense.

Thanks.

• ... eventually only charged ... - Really nitpicky, cause now I'm actively looking for each word that can be culled, but "eventually charged" or "only charged" or even just "charged" would all work here.

Agree, cheers

• Local administration and crisis

• De Ros had been instructed not to engage the rebels without the King's express authority - Well... the king has authority (as in power) and he can exercise it, but I think you mean more along the lines of permission (approval / assent) here.

Good point.

• ... says Chris Given-Wilson ... - And I care what Given-Wilson here says because? introduce him Nvm, you introduce him further up. I can't bring myself to just delete this though, I spent five minutes trying to find Wilson. Somebody will see my reference, whether it matters or not.

Brilliant! He is, indeed, given Wilson :D

• ... and two years was granted an annuity of 100 marks a year as the King's retainer - and [for] two years?

Well, two years later?

• ... de Ros' local knowledge would have been invaluable - named in previous clause, hence "his"

Changed.

• ... Cotton MS Cleopatra, F. m. f. 58 b. (Letter from the Royal council to King Henry, May 1405, regarding the rebellion in the north. - Missing end ")" bracket.

Added.

• His brother-in-law, Reginald, Lord Grey of Ruthin ... vs Indeed, personal animosity between Gray and Glyndŵr ... Is it Gray or Grey? And damn that useless "indeed". Indeed, it is the least functional word in the entire article. Indeed, it is, sire, indeed it is. :P

It's Grey, indeed :p

• ... robustly confronted the King over his lack of monies - Monies? money has a plural? I've only seen that word used as slang before. E.g. I'm gon' gets me sum monies.

[43], [44], [45], [46].

• ... subsist on poor revenues . - I feel like I should fix tiny issue like this myself, but... you have an extra space.

No problem  :) done.

• ... hearing the Commons complaints - Hmm, are the complaints called "Commons complaints" or are these the Commons' complaints?

As you say, theirs.

• ... says the parliament roll ... - I didn't realize rolls of parchment could speak.
• says Given-Wilson at second and third mentions; As historian Chris Given-Wilson - at fourth mention; says Chris Given-Wilson at fifth mention. I think one introduction was enough, and all other mentions can be just "Given-Wilson".

Absolutely.

• Whatever his reasons in 1399, historically both de Ros and his father had been Lancastrian rather than Ricardian in their loyalties - This reads like a sentence fragment, but I think I know what you're saying. Perhaps: Whatever his reasons [were for rebelling] in 1399.

That's right, and half-inched, many thanks!

• For his services, de Ros received had received annuities - One too many receptions.

D'oh. Done.

• De Ros' new position at the centre of government was highlighted in December.1399 when he was appointed to Henry's first Royal council - Period in the wrong place.

Removed.

• Despite my many nitpicks, this is an excellent article. I look forward to eventually reading it in the direction that was intended, that is, from the top down. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, thanks very much again, all very useful stuff. Classic line about the volleyball! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Inheritance and marriage

• ... could even have worked against him with the King. - I don't think that "King" should be capitalized except where being used expressly as a title. I.e. I've never met King Henry IV vs I've never met the king.

Yeeees...know wot you mean. Changed.

• Also useful to William was the fact that his wife's father had also recently died ... - Don't need that second also.

Got rid.

• his dead brother's wife - Perhaps deceased would be a more... diplomatic way to put it.

Heh  :) yes, ok.

• Beatrice, on the other hand, had already outlived three husbands, and, indeed, was to outlive William - Indeed.

I'll give you that one :p

• ... which meant that a large swathe of land— predominantly ... - Accidental space after emdash.

Thanks for spotting; filled that, but actually that sentence is bugging me now. I've tweaked it, but I'm not sure for the better. Thoughts?

Sorry, didn't note the request. She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384. This meant that a large swathe of land—predominantly in the East Riding of Yorkshire—de Ros would never hold. I can suggest: She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384, thus [denying de Ros the satisfaction of acquiring {1}]/[withholding the acquisition of {2a}] a large swathe of land—predominantly in the East Riding of Yorkshire—[from de Ros {2b}]. I don't know if that helps, but those are my thoughts on a potential rewrite.

• Her dower lands were assigned to her in December 1384 ... - Somewhat necessary repetition, but can alternately be written as "She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384 ..."

Excellent form of words, thanks: half inched.

• Background and career under Richard II

• No concerns.

"Huzzah"

• Lede

• ... his son and heir, John was still a minor. - double commas around John, I think.

Done.

• A few months later Bolingbroke invaded England and deposed Richard. De Ros took Bolingbroke's side almost immediately. - Implies that de Ros took his side after the deposition, rather than rebellion.

Yep; in fact, I removed the "deposed" bit, and think it's tighter now. Check it. A few months later Bolingbroke invaded England. De Ros took Bolingbroke's side almost immediately. Richard's support had deserted him, and de Ros was alongside Henry when Richard resigned his throne to the invader and later voted in the House of Lords for the ex-King's imprisonment...

I already had, but since you asked: very good.

• I've done the last of the reverse reading. Only a very few pointers this time. Will get to reading in the correct direction tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again Mr rnddude; look forward to your return from Australia. Indeed! :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Notes

• William inherited his father's barony and estates - I wonder if perhaps "barony" should be linked?
• The Fitzalan family, like that of de Ros, was a well-connected family at both local and national levels of the political community. - Perhaps change "was a well-connected family" to "was well-connected". I.e. The Fitzalan family, ... , was well connected...
• In return for his loyalty to the new regime, de Ros received extensive royal patronage. - Didn't notice it previously, but you link patronage only at the final mention. Link in lede, and perhaps in first mention in body (Regime change and career under Henry IV).
• De Ros attended the King's wedding to his second wife - You have a few lot of instances of capitalization of the word king where they aren't used as a title. E.g. ... and also a relatively close friendship with the new King himself and In 1401 he directed the King's attempts to increase the royal income among several others. Oddly enough, I don't really mind it. Not sure what to do now, tell you to recapitalize "king" or decapitalize it everywhere where it's not used as a title per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_people. MOS is not a suicide pact. I guess?
• ... he had lost his office because of his involvement with the Lords Appellant and been exiled since 1397. - Link "Lords Appellant"?
• ... including that of de Ros ... - May be tightened to including de Ros'
• Henry initially announced that he intended only to reclaim his rights as Duke of Lancaster, - should note 7 be appended here instead?
• Henry and Richard met for the first time since Henry had been exiled - "he'd" instead of "Henry" at second mention.
• ...and participated in Henry's Great Council the following year. Link Magnum Concilium perhaps?
• In 1402, Owain Glyndŵr's Welsh rebellion erupted ... - We have an article on Glyndŵr Rising, though I am keeping in mind "sea of blue", perhaps link just "rebellion" to it?
• ... and de Ros was swiftly granted Audley's lands while the Audley heir was a minor - you link Minor (law) here, but not in the lede.

• My final set of comments on prose, as I have now read the article properly. I've responded to a couple of your queries up above in the previous set, check them as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129 - Miniapolis' copy-edit renders most of my points moot, but do check the couple above about wikilinking. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude: I certainly will; thanks very much for popping back. I wasn't ignoring your comments: but I'd completely forgotten applying to the GOCE for this, and when it suddenly started I didn't want to get on the way... :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• @Mr rnddude: And done, many thanks again. ——SerialNumber54129 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose - With Miniapolis' excellent copy-editing and all of my prose concerns addressed, the writing of this article is assuredly of an FA standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Done.

• Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption

Made descriptive only.

• File:Sir_William_de_Ros,_6th_Baron_Ros,_KG.png should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design

Okay; would a pd-scan tag suffice, as it's taken from a book by Bernard Burke, d.1892?

The PD-scan tag would work if the image itself was scanned from that book, but if that's the case it shouldn't be claimed as own work. The design would be PD due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The "creator" (or otherwise) gets all their images from this book; printed 1901, author died 1919. I've added a ref to the usage here and the actual source to commons (to "adjust" their "own work claim"!). Have added relevant tags to commons page. @Nikkimaria: what say ye now? ——SerialNumber54129 18:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that's workable, although I'd be happier if we were crystal clear that the "own work" in this case is only a mechanical reproduction (which doesn't warrant new copyright in the US). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm. As best I can tell there're no actual arms for de Ros depicted in St. John 1901. Their blazon, however, is given in Burke 1884 (details on image page): Gu. three water bougets ar. (that is: "A Red shield with a picture of three water bougets [water skins] in silver"). Looking at the picture , and your linked discussion, I suspect the uploader created a new image of the arms based on the blazon from Burke and by cut&pasting and referencing various individual elements from other arms in St. John. The blazon is not copyrightable, so the copyrights that matter are the uploader's and the PD bits and pieces they used to create it (if any). In other words, Own Work / CC-BY-SA appears correct (uploader has copyright in their new design), and the PD tags are incorrect (the original bits are PD, but the new design isn't; and PD doesn't actually require attribution). --Xover (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

An alternative reading of that would be that the whole thing's a combination of OR and SYNTH, and should be omitted entirely. ——SerialNumber54129 11:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nah, not really. The rules for blazons and the imagery they correspond with is pretty well standardized, and every coat of arms you find in old books were generated in exactly the same way as a modern illustration. It's fairly rare (AIUI) for coats of arms from this era to be actual original designs: the blazons survive but the actualised arms are often either lost or inaccessible. Just note the provenance of the illustration by stuffing a "modern" in there somewhere and it should be fine. --Xover (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Xover, nice to see you again. ——SerialNumber54129 11:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Licensing on File:Two_consecutive_kings_of_England,_Richard_II_and_Henry_IV.png should reflect the original works being combined

Done (I think)—that is, added a para explaining that the two original illustrations are also PD on account of age; I added the pd-us tag, but I guess it doesn't work because it's an I guess the tag will go live then. I would do it myself, but it's well beyond my ability.

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That I have added the requisite information.

• File:John_Badby_death_barrel_Foxe.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the source link with the one from Ohio State Uni library, where, IIRC, I originally got this one from, and also added us-pd tag.

Thanks very much as ever, Nikkimaria. I think I've attended to the issues you arise—although there is that question about Burke's original, above, if you could confirm. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 15:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I'll add substantive comments once I've read the text thoroughly. Meanwhile, from a first canter through, two spelling points: Dryptych should be Diptych, and I very much doubt that the plural of Percy is Percies, although I am quite prepared to be proved wrong. More anon. Tim riley talk 20:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Great to /see/ you again, and many thanks for looking in, it's appreciated. Briefly, on these bits: a) I must be going blind or mad (both is a possibility of course), but I literally can't see where I've used (either) dryptich or diptych!

b) Well, Percys / Percies is pretty much interchangeable to medievalists, and it's only habit to use the latter on my part, but it's certainly accepted use. E.g., Mark Arvanigian, Alistair MacDonald, Jonathan Sumption, Michael Hicks; and offline, we have Bean, J. M. W., 'Henry IV and the Percies', History 44 (1959), 212–227; Griffiths, R. A., 'Local Rivalries and National Politics: The Percies, the Nevilles, and the Duke of Exeter, 1452-55', Speculum 43 (1968), 589–632. Anyway, you get my drift; it's an oddity based on the fact that surnames are usually logically pluralised (the Hollands, Nevilles, Mowbrays, etc) and I don't mind either way. Since it's an affectation of medievalists, perhaps the WP:READER should have Percys rather than Percies? ——SerialNumber54129 09:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

On Percy, fine. (That's me told.) As to the diptych I think it is I, not you, that's going mad. I can't find it now. Pray ignore – so sorry! Back soon (tomorrow, probably) with any comments prompted by a close scrutiny of the article. Happy New Year, meanwhile. Tim riley talk 12:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You're not going batty Tim, or at least not unless we both are. I noticed the odd spelling too when I looked at the article back in June (iirc; I even want to say it was in prose around "Later life and death" somewhere), but forgot about it before I got around to checking whether it was a mistake or just a term unfamiliar to me. However, now I cannot for the life of me find it, not even in the revision history. In any case; a digression since it's not in the current version of the article, but I figured we could both use reassurance that senescence had not overtaken us. --Xover (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It's completely bizarre! ——SerialNumber54129 19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It might be fine for Two-brains Sumption (false title?), but for the general reader, which definitely includes me for this period, I think Percies may be liable to confuse..... returns to his well-thumbed copy of Plantagenet Somerset Fry. KJP1 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

After a thorough re-reading I am happy to support the promotion of the article. There are a few minor drafting points that I'd have put differently – Chris Given-Wilson's slightly jarring false title, "in London's Smithfield", which seems vaguely tabloidese, and in a BrE article I'd prefer "Ros's" to "Ros'" – but de gustibus, and the text is very readable and clear, the coverage evidently balanced and the sourcing impressively extensive. All I knew about this period of English history came from Shakespeare, and so this article was something of an eye-opener, and I have much enjoyed it. – Tim riley talk 15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim riley, excellent news, and I'm glad you like it. Just to say, I've reduced it down to just Smithfield, and have also used S's, per your suggestion; I didn't actually know that the latter wasn't BrE, so that's a lesson. Out of curiosity, I'm in a bit of a bind over false titles; quite often, reviewers ask "who the hell is that", and saying that someone-is-what-they-are gives a reason for their quote to be relied on, rather than that they may be the man on the 88 bus. How to reconcile these views, any ideas? Thanks very much for the support though Tim. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a firm rule that ess-apostrophe is AmE and ess-apostrophe-ess BrE, but that's generally the case. As to the false titles, The New York Times's style guide is excellent on this point: "Do not make titles out of mere descriptions, as in 'harpsichordist Dale S. Yagyonak'. If in doubt, try the 'good morning' test. If it is not possible to imagine saying, 'Good morning, Harpsichordist Yagyonak', the title is false." So for Given-Wilson, leaving the description in place but simply adding a definite article will do the job. Tim riley talk 16:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That's excellent advice, and I've taken it. I'll just have to try and remember it now  :) Thanks very much! ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

I had my say on the noble lord at PR, and the input here and the copy edit, have only improved it further. KJP1 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work and the support, KJP1. ——SerialNumber54129 15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

Looks like we had source formatting checked early in the piece but not sure anyone's signed off on source reliability -- if not feel free to request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ian Rose, have done so. I guess I thought source reviewers were like British Rail—"there'll be one along at some point"  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I should've pinged you Ian Rose but a thorough review was carried out by Xover, see below. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Source reliability review

Per the above, I looked through the sources cited and overall they are reliable and high quality. There are a few that are published on popular presses and such, but spot checks of these suggest they are either by well-renowned experts in the relevant field, or are not used to support anything controversial, or both. There are a few to random websites (Ian McKellen's official home page, say) that are not of the highest quality, but they are of sufficient quality for what they're used for.

The only real potential problem I see is that several of the sources are pretty old, and some are now clearly primary sources (e.g. Dugdale 1675). A few spot checks suggest these are not used excessively or in ways that would make use of primary sources problematic, but that might be worth double-checking.

I do somewhat dislike that reprints of older secondary sources are not marked with original publication year, like:

• Hill, F. (2008). Medieval Lincoln (repr. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52107-925-9.

This book was first published in 1948, and I would say that anything older than about 1980 needs to be clearly labelled. Even in this field there have been significant changes to academic standards and rigour since then: not to disqualify older sources by any means, but it's significant enough that the reader should be aware when reading.

And the article cites publications by one Shakespeare, William in 2011 which would have seemed quite the feat except Shakespeare is such an obvious case. The way I've dealt with these in the Shakespeare articles is to attribute the work to the editor and at the modern date, because there we're usually actually citing the introduction or the edited text specifically. For citations to the play text I might suggest citing the play by title and leaving out the year (if you like, there's a beta-ish {{sfd}} template intended for citing quotes from the plays to the Folger's online texts; example use in Falstaff, including an explanatory note at the top of "Notes and references"). It's not wrong to cite e.g. "Shakespeare (2011)" here, but I usually try to avoid it when possible.

I have not checked whether the individual citations verify what they're attached to, but the overview of the works cited does not suggest any particular reason why there would be problems there (this is adjacent to my field, so I am somewhat able to assess the sources in those terms). Or put another way, this review is a superficial review only of the general quality of the sources, and not a full source review. --Xover (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking in (again!) Xover, much appreciated as always. Let me critically address your points with no criticism attached  :)

• Absolutely agree re. some of the sites; McKellan is a good example (although, similarly to that of RHUL and BUFVC etc) of me using to it to reference something that a) they should know, and b) would not themselves want to be caught out being wrong over! So although not necessarily reliable, by our standards, they are not intrinsically unreliable either...as you say, I've tried to keep such usage to minimal X did Y-type stuff.
• Yes; we have the |orig-year= parameter for that, and it is (unforgivable) forgetfulness on my part that I only rarely use it. But as you say, it's only fair to the reader. I think I've picked out the culprits from pre-C.20th.
• Ah, Shakespeare|2002, etc  :) yes, I don't deny I always smile when typing that. The two reasons are: I was once bollocked for a lack of consistency, in citing the editor rather than the author (which of course is rarely done except in cases where there is no primary author), and more, prosaically, not understanding how to make it link to the editor when there's a primary author that it could link to—see what I mean? But I can certainly try the {{sfd}} for the quoted lines, thanks for that heads up.
  Thanks again—I'll attend to what I can now. ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

With the CS1/2 templates, the trick is that |ref= takes any old value, so you simply use {{harvid|Xover|2019}} in it and that cite will get the right link target for {{sfn|Xover|2019}} irrespective of the authors and editors listed in |last= etc. You can do the same for things like the BUFVC database (which is both reliable and high quality, btw!) for consistency or convenience: {{harvid|BUFVC: Richard II (2007)|n.d.}} + {{sfn|BUFVC: Richard II (2007)|n.d.}} (renders as "BUFVC: Richard II (2007) n.d."). And, of course, you'll need to do that when you use |orig-year= too (the link target is generated from |date=/|year= rather than |orig-year=) if you want to cite the original rather than reprint year in the short citations (which sometimes makes sense, cf. the "Shakespeare 2012" problem). --Xover (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well; @Xover:, this is all getting a little Vorsprung Durch Technik for me  :) I sorted the sfds, which is a nice trick even if one is tied to a particular publisher!—but the harvid—[47], [48]. Nowhere...still, thanks anyway. ——SerialNumber54129 16:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: Yes, I seee, thanks for that, it will doubtless come in useful in the future—something else for me to remember! BTW, the other thing abot the sfd is that it doesn't point to a bibliographic entry? ——SerialNumber54129 16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec)

|ref= takes a literal string that will be used as the identifier (link target) for that full citation. The {{harvid}} template generates such a string based, typically, on the author's last name (the first parameter) and the year (the second parameter). For convenience, |ref= also accepts the "magic" string harv which makes it go grab the author and date from the full citation's existing parameters and make an identifier from that in the same way {{harvid}} would. In other words, |ref=harv is just a convenience shortcut for doing |ref={{harvid|Smith|1948}}. And you can exploit that when you need to use something different than the author's |last= name or the |year= of publication. So long as a pair of {{sfn|X|Y}} and {{harvid|X|Y}} have the same X and Y, the link will work between them.

As for tied to a single publisher, there is no single authorative text for Shakespeare's plays (which is why there's so many new critical editions of them) so you have to pick a particular edited text. The Oxford Shakespeare, The Arden Shakespeare, and The New Cambridge Shakespeare are the big dead-tree editions. But the Folger digital texts are professionally edited (Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine are well-known and well-regarded experts), freely available online, and released under a CC-BY-NC license (sadly not just CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but… gift horses).

{{sfd}} provides only a short ref to the play with the act.scene.line linked to the right bit in the Folger online text. I could probably tweak it to also link to a bibliographic entry, but for my uses I've found that to be redundant and awkward. Since my uses have been in articles whose subject is specifically about Shakespeare, it has not been excessive there to use a blurb in the "Notes and References" section (see Falstaff as an example) like:

All references to Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, and The Merry Wives of Windsor, unless otherwise specified, are taken from the Folger Shakespeare Library's Folger Digital Editions texts edited by Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Under their referencing system, 3.1.55 means act 3, scene 1, line 55.

But for de Ros this would probably be overkill. --Xover (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, sorry, you mentioned Falstaff up there and I forgot to look. I have no problem with Folgar in any case, it was more of an observation; I mean, even if it could be tweaked to other publishers the question would remain, why. Thanks Xover. ——SerialNumber54129 17:34, 5 January 2019 (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) 13:53, 10 January 2019 (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) 13:56, 10 January 2019 [49].

---

Æthelberht, King of Wessex

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Four brothers were successively king of Wessex in the ninth century, the youngest and last of whom was Alfred the Great. I have taken the oldest, Æthelbald, through FAC and I now nominate the second one, Æthelberht. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• The lead looks odd having a one-sentence second para....so I moved the split between the paras to here - so a pre and post coronation para I guess. revert if you don't like...

• Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• In 825 Ecgberht decisively defeated the Mercians at the Battle of Ellendun, ending Mercian supremacy. - if you could get away with only one "Mercian(s)" that'd be good...

• Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• can we link "attested"?

• I cannot find a suitable article but I have added "(witnessed)" after the first mention. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is there absolutely no speculation or discussion of what he might have died of anywhere? Even just something saying it is unknown...?

• Added unknown causes.

Otherwise, reads well and on track for FA-hood....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Cas. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• ok support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• Sources: All sources appear reliable. Most are authored by notable historians and/or published by university presses.
• No additional sources found by searching Google Books or Google Scholar
• No source checks performed because nominator has made previous successful FAC submissions.

Support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Background

• but he was believed to be a paternal descendant of Cerdic — Who believed him to be so? In the article on Cerdic, it states—probably more realistically—that "Descent from Cerdic became a necessary criterion for later kings of Wessex, and Egbert of Wessex, progenitor of the English royal house and subsequent rulers of England and Britain, claimed him as an ancestor."

• I think it is clear that it is by his contemporaries but I can specify if you think this is necessary. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• What about "but he claimed paternal descent from Cerdic"?

• I think this would be misleading. Most historians think that he was of West Saxon royal stock and it was a general belief in the period that the West Saxon royal family were descended from Cerdic. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• sub-king of Kent — Different than sub-king of the south-east?

• No it is the same. I have changed the sentence to "In the same year Ecgberht sent his son Æthelwulf to conquer the Mercian sub-kingdom of Kent (the area of the modern county plus Essex, Surrey and Sussex) and appointed him sub-king." Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Early life

• Æthelwulf returned to England with a new wife, Judith — Any word on what happened to Osburh?

• I have added her death in the family section.

• Æthelbald, with the support of Eahlstan, Bishop of Sherborne, and Eanwulf, Ealdorman of Somerset, refused to give up his kingship of Wessex — So the son turned on the father? Any word on why?

• This is complicated. Asser attributes it to Æthelbald's greed. Most historians think that he was afraid of being displaced by a son of Judith, but there is no evidence for this and I do not think it is sufficiently relevant to Æthelberht to go into details. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Æthelwulf compromised to avoid a civil war, but historians disagree how the kingdom was divided — What does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (or other sources) say?

• Clarified it was Asser. The Chronicle does not mention the dispute or the division of the kingdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Any reason charter S 331 isn't mentioned in the text, despite appearing as an image?

• There is a good image of the charter available but it is not a source for any of the points in this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Reign

• These attacks were minor, however, compared with events after Æthelberht's death. — This leaves the reader hanging. What happened afterwards?

• Added Vikings nearly conquered England. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Coinage

• Coins were minted in one unidentified town in Wessex itself — How is it known that they were minted in one town?

• This is an assumption of numismatists, but I have changed it to "an unidentified town". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• no coins of Æthelberht are known. Kent had mints at Canterbury and Rochester and they produced coins in the name of Æthelwulf until 858 and Æthelberht thereafter. — Does this mean that no Wessex coins of Æthelberht are known, but that Canterbury and Rochester coins of him are? If instead it means that no coins of Æthelberht are known at all, how does this explain the fact that it is known that Canterbury and Rochester coins of him are known to have been made?

• Changed to "no Wessex coins of Æthelberht are known". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Any relevant photographs?

• Photographs of coins are difficult due to Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright. You can copy a photo of a medieval document or illustration but not one of a coin. As coins are three-dimensional, it is held that they require skill to photograph and so copyright resides with the photographer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I was wondering if there are any that are appropriately licensed. A quick search found this one, and other museums might have more.

• FunkMonk can you advise on this please. The museum states that the image can be reused without permission. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the licence given[50] is compatible with Commons. But also remember to add a PD tag for the artwork itself. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have now uploaded the photo and added it to the article. My thanks to Usernameunique and FunkMonk. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. How about compiling both sides of the coin into one image? FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Usernameunique. I do not know how to merge images. Is there a tool you can recommend? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, Dudley Miles. There's another coin (but in worse shape) here, and also the one that you uploaded to Commons in 2015. You might consider adding all to the Commons category Æthelberht of Wessex, and linking to it from the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Usernameunique. The other coin is of his father Æthelwulf. It is one of several Museums Victoria coin images which are worth downloading and I will try to get round to it. The one I uploaded in 2015 is already in Commons:Category:Æthelberht of Wessex and linked from the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted -- looks like something we can safely leave to post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Death and reputation

• Æthelberht ... was buried at Sherborne Abbey in Dorset beside his brother Æthelbald — Were they moved? The memorial says "near this spot were interred..."

• I have cited a source that the tombs had disappeared by the sixteenth century, although whether in the Reformation or an earlier fire I am not sure. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is not known who his father was and it could have been Æthelberht — Why?

• I have added a translation of filius regis as king's son. It is not known which king.

• in peace, love and honour — Is Asser quoting the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?

• Asser's account is based on the Chronicle, which I have quoted above. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is attributed as "Asser's view", however. If his view was itself heavily shaped on the Chronicle, it might be worth mentioning here because this section offers a chronology of historians' takes on Æthelberht.

• This is complicated. So far as I know no historian states that Asser was following the Chronicle in his comments on Æthelberht, but they do state generally that he mainly follows a version of the Chronicle. In my opinion, he copies the Chronicle on Æthelberht, whereas he does not on Æthelbald, but saying so would be POV. I have added "who based his account of events before 887 mainly on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle". 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Overall

• It seems as if there are very few sources on Æthelberht—unsurprisingly—but the article is opaque on where the information about him comes from. Asser, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and some deductions made from charters? Rather than waiting until the penultimate sentence to note that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ... only recorded two events in Æthelberht's reign, I would mention early on what the sources for Æthelberht's life are, and how much they say.

• I have added a very short section on sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good overall, comments are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your thorough review. Usernameunique. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Usernameunique, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ian Rose, added two discretionary comments for Dudley Miles above, as well as my support. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from JM

Looks very good to me. I've nothing to add to the comments above, though do ask that my edits are double-checked! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I can't think how I've not clocked this FAC before. A few very minor points, which don't affect my support.

• Background
  • "it would have seemed very unlikely that he would establish" – a bit of a jingle: perhaps something like "he would have seemed unlikely to establish…"?

• I don't think this means quite the same thing. How about "it must have appeared very unlikely that he would establish"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• That will do v. nicely, I think. Tim riley talk 18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "and sub-kings were not allowed to issue their own coinage" – was this a general rule or just the arrangement imposed in this instance? If the latter, perhaps a definite article before "sub-kings" would make it clear.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Early life
  • I'd lose the blue-link to "Rome", which I think is WP:OVERLINKing.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reign
  • "the preference was" – sheer cheek of me to venture this, and of course dismiss ad lib – but the context struck me as calling for "the presumption was".

• I think historians regard it as an active preference rather than just a presumption. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "the abbot's continuing loyalty to himself" – I think the reflexive here is momentarily misleading, the "himself" appearing to relate to the abbot rather than the king. I'd make it a plain "him", I think.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• • "historians disagree concerning" – perhaps just a plain "about"? (Though I admit I didn't find the support I expected in Fowler on this point.)

• Both "historians disagree concerning whether" and "historians disagree about whether" seem a bit clumsy to me on reflection. How about just "historians disagree whether"?

• Excellent! Tim riley talk 18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, and I am v. happy to add my support. The article appears comprehensive, and is admirably balanced and a good read. It meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 19:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• All splendid. I look forward to seeing the article on the front page. Tim riley talk 18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Image review - mostly looks fine, but it would appear the two first images need a US PD tag too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have added PD-1923 tags to both but only the first shows as OK for US. Can you advise why? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it with this[51] edit. Rest looks ok to me. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Do we know when that memorial plaque was made? Shouldn't be a problem since there is freedom of panorama in the UK, but could be good to note on Commons.

• I cannot find any information on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review FunkMonk. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Coord note -- A relatively minor point, Dudley, but do the sources allow an alternative to "autumn of 865", to comply with WP:SEASON? I realise there mustn't be a precise date around but if we could consider say "late 865" or even "latter half of 865" it makes it simpler for readers in the southern hemisphere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The source just says autumn. I do not like the alternatives as less precise and not in the source. How about a note saying that autumn in England is September to November citing [52]? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Heh, footnote may be overdoing it -- I think we've traditionally allowed some leeway re. seasonal references in ancient and medieval subjects so if all we have is "autumn" then we may be cutting off our nose to say otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2019 (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) 13:56, 10 January 2019 (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) 04:19, 7 January 2019 [53].

---

Red-bellied black snake

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a critter I once saw in my garden....much to my chagrin. It got a pretty good going over at GAN. I reckon it's within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Seems you're having a snake season (coupled with black mamba)? Will look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Australia is duplinked in the intro. Should it be linked at all?

no, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "37 mg of venom", " being 94 mg", "high as 7 mg/kg" and "2.52 mg/kg", are there conversions for these?

mixed feeling here - these are all more pharmacological and I think even Americans and British will use mg here (much like drug doses) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "78 cm (for males) or 88 cm" Conversions needed.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the intro have something on its behaviour?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Still think it would be cool to show the small cobra-like hood[54], perhaps in the venom section, as this is after all how I guess it looks right before it strikes... I can remove the watermark. That photo is also good as it is the only one that shows the distinct orange underside of the snake.

ok go for it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Here:[55] FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

ok added now. feel free to rejuggle images (why do we have all these left-facing snakes??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The coiled[56] photo faced right, I guess it was removed as the new image was added, but maybe it could be left aligned under behaviour if it adds anything? Or maybe I'm the only one obsessed with showing a subject from every possible angle/demeanour... FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't add a huge deal but if it can be added without crowding the article then ok I guess.. have a play if you want Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Now only some people mentioned are presented, others get nothing.

I think I got 'em all now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "This beautiful snake, which appears to be unprovided with tubular teeth or fangs, and consequently not of a venomous nature" This seems entirely wrong, I wonder if something like "he incorrectly wrote" could be added?

I haven't seen a source that actually says he's incorrect (which he obviously is). If I find I will add found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The species name is derived from the Ancient Greek porphyreus" You haven't even mentioend the species name until that point though.

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• "though several subsequent species have been added." Why "though"? Seems to be fairly standard practice.

rejigged so not contrastive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hoser is notorious, so I wonder if his views are given undue weight and could be trimmed a bit further?

thing is, there are three disjunct populations, so he has possibly got precedence at some point if it is found they are genetically distinct. Also the snake taxonomy issue is huge - see this, this and this. Still he is familiar with the snakes. see this. fun pets, eh? So I think the best response is to lay it all out. I suspect there will be genetic work soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• What does the genus name mean?

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Naja porphyrica Schlegel" No discussion of this synonym?

added, though annoying as postdates Wagler's erection of genus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• ""Coluber porphyriacus", Zoology and botany of New Holland (1794)" I wonder if it would be more relevant if the caption stated specifically it was an illustration form the original description?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• "eggs of a green tree snake" Link in caption?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• " It is on average around 1.25 metres" The last thing you mentioned was the tail, so perhaps good to specify it is the whole snake you're talking about here.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Link elapid at first mention in taxonomy instead of description.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The Macquarie Marshes marks" Mark?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• "They also thermoregulate" Link?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• " In July 1949, six large red-bellied black snakes were found hibernating under a concrete slab in marshland in Woy Woy, New South Wales.[30] Groups of up to 6 hibernating red-bellied black snakes have been recorded from under concrete slabs around Mount Druitt and Rooty Hill in western Sydney" Why are the years or locations significant? Isn't the take home point that, in both case,s up to six have been found hibernating together?

July=a part of winter, year just because it was a while ago, locations as some are quite urban actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "1220 m in a day" Convert.

done...though have a dilemma about whether to convert to miles or feet. Makes more sense as former Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• "cane toad toxins.[33] The introduction of cane toads in Australia dates to 1935, when cane toads (Rhinella marina)" Why only give the scientific name on second mention?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "by kookaburras, brown falcons" No links or scientific names?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• myotoxicity, diaphoresis, polypeptide, link?

first already done with myotoxin linked, second removed, third now linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "While black snake antivenom" Link?

it doesn't have a separate page. None of the antivenoms seem to Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• "it is one of Australia's most familiar snakes" Only seems to be stated in the intro.

changed to "most commonly encountered" (which is more factual anyway) and put in main as well and cited Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

William Harris

Support - External links updated, disimbag links zero. Bonza work on a well-known acquaintance of mine. William Harris • (talk) • 20:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Support I have a red-bellied black snake living under my front porch.

A cheaper pet to operate than my Ridgeback/Mastiff!! William Harris • (talk) • 06:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "analyzed" should be " analysed"?

I suppose...changed. thx for support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pseudechis porphyriacus (35307320466).jpg, File:Red-bellied Black Snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus) (8397134493).jpg CC, Flickr Bot verified.

• File:Pseudechis porphyriacus (Sowerby).jpg PD-Image, appropriately tagged.

• File:Red-bellied Black Snake, Awabakal.jpg CC image

• File:Pseudechis porphyriacus eating eggs.jpg CC0 image, PD release is not valid in Australia, okay.

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Opabinia

I originally was just going to read the venom section, since I wrote some articles on snake venom toxins awhile back, but it's not long, so...

• From the taxonomy section, the original 1794 description (erroneously) claimed it wasn't venomous. Later, in the venom section, the article says "early" settlers were afraid of it. Do we know anything about how impressions evolved over time, from not venomous to dangerous?

I haven't seen anything on this to date and was curious myself. It was certainly known to be poisonous by 1869 (see here). I'll see what I can find Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point, but it seems like you could make a stronger statement about Hoser's proposed classifications based on the Kaiser review. As written, and without knowing anything about Hoser, it sort of sounds like a routine scientific dispute rather than "one guy self-published a bunch of stuff that academics don't take seriously".

The challenge is emphasising it without it coming across as POV. How is this? Enough of a nudge in the right direction? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• There's two mentions of individual (and fairly old) reports of hibernation, but nothing more general - is hibernating normal/common behavior, or is it just sporadically observed?

Took some digging but discovered that elapids here in oz generally have a sort of "light" hibernation where they will come out occasionally on warm days - added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article says pregnancy happens in the early spring to late summer, lasts 14 weeks, and results in births mostly in February or March. It took me an embarrassingly long time trying to make those things consistent before I remembered oh yeah, Australia :) But I bet I'm not the only northern-hemisphere inhabitant who'd find that confusing.

I added this at the first mention of seasons. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• The source for the 25-year lifespan says it is about snakes in captivity. Anything known about whether this is different in the wild?

I have not seen anything on this sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I poked around quickly and didn't find anything, but you'd know better than me - any idea on the mechanism for the anosmia? That's weird.

nada as yet... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• The sentence mentioning α-elapitoxin-Ppr1 seems a little jarringly technical relative to the rest of the text, especially without a wikilink. (I'd suggest at least linking to the protein family, three-finger toxin, but COI alert, I wrote that article.)

Happy to follow your lead in how to insert that into the article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Done here, feel free to edit, of course :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• There's a few instances of in-text attribution by name where the name isn't wikilinked and doesn't seem significant - I'd expect that way of introducing a study to indicate that its author is notable or significant in some way, that the reader needs to know or will be interested in who specifically did the work. I noticed this in the venom section, about Vaughan, Schmidt and Middlebrook; the same applies to Kaiser above.

Removed. I hesitated about Kaiser as it was fairly confrontational...but then realised a whole lotta folks agree with him (Kaiser) so removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking of Vaughan, I was unclear why the fairly old research characterizing pseudexin warranted its own paragraph, given that pseudexin itself has no article and PLA2s are very common venom components; I think it'd be worth mentioning here that pseudexin accounts for 25% of whole venom.

Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article says bites are "generally treated" with tiger snake venom. I think it's more the case that "when antivenom is used, it's generally tiger snake venom", isn't it? Churchman 2010 says only 39% of the bite victims in its survey got antivenom at all.

Yep - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Super nitpick: Churchman 2010 says that black snake antivenom is cheaper and can be used at lower volume, but doesn't claim there's a causal relationship between those two things. The article says "can be used at a lower dose and is thus a cheaper treatment" (my emphasis), which is a little more than what the source says (though maybe it's in other sources). Also, lower volume isn't necessarily lower dose, unless you know they're the same concentration.

good points - tweaked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• The paper about evolution in response to cane toads (which was cool!) implies, but doesn't say outright, that snake populations had declined in areas with lots of toads, but this doesn't come up in the conservation section. Is that not a significant effect overall (only small areas of overlap?), or does it not come up in the sources?

Confounding this is that they seem to have become less common overall due to the global decline in frogs. Will see if I can find any more exact sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Knowing they're kept as pets made me wonder how many of those bites mentioned earlier in the article were from captive snakes vs encounters in the wild. Are they bred as pets, or are they captured in the wild? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This study says 11% of people bitten are snake handlers (but they might be trying to catch snakes on properties etc.) - seems mostly to be people in the outdoors actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support looks good now! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Notwithstanding the remaining points above, support on prose, after some fairly trivial copy edits. Very straightforwardly and clearly written. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

thx - St Patrick never made it to Oz. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources are all authoritative and of high quality. Not seeing any formatting issues. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2019 (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) 04:19, 7 January 2019 (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) 03:55, 7 January 2019 [57].

---

Rwandan Civil War

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So I've had this parked for a while, since its GA nomination last year, but I personally believe it's FA ready so I'm putting it up here to see what you guys think of it. Lemurbaby and Aircorn both had a good look at this during the GAN, and the principle objections were over (a) accessibility for a layman, particularly regarding the information in the lede and acronyms, and (b) possible neutrality concerns. Regarding (a), I have rewritten the lede in the past couple of weeks, making it shorter and more concise, as well as replacing acronyms such as "FAR" with "Rwandan army" throughout the article to make it clear. On (b), neutrality, I made a comment on this at the bottom of the GA page, which never really got answered so I don't know if it's a valid defence or not. Fundamentally, although the article may appear to give Habyarimana and the Hutu a "harder time" than the other side, that's only because all the sources I used had a similar tone. Ultimately, this war was the precursor to one of the worst mass genocides of the 20th century and I don't think it's necessarily an NPOV violation to use the language from sources that describes that. However, I am very open to suggestions for improvement in that area or any other, so over to you guys and looking forward to any feedback positive or negative. And @Aircorn: if you have any further thoughts since your comments last year I'd really like to hear them too.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle

Glad to see this event of critical importance in Africa make it to FAC. Initial comments:

• The economic crisis forced Habyarimana to heavily reduce the national budget; to quell civil unrest, he declared a commitment to multi-party politics, but did not take any action to bring this about. Is the semi colon suggesting that budget cuts incited the unrest?

  I've checked the source, and not really. There was a political crisis (which I've mentioned), but the multiparty move itself was on the advice of François Mitterrand.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• The organisation which was to become the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was founded in 1979. In Uganda?

  Yes. Added that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana was aware of the increasing number of Tutsi exiles in the Ugandan army As Habyarimana has already been introduced, and introducing him as "President" deals with any ambiguity, there's no need to restate his first name.

  Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Belgian presence was short-lived, its troops withdrawing within two weeks because of laws preventing the army from intervening in a civil war. This begs the question why they were ever sent in the first place. Were they serving some other purpose (like training the Rwandan Army), or was there a debate in the Belgian government about the legality of their deployment that led to their withdrawal?

  Strange one that... the Prunier source gives quite a lot of detail on the Belgian issue, but doesn't directly mention the legality or otherwise. I think I must have got it from another source that it was illegal in Belgian law. I have therefore reworded to explain a bit more - the troops were sent to defend citizens, but that threat didn't materialise.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Where are the statistics for 5,000 killed on each side coming from?

  I don't know. It looks like they were added by an IP in 2013. Since they're uncited, and I'm not aware of any sources giving death tolls for the civil war itself (as opposed to the genocide), I've removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• The strength of each belligerent force should be integrated into the body of the article.

  I have included this in the Arusha Accords section, as that's when the figures were relevant. Also included detail from the same source regarding the proposed reduction in numbers to 19,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• A number of UNAMIR personnel such as Mbaye Diagne were killed during the fighting. Any official statistics on this should be included.

  Given that we now don't have any overall death figures for the war, do you think it's still worth including this, and if so where? The actual UNAMIR death toll up to July 1994, based on figures in Dallaire's book, is 15.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  That figure works. This UN source discusses UNAMIR and Operation Turquoise at length, and talks about how UNAMIR was effected by the fighting (mostly during the genocide stages), including its HQ getting hit by stray fire. Perhaps a small paragraph on the latter and then the death toll could be included in the "Military operations during the 1994 genocide" subsection. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  OK. Done that. Thanks for your comments here by the way, Indy beetle, very useful and insightful.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Additional comments:

• colonization and modernised...one English dialect needs to be adhered to throughout the entire article.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Rwandan king welcomed the Germans, using their military strength to widen his rule. "Widen his rule" is an unusual phrase.

  Changed to "reinforce his rule and expand the kingdom"  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• The king and Tutsi politicians attempted a fightback. Fightback seems to be a more colloquial term, perhaps "counterattack" instead?

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Seeing as the possibility of a coup is discussed, and the fact that Colonel Bagosora took over the Rwandan government following Habyarimana's death, it should also probably be mentioned that Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana was shot by Rwandan soldiers.

  I have added more detail on this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Operation Turqoise is worth a little more discussion, particularly its aims (both declared and undeclared), its effects, and when it ended.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• UNAMIR's termination in 1996 should also be mentioned.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed. This is an excellent article, and I support its promotion to featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: One additional fact I've found that should be incorporated into the article: David E. Cunningham claims "an estimated 7,500 combatants were killed in direct fighting in the Rwandan civil war" (Cunningham, David E. (2011). Barriers to Peace in Civil War. Cambridge University Press. p. 137. ISBN 9781139499408.). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: apologies, I ready this when you posted it and then it slipped my mind. I have added the figure to the infobox. Do you think it needs to go somewhere in the prose too? Not sure where would fit because it doesn't particularly attach to any single part of the timeline. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I think a quick note in the first paragraph under "Aftermath" will do. To be clear, Cunningham emphasizes that the figure is separate from the civilians killed in the genocide. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Fitzcarmalan

That was a very interesting read. A few observations though:
Lead

• "put into action following the assassination of President Habyarimana" - Suggest linking to Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Background

• "possibly of Cushitic origin" - This links to Cushitic languages, which doesn't seem right to me. Is there an alternative article covering the ethnicity/peoples?

  It seems like there is no such article, and none of the entries at Cushite seem to quite fit. I've modified it to say "originating from the Horn of Africa", because that's something the source mentions to clarify what it means by Cushitic.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Even better. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "administrative reforms which caused a rift to grow" - What was it about them that created this tension? Would it be possible to (briefly) integrate this sort of information into the text?

  I have added a sentence on uburetwa and ubuhake, the main reforms, with detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• A much needed addition, thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Belgians modernised the Rwandan economy, but Tutsi supremacy remained" - Are they supposed to be mutually exclusive? Suggest rewording to something like "..modernised the Rwandan economy. Tutsi supremacy remained, leaving the Hutu disenfranchised", or anything to your liking.

  OK I have expanded this a little bit, to include mention of Catholic clerics, increased tax and forced labour. And also separated the two elements you mention. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Looks great, thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "death of a Hutu sub-chief by Tutsi activists" - "Death by someone" doesn't seem right to me. Suggest rewording to "in an assault by Tutsi activists", per the source.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "alongside Obote to defeat Amin in 1979" - Suggest linking to Uganda–Tanzania War.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "needed a break following the years fighting" - Apostrophe missing? (I may be wrong, so you can simply disregard)

  I've reworded it to "Rwigyema persuaded Museveni that following years of army duty he needed a break"  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Great. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Course of the war

• "killing a customs guard" - Suggest mentioning the guard's nationality, if available in sources (obviously Rwandan, but still).

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "perception of intervening in a civil war created a domestic political storm in Brussels" - Can't access the source. I assume it's related to the Congo Crisis and the role in Lumumba's assassination? If so, could either of those be briefly mentioned? If you somehow managed to incorporate a simple piped link to Congo Crisis, that would be sufficient IMO.

  @Fitzcarmalan: I actually can see an online version of the source at [58] (it's a bit weird - initially it says the page can't be viewed, but after scrolling up and down a few times, the text appears). So if you can manage to see that perhaps you'll be able to comment further? It doesn't directly mention the history around Lumumba, just that there were concerns over the humanitarian aspects of what the Rwandan government was doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. And that's fine, we can leave it be if the source makes no mention of that. But I'd suggest describing the civil war as "controversial" or anything similar, which is what Prunier was implying. They didn't back away just because it was "a [regular] civil war". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I've added "controversial".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Saleh ordered Bayingana and Bunyenyezi's arrest and eventual execution" - Were the sentences carried out eventually? Never mind, actually. I probably misread that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• "He later described the experience of meeting and taking charge of this demoralised and wounded group as one of the worst experiences of his life." - This could use some extra detail, if available in your sources. What I'm particularly curious about, as a reader, is how Kagame managed to reorganize his troops during the Virunga phase, given the extreme conditions they were exposed to in the mountains.

  @Fitzcarmalan: I'm just wondering if there is anything in particular about this? The most detailed source I have is the Kinzer book, from which most of the "Conditions in the Virungas were very harsh for the RPF..." paragraph is taken. It starts by describing the hardship, people getting frostbite, guards dying on watch because of the cold and inadequate clothing etc. Then the main points about the reorganisation are the fundraising abroad, which enabled the RPF to buy more supplies, and the training that Kagame gave to the soldiers, and discipline, which made them battle ready. The paragraph summarises these points, but please let me know what other detail is required. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• What I had initially gathered upon reading this sentence, for some reason, was that Kagame might have have faced some kind of insubordination, given the sudden change of leadership and how low his troops' morale was. This often tends to happen in armed conflicts. Does Kinzer mention anything of the sort? If not, then you can simply disregard that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  No, I haven't seen anything like that. In fact, the text in Kinzer suggests that the demoralised troops welcomed Kagame's arrival. I've added a sentence to that effect.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "remained behind as a decoy" - Suggest linking to Decoy#Military_decoy.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "morning of the 23rd" - Suggest "23 January", per MOS:DATE.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "the prisoners were saved" - Suggest using "liberated" instead.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "RPF raided the city every night" - Until...?

  I've clarified it (per the source) to say "almost every night for several months"  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "until June 1991, when a deal was reached" - A deal involving whom?

  Hmm... seems it wasn't actually a deal, more of a government measure. I've reworded to clarify that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "a set of "rules", published in the Kangura" - Suggest linking to Kangura.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "as well as extremists within the president's own MRND party" - Suggest writing the party's full name and linking to National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development, since it is a first occurrence in the article. It would be preferable to do that early on in the 'Background' section, though.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "delay change to the status quo" - Suggest italicizing, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.

  Not done - "status quo" may have originated in another language, but it's perfectly valid English now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• No problem. Cheers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "although the RPF soldiers were guilty in some areas" - Suggest using an alternative to "guilty" (not sure which).

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Kagame told Stephen Kinzer that such a victory" - Suggest linking to Stephen Kinzer (while presenting him as a journalist) and de-linking from the 'Domestic situation' section.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "concluded that it was most likely a coup d'État" - Suggest italicizing coup d'état.

  I've shortened it to just "coup", which is an English word, as that's the usage throughout the rest of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "served as the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide" - Suggest de-linking, per MOS:DUPLINK. Or, better yet, de-link in the first occurrence at "were actively beginning plans for what would become the 1994 Rwandan genocide" and rewrite as "were actively preparing plans for a genocide" instead.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "seeking to link up quickly with the isolated troops in Kigali" - I assume they were successful? Suggest saying whether they were fully or partially successful, depending on the amount of detail in the sources.

  I've rewritten this a bit so you may want to look at it again. The actual three pronged attack didn't result in an immediate link up, per the source, but there was a unit sent across enemy territory.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's perfect, thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "recruits included Tutsi survivors of the genocide and refugees from Burundi" - Suggest pipe linking to Burundian Civil War, if that is implied in the source of course.

  Actually this isn't really to do with events in Burundi, it means the Tutsi refugees from Rwanda who happened to have been based in Burundi, unlike Uganda where the original RPF people came from. I have clarified this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "and as of 2017 remain the dominant political force" - Consider updating the year, unless I'm missing something.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The long-term effects of war rape in Rwanda" - Suggest linking to Rape during the Rwandan Genocide.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "A period of reconciliation and justice began" - Would it be okay if we replaced "justice" with "judicial reforms" or anything similar? I'm not entirely comfortable with "a period of justice" as it stands.

  I've reworded this bit. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Looks great. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "By 1999,^[230] a programme" - Suggest moving the ref to the end of that sentence.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That'll be all from me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: thanks, I think I may have answered all of them for now. Let me know if you have any more comments or I've missed anything.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really, everything looks great and you have a nicely written article here. Happy to support. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead, 1a: This is pretty good.

• "An uneasy peace followed, as the terms of the accords were gradually implemented." Could be a "because" as: so it's because they were gradually implemented that peace was uneasy? I think you don't mean that.

  I've changed it to "while" instead of "as" to avoid this confusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), was sent to the country." I don't understand it. Is the comma meant to be after "Kigali" rather than where it is now?

  Yes I think so. It seems I have a bad habit of putting commas after brackets, somebody complained about it at WP:ERRORS a couple of weeks ago. I've moved it to be after Kigali as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• So much better to start with "But": "The Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, however, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi." -> "But the Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi."

  Done. I think I was taught at school not to start a sentence with a conjunction, but apparently that's a junk rule that doesn't really exist...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  'Tis junk. But not too many sentence-initial buts, or they'll stick out. Same league as "don't finish a sentence with a preposition", and "don't split infinitives", etc. Tony (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Over the course of approximately 100 days,"—English can be ugly. "some" or "about". I'd zap the comma after "killed" ... and after "mid-June".

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Further down:

• "After 1945, a Hutu counter-elite developed,[27] calling for the transfer of power from Tutsi to Hutu." Two things: you're using a comma after a sentence-initial time phrase as a formula. I would examine each case. It's not helping here. Second, "calling for" is ambiguous. Means "making necessary", or that the elite called publicly for ...?

  I've been through and removed a lot of commas of the type you mention so hopefully it's better now. Also changed "calling for" to "demanding".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "but found the Belgians were no longer supporting them" ... I think the marked present-in-present tense here is a bit much. "no longer supported them" is fine.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Commas are the thing I'm commenting on in your prose, mostly: "Logiest re-established law and order, and began a programme of overt promotion and protection of the Hutu elite,[37] replacing many Tutsi chiefs with Hutu, and forcing King Kigeli V into exile." How long is the sentence? How many other commas are there? Does the rhythm work? Is comma/no comma ambiguous? They are the four questions for each instance. Here I'd zap the last one. Better, no?

  I've split the sentence into two and removed some commas.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• inyenzi ... the reader knows which language that is, do they?

  I've clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "ruling in a top down manner" ... needs an en dash or a hyphen. But better "autocratic"? "hardline"? "brutal"? Manner I've never liked much: "imposing a [whatever] rule"?

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• "but did not take any action to bring"—"took no action to". How typical of Mitterand.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There's still a LOT to read through. If you could re-examine the comma usage and look for possible ambiguities, that would be good. I support, provided the prose is sifted through and improved here and there. Starts from a good base. Tony (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done one pass through of the commas today. Will have another comb through tomorrow!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: I've done the things you suggested above, and had a couple of read throughs, adjusting for comma overuse and possible poor sentence structure. If you spot any other examples of things that need improving, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maps
• Don't use fixed px sizes
• File:RwandaTerritoryAfterFeb1993.png: what is the source of the data in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: thanks, I've changed the article to reflect these three points.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Kudos for getting stuck into this one....

• The RPF began a classic hit-and-run style guerrilla war - is the word "classid" important here?

  No. It's already removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the lead you have more than 100,000 Tutsi leaving in 1959-62, but this is 336,000 in the body of the article...?

  Corrected in the lede. The source confirms it as 336,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• The word "crisis" is mentioned 3 times in 4 sentences at the end of the Revolution, exile of Tutsi, and the Hutu republic section - might be able to be streamlined.

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• The city was the [best choice from a practical point of view, being] the only provincial capital that could be attacked quickly from the Virungas while maintaining an element of surprise. - could remove bracketed bit and let facts speak fr themselves

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Overall a good read and fascinating subject. The RPF come out looking better...but maybe they were. I dunno. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

Thank you for bring this here. Still reading through, but the opening lead para doesn't give any dates. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Added dates in the second sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These are minor suggestions only for a what seems like a most impressive article that I expect to support after I've read the whole thing and gone through the sources:

Lead

• hurried back to take command - why "hurried" without context, maybe just "returned"

  Already done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• He withdrew the RPF troops - you have established that they are RPF, so just "withdrew troops"

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• a classic hit-and-run style guerrilla war - classic is too much for lead, esp as guerrilla war isnt linked

  Already done. I've removed it from the body too, as it's not adding much.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) was sent to the country cant put my finger on this, but the "were" / "was" thing seems odd

  Yes, it's always a bit tricky when talking about a team or body of people, whether to use singular or plural. I think I'm going to leave this one maybe, since the first bit talks about "troops" while the second bit is about a "mission". If you have better wording, do let me know though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  "and a peace-keeping United Nations..."? - "a" matches *was* Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  But it's not just "a United Nations", it's "a United Nations Assistance Mission". I guess it works either way though so I've switched it to plural. It does match the RPF usage as you say, so probably fine. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry did mean "a United Nations Assistance Mission". Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  Would also drop "a compound in" - similar reason for loosing "in an office" above. Ceoil (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• They captured territory slowly and methodically - they steadily and loose "slowly and methodically"?

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• The war ended later that month with an RPF victory when the interim government and the genocidaires were forced into Zaire - "and" rather than "when". I'm not sure forced is the best word. Maybe retreated or pushed backed into.

  I've split into two sentences to avoid a double and. Also changed to "fled over the border into Zaire"  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Ok thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Pre-independence

• a group of aboriginal pygmy hunter-gatherers - a population of

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Between 700 BC and 1500 AD a number of Bantu groups migrated into Rwanda - "into the region"- as you have said, wasn't Rwanda then

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• under this theory the Hutu and Tutsi distinction arose later and was a class distinction rather than a racial one - distinction x 2. Maybe "division" in the second instance

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• and then, by 1700 - "and by 1700"

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Kingdom of Rwanda, ruled by the Tutsi Nyiginya clan, became the dominant kingdom from the mid-eighteenth century - for flow, drop the second 'Kingdom', and just say "became dominant"

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• modernised the Rwandan economy - usually something like this is phrased as "the local"; also it reduces the number of instances of the word "Rwanda" in the para. Yes, picky I know

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised - identifying or classifying; labelling is a bit 90s.

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• employed Rwandans in forced labour - forced labour isn't "employed".

  Reworded  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Ok to here. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Kagame's reorganisation

• in the high-altitude cold climate -can you link the specific climate type

  The best link I've found for that is Alpine climate, which seems to cover high mountain climates in both temperate and tropical areas. We probably need something like a Tropical highland climate article, but it doesn't exist yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Is it Subtropical highland climate? Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• as well as from some businessmen within Rwanda - drop "some", obviously not all

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ugandan associates drove Kagame to the border and he crossed into Rwanda early on 15 October - where he crossed

  I think I prefer it as is...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Fine, but I would say what area of the border. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  I see you decided to change this one anyway... I don't know which border it was, the source doesn't say. It only reveals that it was "manned by Ugandans who were helpful in the crossings". Probably Kagitumba, but we don't know for sure.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  I did do that yeah. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• He spent the following weeks with the senior officers gathering intelligence - with senior officers

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Some soldiers remained behind as a decoy - remained as a

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  tense issue with "soldiers" vs "a decoy"; can we say "some troupes remained"? Also should it be "were left behind" as it prob wasn't down to their individual decisions. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• The trek west took almost a week and the soldiers crossed the border into Uganda several times - trek inst a great word, is there a better military term; "during which the soldiers" rather than "and the soldiers"

  I've changed it to "march", matching the usage at Long March.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• from an office in Kampala - from Kampala

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Balance: the word "Prunier" appears 117 times in the article. This is a worry, not re bias, but in breath of opinion - I found the concern re bias at the GA completely unfounded and unconvincing. (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))
• Kinzer is cited 46 times (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))
• Some newspapers used - The Guardian and LA Times, so ok fine, as long as they are used for establishing timelines and basic facts, rather than deeper historical analysis
• Some of the sources are inconsistently formatted, eg 1990-10-04 vs 7 September 1994

  Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• London and New York, NY - I would'nt bother with the NY after New York (there are a few of these)

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• These need publication dates

• Shyaka, Anastase
• United Nations. "Rwanda-UNAMIR Background"
• "Official holidays". Government of Rwanda (as opposed to archive date)
• United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Rwanda". Holocaust Encyclopedia

• Some web sources lack retrieval dates, eg Radio France International (RFI) (10 April 2014) Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Ceoil: and @Casliber: many thanks for your detailed comments. I will try go through them in the next few days as time permits. Quickly though, regarding Prunier, it's a somewhat annoying fact that the 1990-94 civil war is not covered in that much depth by very many sources. And of all those I've seen, Prunier goes into by far the most detail on the precise goings on. And in many cases other books, such as those by Linda Melvern, and even Kinzer to some extent, are effectively using Prunier or Dallaire as their main source. I suppose it might be possible to corroborate some of the individual facts in other places (for example I did find detail in some online documents on the Belgian withdrawal of support for Habyarimana in October 1990 when I searched for it). Let me know to what extent you think that's necessary. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, no rush, and re Prunier, I suspected that was the case after using a few search terms on amazon. This reply seems satisfactory to me.Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm done with everything now, including the sourcing points mentioned above. I've rechecked other web cites too, and updated access dates for those (plus used archives for a couple of dead links).  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Prose review (ctd)

Lead:

• It started well for the RPF but they suffered a serious reversal when Rwigyema was killed in action on the second day. - Hmm. So the first day went well. All opening attacks go well, pace reckless incompetence, so this particular "went well" is either misleading or hardly worth saying. Maybe something along the lines of "The RPF suffered a major set-back when".

  I've removed the "starting well" although I have included the detail that they advanced 60km, just to highlight that it wasn't initially a complete disaster.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Ok, but to say, "initially", for its vagueness and hand waving as to underlying motivations and circumstantial facts, is one of my most disliked words on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• An uneasy peace followed, while the terms of the accords were gradually implemented. - During which rather than than "while", and maybe no comma, as it implies that the two factors were not mutually dependant. In general, man, your comma usage needs work - there are lots of run on sentences.

  Done. I reworked the commas quite a bit last week following Tony's comments. For example things along the lines of "In May 1911, the foo did a bar" had their commas removed. I tend to put commas where a speaker would put natural pauses but perhaps that doesn't always match the formal style. Any particular examples of other poor usage or run-on sentences that I can look at? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  I gave you an example "An uneasy peace followed, while the terms of the accords were gradually implemented" - the comma there totally misleads; as if the two things were not codependent. Note, Americans tend to prefer less punctuation than Europeans; I don't know why. All the same, would like to see you do an audit. Ceoil (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• He withdrew troops to the Virunga mountains for several months before restarting the war - Dont like "restarting the war", the verb is a bit obtuse - attacked again, or declared, or something

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• the negotiations were eventually concluded successfully - were successfully concluded (you have established enough of the timeline to leave out "eventually")

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Small thing, but "began to plan" rhymes. Formulated?

  No, it was not intentional. I've changed it to just "planned".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Ok, but was worried - "began" implied genesis; is the current wording correct - dunno but "first planned"? Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The war ended later that month with an RPF victory. The interim government and the genocidaires fled over the border into Zaire. - "with an RPF victory" sounds like sports journalism. Better to give a broad indication of why the RPF came out victorious, and then.."the interim government and the genocidaires fled" ("forcing the the interim government and ... to flee into Zaire) (don't need to say over the border)

  I've clarified that the RPF captured the last remaining interim government territory and forced them over the border. It's slightly awkward because we'd rather just say the RPF held the whole country. But that isn't true because the French-held Turquoise zone was there in the south west. That was a bit tangential to the main thrust of the war though.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Other:

• "They formed a government based loosely on the Arusha Accords, but when Habyarimana's party was outlawed, the RPF took over the positions it had been assigned" - clarity needed here (& "loosely based" is better than "based loosely")

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• even if the RPF were discovered there - "even if the RPF's position was discovered"? Or were they unsure that they were there at all. These are two very different things. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Circling back to your question here, I'm actually not sure whether the Rwandan government knew of the RPF's presence in the Virungas. The fact that the RPF left troops in the north east as a decoy suggested perhaps they didn't, but on the other hand it seems a bit strange that a foreign army could be camped inside the national borders without the government knowing about it at all. My sources seem to focus on the fact that it was hard to flush them out and that their positions were impenetrable, so I'll stick with the version you suggest that the positions were unknown. That covers all bases anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Note, I'm almost done. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: where are we with this? Are you waiting for me to action any other points, and are there still other points you are looking at? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Will look tonight Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Wugapodes

Amakuru I hope to take this source review on but will need to check out a lot of books. I hope to make it to the library tomorrow, are there any sources you would recommend as vital for checking the article? Prunier (1999) seems to be used a lot as is Kinzer (2008). I'll pick up a few others as well but your suggestions would be appreciated. I look forward to reviewing this article. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: excellent that's very kind of you to take it on. I'd say yes, Prunier is the most important one. There are quite a few different editions so look out for whichever one you can find. That includes the 1996 original, which I think is the same as 1999, with identical page numbers, only that the 1999 one has a new chapter at the end. Kinzer is an important one too, and Melvern I guess. Thanks and looking forward to hearing how it goes.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Sorry I've taken so long with this, I've got the books but given travel and visits for the US holiday I haven't had time to write all my thoughts up. I'm glad Jo-Jo below has done some checks in the meantime. I hope to post my comments once I'm done travelling in the next day or so. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've managed to get through a good chunk. Here's my review so far, though I hope to go through a bit more of the article. I've broken it up into major points, which are things that definitely need changed, minor points, which are things I need more clarification on or want to discuss, and comments which are things that don't need to be addressed for me to support but which I think would improve the article.

Major points

• The Prunier citations in the Pre-independence section (with the exception noted below) all check out. There's a lot of information in that source (rightfully) left out here, but that could be useful for expanding the spinoff article.
• In the section "Revolution, exile of Tutsi, and the Hutu republic" the first paragraph seems too removed from the Prunier source, or rather highlights aspects that I think are not as important to Prunier's argument as those left out. The article seems to paint the shift in the church as one from upper class to working class and of a change in demographics of the belgian clurgy. Prunier, while definitely discussing these issues, I think weighs them differently. On page 44 of my library's edition, Prunier says the aristocratic Belgian clergy were "replaced by clerics of humbler social origins, from the lower middle class or even the working class". Contrary to the article, I get the impression (admittedly from only one source, you may have a better sense) that working class clergy were still an exception, and that lower middle class were more the norm (though still an important shift). Similarly, on page 43 Prunier brings up the importance of the increase in black Rwandese clergy in the Church's shift in attitude as these predominantly Tutsi clerics began to push back against colonial rule. On 44 Prunier connects these two, arguing that the shift was due to both the rise in middle class Belgian clergy but also the growing anti-colonial sentiment of Tutsi clerics. The article only highlights the first as a reason for the change neglecting the anti-colonial sentiment of the Tutsi elite which I think should be included.
• Same section, "More than 336,000 Tutsi left Rwanda" needs to be contextualized. Prunier gives that number for having occured by 1964, the last mentioned year in the article 1962, is when Prunier puts the number at 120,000. Whatever figure is chosen, it needs to be contextualized in the prose.

  I've included the 1964 year in the text.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Same section "The Tutsi exiles were regarded as refugees in their host countries, and sought a quick return to Rwanda." For the first clause, I think it's too strong, and Prunier makes a distinction between emigres who identified as refugees and emigres who integrated and did not or ceased identifying as refugees. For the second clause, I couldn't find the passage that seems to support that they wanted a quick return, perhaps it's an edition difference? Would you be able to point me to it more precisely?

  I have reworded the first clause to "Many of the Tutsi exiles lived as refugees in their host countries" to make it clear that it wasn't all of them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  On the second, it's actually at the top of page 55 in my edition: "The Tutsi exiles were organising themselves, albeit confusedly, to attempt a military comeback". (I've therefore tightened that cite to be just 55 rather than 55-56). Doesn't that sound like seeking a quick return to Rwanda? I've removed "quick" though. The military aspect is covered in the next sentence, which I've updated to reflect that some favoured military intervention while others favoured supporting the government, as it says on p55 of Prunier.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  I like what you've done, and think dropping "quick" was for the best. While I don't doubt that was the case, I don't think the source is unambiguous on that point. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 02:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Same section "The inyenzi attacks of the 1960s were poorly equipped and organised and the government defeated them, following up with the slaughter of an estimated 10,000 Tutsi within Rwanda." Prunier makes clear that the mentioned slaughter was a direct reprisal for the December 1963 offensive, not the paramilitary activities in general. It should be clear that these killings were a Hutu response to a specific Tutsi offensive operation.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• I couldn't verify the following claim in Prunier, "FRONASA fought alongside Obote to defeat Amin in 1979 but withdrew from the government following Obote's disputed victory in the 1980 general election." could you add a citation?

  Done. Although I've reworded it to say Museveni himself rather than FRONASA, as that was what the source said.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor points

• In the first paragrpah of the origins of Hutu and Tutsi section, it cites Prunier p16 as for the claim that Tutsis settled second, after emigrating from the Horn, but in the 1995 edition I can only find a claim that the Tutsi migrated from the Horn, not the order in which this occured. I think the general order can be figured out from the following pages, but I'm not familiar enough with this topic and I don't think it's obvious, so expanding the page range a bit or another citation to a more explicit source would be helpful.
• I feel like the discussion of the inyenzi term in the "revolution" section should be reduced. Kinzer says that no one is certain of the origins, and it's unclear what he's basing the claim on. The origin of the term doesn't seem particularly related to the activities of the paramilitary groups. While I think the connection to the dehumanization in the 1990s violence and genocide is waranted, I think it would be better as a footnote or apositive so as not to distract from it's use here to describe a paramilitary organization. I say this, especially because the last sentence of the paragraph comes out of nowhere since I forgot we were discussing the paramilitary group known by that term rather than the term itself.
• Same section, I'm not sure the discussion of the first lady's family winning the struggle for political and economic power is really germaine. The point seems to be that coffee prices collapsed, Habyarimana had to restrict the budget, and civil unrest occured. Perhaps I'm missing the importance of the intervening sentences?
• In the "Formation of the RPF" section, that a new government was formed after the capture of Kampala in 1986 isn't clear from the cited source.

Comments

• The discussion of ubuhake is very interesting in Prunier, I think you're right to not include lengthy discussion of it here, but using it to expand the limited coverage of the Ubuhake article would be a great addition.
• It's unclear why, for the claim that Habyarimana took power in a coup is cited to a whole page range in Prunier when it's stated quite clearly on 75. I'd even argue that it doesn't need the citation, given that it's verifiable from the citations in the linked article about the coup.
• The phrase "made representations" is rather stilted. I feel that just "complained" would be better.

Thanks for what's been an incredibly interesting article so far. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Concerning the talk about "balance" above, may I suggest looking through this book, if its not already been considered? I can affirm that it views the RPF's resumption of the war in February 1993 much more cynically than the Wikipedia article reflects (currently drawn from Kinzer and Prunier). Essentially, the author argues that the killing of the Tutsis was not unusual enough to provoke much alarm and suggests that the RPF was looking for a casus belli to attack and strengthen its negotiating position. So there's that, and it might have some other info but I haven't seen for myself. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Ah thanks. I'll have a look through that book with the other points. Sorry to everyone that it's taking me a while to circle back to this, I've been a bit busy IRL but I will address the points made.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Indy beetle: I've gained access to some of the book you mention today, but there's a lot of material there. I'm surprised I hadn't come across it before... I can add something specifically with regard to the 1993 invasion point you mention, but it will take me quite a while to go through the whole thing to see if it makes different points from Prunier and Kinzer. Do you think this affects the FAC at all? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: Well, I guess it will slow things down, but I think we've been progressing well and I'm not expecting this book to necessitate a total rewrite of the article. I have access to it through my university library system so I might be able to help, though from December 10-18 I'll have my semester exams. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  I am able to download the book by chapter, so I can email you documents if you need them. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Indy beetle: a very happy new year to you, and I hope the semester exams went well. I have gone through the relevant chapters in the Adelman and Suhrke book today (I found the 1999 edition in the British library) and made what I think are the relevant clarifications in the article, including the motivations for the Feb 1993 offensive that you mentioned above. Please let me know if this satisfies your comments above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: I've read the additions, and everything appears in order and more balanced. Great work, and a happy new year to you as well. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to circle back to this. It's the end of my university term so things got very busy. In the same style as before, here are my comments

Major points (cont.)

• In the 1990 invasion section, you discuss the number of RPF militants, but I think the source of that claim needs contextualized. Prunier, in a footnote, says these numbers come from an interview with an RPF founding member, making it a primary claim. That it's a claim by a member of the RPF should be noted so readers can evaluate how much weight they want to give the estimate.

  I don't agree that this is a primary claim. Prunier states it as fact in his own voice, with the footnote simply telling you where he got the information. That makes it secondary. I have, however, added "According to the RPF" at the beginning if that will help to satisfy your concerns.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is a conflict in the sources about when exactly the invasion started. Prunier states it was 2:30pm, Kinzer states it was 10am. This needs to be resolved, but I don't know the literature well enough to weight the sources or know the scholarly consensus on this. It may be worth omitting the time all together.

  It is not clear to me where either source got their time from. Since this is not crucially important information I have just removed the time altogether.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion of teh Belgian withdraw seems to gloss over some important points Prunier discusses. In my reading it wasn't simply that the issue was "intervening in a controversial civil war" as the article says but rather that they were enthralled in a civil war that involved jailing of political dissidents, civilian massacres, unquestioning support of the Rawandan regime by France, and a refusal of the regime to discuss peace terms which made the whole thing unpopular. That is, the reason it became such a contentious issue in Belgium is the particular atrocities occurring and limited prospect of peace, both of which seem to be rather neutered by the article as it stands. Perhaps this is intentional and correct, but if so I'd like to discuss why and how the Belgian withdraw is covered as it is int he article.

  I have expanded the commentary on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• That "the appointment of Kanyarengwe was motivated by a desire to appear inclusive" is not clear from Prunier p115. He just says it raises questions about inclusion and that he would come back to it. I think that it was motivated by a will to be inclusive of Hutus should be cited. The sentence-final citation does back up the makeup of the RPF though so that's good.

  I've removed that suggested motivation and just left the bare fact that most were Tutsi. And also beefed up with another example of a Hutu recruit.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• The claim "Soldiers were expected to pay for goods purchased in the community, refrain from alcohol and drugs, and to establish a good reputation for the RPF amongst the local population" has some issues I'd like to bring up. Kinzer p 83 says that drinking alcohol or using drugs would incur corporal punishment, as the article is phrased it makes it seem like the sobriety was suggested rather than enforced with beatings. It's unclear from Kinzer p82 that the first claim, being expected to pay, is verified either. While it talks about Inyumba's work as financial minister, it's unclear to what extent soldiers were expected to pay for things. Obviously violent robbery was a capital offense, and that good relationships ought to be maintained, but that first part sticks out as perhaps needing a more specific citation.

  On the first point, I have clarified that such offences could be punished with beatings. On the latter, it looks like I specified the wrong page for this, so apologies for that. Kinzer 83 does explicitly mention the point about paying their way in the community.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the Ruhengeri section seems to not be fully in line with the Kinzer source. Kinzer makes clear the RPF took "heavy" casualties, which the article's "several" seems to downplay. Similarly, Kinzer seems to claim that the defense was primarily French, saying on page 88 "Only later, when fifteen French paratroopers were recommended for medals to recognize their valor at Ruhengeri, did it become clear that this resistance came from French-led units" (emphasis added). The article makes it seem more like the resistence came from Ugandan-led forces. That may in fact be the case based on other sources, but Kinzer seems to claim the defense was French-led.

  I've changed the wording here.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find mention of the Hutu Ten Commandments on Kinzer page 97. Was the wrong page given?

  Ah yes, it was. Sorry. 92-94 seems to cover it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I find discussion of the cabinet and their disdain for the armed MRND(D) bands on Prunier 134, but am having a hard time locating the justification for the article's claim that the use of force to hamper reform was justified as "anti-RPF" measures.

  Hmmm, yes, that may have been a copy-paste error. I can't find the fact elsewhere in Prunier right now though, so I've just removed it. The paragraph is probably OK without.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor points (cont.)

• Kinzer has a nice discussion on why October 1 was chosen as the date of the invasion that I think should be included here. That it coincided with both countries' head of state being away, as well as Ugandan independence day being a pretext for preparatory movements seems like a useful addition.
• I feel like the discussion of Rwigyema's death should come at the end of the section. As the second paragraph it distracts from the overall discussion of the progression of the invasion. If it's kept there (as it was an important event in that chronology), I think the discussion should be reduced or put into a footnote so as not to distract.
• I'm unclear why Kagame's flight itinerary is important.
• That Théoneste Lizinde is called a "notorious torturer" by Kinzer may be worth mentioning.
• I'm conflicted on whether this should be a minor or major point, but regardless, I think the mass killings of Tutsis by the government as reprisal for the successful Ruhengeri offensive should be at least mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Guerrilla war" section. I don't think it needs to be discussed extensively, but bringing it up so that its later discussion is better anticipated and contextualized not only improves flow but it fits better with summary style and the inverted pyramid.

Comments (cont.)

• I'm not sure the link to Alpine climate is useful.
• The use of the term "activist" in "Hutu activists killed up to 1,000 Tutsi in attacks authorised by local officials" feels strange. Is there perhaps a better word? If not it's not a big deal it just struck me as odd.

I've managed to get through the Guerrilla war section, and so am about halfway done with the article. Despite what seem to be a large number of comments, this is an incredibly well written article and looking only at these comments would hide the fact that much of the article is well sourced and verifiable. I'm not concerned about opposing, rather, I hope to be able to support soon once I finish getting through the article and these various comments are addressed. Please feel free to do so at your leisure; real life can be busy. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I have to confess I failed to fully read this last point when I was looking through this, probably because I started from the top! And thanks for the sentiment expressed here about the article quality, because I was becoming worried that the volume of points you've found would imply a failure on sourcing. It's very useful to get this ironed out anyway, so many thanks for the detail. I've also just noticed that you're only halfway through the article, which presumably means we can expect another similar sized chunk of points for the bottom half... I wonder if we will therefore need to do an archive and reignite the FAC once we've worked through everything? It probably depends on your timescales and how many points are likely to come up, whether I'll have time to get to them all in a reasonable timeframe. thoughts welcome anyway. Cheers, and seasons greetings to you and yours.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support on sources though I'm also a fan of the prose. I haven't gotten through the whole article, but I've combed through half of it and the overwhelming majority of it was without problem. This clearly represents some of our best sourcing, and I think obviously satisfies 1(c) especially now that my major points have been addressed. The few parts I've raised verifiability issues with have been clerical errors and easily fixed, so I doubt any further review would reveal problems so substantial I wouldn't be able to support. The major issues I've raised here have been resolved, and the rest can be resolved through normal editing. I don't think archiving and renominating would yield a different conclusion, just give me additional time, and I can leave comments about the other half on the talk page. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• This review has been progressing well and I think we have consensus to promote but as it's been awhile since the nominator's last successful FAC -- and given the subject is controversial -- I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. You can request this at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to undertake.
• On a more prosaic note, I noticed some duplicate links in the article that you might review/rationalise. Let me know if you need a link to the duplink checker that highlights them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Ian Rose: thanks. I think I've eliminated all the duplicate links from the body, although items are linked separately in the lede and first occurrence in the body, which is the usual practice I follow unless you tell me that's forbidden. I've put in a request for a source spot check so hopefully we'll get that through soon. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • • Before the coords close I'd like to note I made one additional (late) comment that has not been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the coords are going to close anytime soon, an article like this needs a detailed source review. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm, you're probably right. Maybe I can renominate it again in the future. I've addressed Indy beetle's point above, anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think renomination is necessary; I believe all Ceoil was referring to was the necessity of a source review to be conducted before this nomination is considered ready for judgment (and that might take some time). -Indy beetle (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how long I've got before this one is declared stale. I need to work through the latest issues that Wugapodes has highlighted and skim through Indy Beetle's new source for corroborating or conflicting evidence. Which might all take me a few weeks to complete... I'll definitely have more time over the Christmas period but likely to be busyish till then. It's a shame as it feels like we're almost there, so keen to see what we can do.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Amakuru: I'm not too keen on archiving at this point but if it's going to be weeks (rather than days) I'd rather archive it and you can re-nominate after the holidays. It's normal to ping existing supporters and ask them to re-state their support once they've reviewed the changes. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Laser brain: I hope it won't be weeks (plural). I anticipate being able devote a good chunk of time on Monday to addressing the various points mentioned, and combing through the new source for updates. So I think from my point of view I should be done by then, or this time next week at the latest. Obviously I can't predict whether that will satisfy the guys here who've raised issues, but that's where we're at. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thanks, can you ping me when you're done responding to the issues? --Laser brain (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: a very happy new year to you, and I think we may finally be there with this one. The major points from the source review are handled and Wugapodes is supporting, and Indy beetle is happy with the updates from the new source. Let me know if there's anything else you can see that's outstanding.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some random ref checks

• 184: Seems like it's supported by the source although "insist" may be too strong a word, and the claim is not too strong for that source.

  The other source used for the sentence, from Dallaire's book, says "I stressed that as far as UNAMIR and the world were concerned, Rwanda still had a government, headed by Prime Minister Agathe. All matters should now be under her control." - would you allow that as "insisting"? I've moved the 184 to the end of the sentence so that the whole thing is covered by both refs.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• 140: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
• 67: Seems like it checks out. No copyvio.
• 36. Assuming that I am reading this right, the page number appears to be off; it seems like the riots are mentioned on the following page.

  Yeah. 124-125 cover the attack on the politician and the riot.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• 38: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
• 263: Seems to check out. Outro curiosity, does the actual report say the same thing?
• 245: I only see cholera mentioned in the source, which also says "tens of thousands" rather than "thousands". Used Ctrl+F to find "cholera" as no page number was given.

  I've added an extra cite to cover the dysentery, and changed it to tens of thousands.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• 120: Can't check but really low profile information. My impression though is that it should be "south-east".

  Maybe, but it depends where your reference point is... The Virungas stretch all the way along the green strip, and the easternmost is further east than Ruhengeri. I thought citing a map was OK for such basic info, but perhaps even that is liable for original research if we read it differently!!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Eh, I'd still use southeast here, there would be no reason to prefer "south" to "east" otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• 94: The snippet supports the information given.
• 6: I am not sure that the source supports the "The forest-dwelling Twa lost much of their habitat" part, it's kind of implicit but not explicit.
• 66: Seems like the content is adequately supported.
• 90: Why is there INTEXT attribution here? Also, I don't think we need a reference after each sentence when they are consecutive sentences sourced to the same thing. Otherwise, well supported.

  I've split into two sentences as the semicolon wasn't needed and also removed the first of the cites. Ordinarily I err on the side of more cites rather than fewer, even for consecutive sentences, just so it's absolutely clear and in case the text gets split at a later date. Seems clear enough here though.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• 156: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
• 221: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
• 136: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
• 43: The source actually gives 336,000 as the exact estimate and mentions that refugees state it was an underestimate; I am not sure if this nuance is properly represented in the article. That they were escaping the Hutu purges is not said on the page in question, the previous page does not explicitly blame the Hutus.

  I've added another source which also gives it as "over 336,000" and states that "the legacy of the massacres was profound. [...] In the wake of the violence a further wave of Tutsi fled Rwanda as refugees" which I think establishes the causality as given in the text.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• 232: I am somewhat unclear if the "Interahamwe" in the source are the people discussed in the article.

  Possibly - the interahamwe (as stated further up the article) were a Hutu power group attached to the pre-genocide ruling party, and probably the leading group in carrying out the genocide itself. So they might have been some of the people targeted for RPF revenge killings. Does this matter? The purposes of this cite is to support the fact that Human Rights Watch say the senior RPF leadership either organised or tolerated killings. Which I think is covered in the line near the top: "The information is sufficient, however, to demonstrate that certain kinds of RPF abuses occurred so often and in such similar ways that they must have been directed by officers at a high level of responsibility. It is likely that these patterns of abuse were known to and tolerated by the highest levels of command of the RPF forces." Let me know if any action is needed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  I am guessing the problem I have is that that source text is long enough that I am not sure which part supports the article text. Or maybe I am overly sleepy at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• 166: Seems like this checks out in the source.
• 102: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
• 72: Seems like some of this content is sourced to the preceding page and it's not clear whether the congresses then taking place at Kampala have anything to do with Museveni being in power. I take that treating "by force if necessary" can be rendered as "by any means possible."

Based on this revision. Only checked source-content match, no comment about source reliability since the Rwandan genocide and prelude (I take that the civil war was the prelude to the genocide) is far outside of my area of understanding and I have no clue which sources need to be used and which don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, reading this source has made me curious about why the Pentagon senior military didn't like UN peacekeeping. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for the review. I'll email you the pages you've requested tomorrow. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have just emailed them over. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, got them. So:

• 140: Maybe I am missing something, but the page offered does not mention the peace process, only that these groups were totally extremist.

  Yeah, I wondered about that when I was scanning the page and sending it to you. Sorry, it doesn't look the sentence is well supported. I think it's not essential for the narrative as CDR opposition is covered later on, so I've removed it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• 38: To me it sounds like there should be a "temporarily" before "thwarted" in the second sentence sourced to this reference.

  I'm not sure - in what way would you say it was temporarily? Although peace was established and Logiest and the king did a joint declaration, the source doesn't say there was any further successful counterattack by the Tutsi elite...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Well, it was a temporary lull... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Sure, but the resumption of action after the lull was not that the king and Tutsi were able to continue their counterattack, rather that the Hutu became restive again. For information I have sent you a copy of the next page, Newbury p197, so that you can see the context of the temporary lull bit. I don't think it would be accurate to say that Logiest temporarily thwarted the Tutsi. They were thwarted permanently. Unless you think it should be worded differently.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. In that case you may want to expand the ref so that it points to both pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• 156: Sounds OK after reading the source.
• 221: Sounds OK after reading the source.
• 136: It sounds like "promised for the first time" is not exactly what the source says.

  Well he hadn't ever negotiated with them before that, which is fairly implicit in the text even if it doesn't say so outright. Do you think it needs more?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'd avoid the word "promised", then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Changed to "He announced his intention to negotiate with the RPF"  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• 102: Sounds OK after reading the source.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Where are we on addressing these? --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: as I mentioned above, unfortunately I've been a bit busy in real life this week so haven't had the time to devote to sorting these, and the points Wugapodes makes above. I definitely hope to do so over the weekend though, and maybe into Monday if there's a need to go to the library to consult the new source that Wugapodes has suggested. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

MOD

Super article. Support on prose. Please check my copyedits. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: a belated thanks for your support and improvements to the article! Happy new year to you.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2019 (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) 03:55, 7 January 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2019 [59].

---

Teresa Sampsonia

Nominator(s): LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a remarkable woman of the 17th century. Though often overshadowed by the "legacy" of her husband (Robert Shirley), Teresa had an unique life story. Born into a noble family in Safavid Iran, alongside her husband Robert, she travelled far and wide, and became the subject of numerous contemporary literary and visual works during her own lifetime. The article has already had a pretty extensive review by Ceranthor. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Final comments from Ceranthor

• "After her husband died of dysentery, and due to impediments from grandees at the court and the authorities during the reign of Abbas' successor and grandson Safi (r. 1629–1642), she decided to leave Iran." - I'd replace the "she" here with Teresa

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "she mentions their travels, and refers to her noble Circassian origins." - I'd cut the comma after "travels"

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add the son to the infobox?

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The favourite of Emamqoli Khan, who still wanted to marry Teresa, sent his servants to the Carmelites in Isfahan to capture her. " - to whom does "the favorite" refer?

• Name not known unfortunately. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "After three years in Safavid Iran since returning from her last trip with her husband" - seems a little wordy; maybe rephrase?

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think the prose is engaging enough. References seem reliable. Little concerned that the last picture of the headstone isn't actually public domain, but I'll leave that to an image review expert to confirm. Otherwise, support. ceranthor 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, the photo is taken from an angle, so that the three-dimensionality of the surroundings can be seen, and therefore PD for 2D objects doesn't apply. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I was the GA reviewer, and have been watching Ceranthor and LouisAragon's very thorough preparations for FAC. This is in excellent shape and I expect to support. A couple of minor points:

• Suggest giving the year of her husband's death at the start of the second paragraph of the lead. Perhaps "Her husband died of dysentery in 1628, and due to...".

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• The link to Circassian in the lead goes to a dab page.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time"; however, he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more: suggest "According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time", but he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the "(Greek or Georgian Orthodoxy)" parenthesis to a note.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• She was named Sampsonia by birth. Do you mean "at birth", or something else?

• Yeah I meant at birth! Thanks, fixed it. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest moving note [d] to directly after footnote 11, where it immediately follows the mention of her aunt.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ali Qoli Beg (the King's ambassador: I assume this is Abbas's ambassador, but since we've mentioned other kings since the last mention of Abbas I would be explicit here.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• There, Teresa came to know the Carmelite nuns, particularly Mother Beatrix de Jesus (the niece of Saint Teresa, from whom she received a relic of Teresa: unclosed parenthesis: I'd have closed it but I'm not sure if you intended it to go after "Saint Teresa" or at the end of the sentence. An em dash instead of the opening paren might work just as well.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the paragraph starting "During Shirley's diplomatic missions", it's apparent there were several portraits. You say "retained a symbolic item", but it appears it varied from portrait to portrait since you say "a pistol in one portrait". How about "but for each portrait she retained a symbolic item", or (perhaps simpler): "but retained symbolic items" and assume the remainder of the sentence lets the reader know these varied?

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• However, a favourite of his wanted to marry Teresa: suggest "a favourite of Allahverdi Khan's" since it's not easy to parse this. Perhaps "a favourite of Enamqoli Khan's, who wanted to marry Teresa, reminded the Khan...". I also think you could lose the "However".

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• the happening would take place: "the happening" is ugly. I see that "the questioning" would be repetitious, but could we just say "that she and the mullah would meet"?

• Done. Good suggestion! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Since he favoured the Carmelite Fathers: perhaps "Since the Khan favoured"?

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why is it relevant that the prefect is a Georgian?

• Because, like Emamqoli Khan ("the governor"), he was of Georgian origin as well. At least, I thought it would be interesting to add, but we can leave it out as well of course. Please let me know what you think, and I'll adjust the sentence. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  OK, but as someone who knows little about the period or the culture, I don't know what that implies. Perhaps the fact that they are both Georgian means they automatically collaborated in political or religious matters? Or that they shared certain views? In an article about US politics, I would know what "..., also a Republican, ..." implies, but I think you'll have to supply the implication here, perhaps in a footnote. A minor point, in any case; I've supported below and I trust you to do what you think best with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• This text shows that Teresa subverted...: suggest attributing this inline, which would also allow you to avoid the awkward "This text shows". Perhaps "According to Andrea (2017), the text demonstrates that..."

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. I've left one reply above, but it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Use upright scaling rather than fixed image sizes

• @Nikkimaria: You mean by substituting "...px" with "upright"?

• Essentially - you can look at MOS:UPRIGHT for more on how to set this. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You can see soemthing similar at the first image on the left in Mascarene grey parakeet. You can control the size by writing different numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Done. Thanks man. Please change the digits if you don't think it looks neat. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• File:Shirleys.JPG: source link is dead

• File:Teresia,_Countess_of_Shirley,_painted_c._1611-1613.jpg: some of the details in the caption are not sourced

• As far as I can see (but please, do correct me), the only thing thats not explicitly stated in the source is "(...) and dressed in then contemporary attire". I decided to add that to the caption, because the source does state that "The Shirleys travelled a great deal, but were in England from 1611 to 1612/13 - a date which fits with the costume of this portrait." Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• The image description page isn't a source per se - these details should have an inline citation in the article. However, on clicking through to the source from the image description page, I note that the caption is almost identical to what's given there, without any indication of quoting. That's a plagiarism concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm thats really odd. Thanks. I just corrected it, I believe. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Er, this doesn't seem to have been changed at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• On 28 October 2018, I added the name of the author (art historian Patricia Smyth), signifying that its clearly stated by her.[60] However, I now realize I had forgotten about quotation marks, so I just added those as well (as its basically entirely Smyth's statement, word for word verbatim). - LouisAragon (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• File:Teresia,_Lady_Shirley_(etching,_possibly_late_18th_century).jpg needs a US PD tag

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Trastevere_-_santa_maria_della_scala_01586-9.JPG: as Italy does not have freedom of panorama, this will need an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What is meant here is that you need to add a PD old tag for the building itself. Similar to here:[61] FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done, I think. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I think that R. Bip is an odd publisher name and if it's a shortened form it should probably be expanded; otherwise the formatting of the sources seems OK to me. I take that "Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend.", "Van Dyck, 1599-1641", "Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, by Mirza Naqi Nasiri." are reliable sources? Nothing else jumps out as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend." -- David Blow is a historian who specializes in Iranian studies[62] I.B. Tauris is a high-quality publisher.
• "Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration" -- by Willem Floor, a renowned authority in Iranian studies, specifically the Safavid/early modern era.
• "Van Dyck, 1599-1641" -- by Karen Hearn. She's well-known art historian specializing in the era of van Dyck. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Some additional source formatting notes, assisted by this handy script:

• You're inconsistent about using locations in your book sources: three have locations, but the rest do not. It doesn't matter which you choose but they should be consistent.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Globe should come before Hannay in the list.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Can you supply a page range for Andrea (2015) and Andrea (2017b)?

  Could you elaborate? :-) What do you exactly mean with page range, and where do you want me to write it down? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  Those are chapters or essays in an edited work, aren't they? I meant the start and end page of that work within the volume. I see you have what is presumably the start page for Andrea (2017a); it's helpful to give the whole page range. If you prefer not to, I think for FAC it would be OK if omitted, but if so I'd drop the page number that you do have, for consistency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  That looks right for 2017b, but there's something wrong with 2017a -- the page number in the list of sources is just "124", rather than a range, and that doesn't appear to be the start of the article because pages 33 and 34 are cited in footnotes 34 and 35. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  2017a is entirely written by Andrea, whereas 2017b and 2015 are compendiums in which Andrea has just written chapters. The 2017a issue should be fixed now. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a spotcheck of sources for close paraphrasing shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Spotcheck I don't have access to the main sources. Checking Schwartz 2013:

• The cite for the translation of the headstone is fine.
• Source: "In the small circles in which they moved, Robert and Teresia became sights to see for their rich, exotic dress". Article: "In the small circles in which they went, they were sights to see for their rich, exotic attire". This is much too close; please rephrase.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• The cite for "made of silk and velvet" slightly misquotes the source, which says "silk and silk velvet": if you leave the quotes in place it needs to match the source. Otherwise this citation is fine with no close paraphrasing.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• The cite for "wide variety..." is fine, but I noticed a story about her being poisoned in Madrid on that page. Any reason why you left that out of the article? It's not treated as definitely true by Schwartz, but he doesn't dismiss it.

• Because its only Schwartz who mentions this, apparantly. I didn't want to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possibility. Please let me know if you think that I should include it nevertheless. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  Your call; it seems interesting to me, and I think most readers would agree. You could give whatever caveats are necessary in the text or a footnote. But no, it's not necessary; I trust your judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Checking Tuson 2013:

• "Buried in the convent..." OK
• "partly self-created..." OK, appropriately quoted.

Since I found one issue, I'd like to ask for the source for one more randomly selected citation. Could you post here or email me the source for "In the Safavid Empire women were prohibited from traveling abroad without permission", which you give as p. 292 of Chick & Matthee? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Sure thing.[63] Not sure whether you can view the page though, as Google.books acts strange sometimes. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  I can't see it; I get "not part of the example or reached your viewing limit". Nikki, since you apparently have access to a copy, could you check this one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• The search in that link doesn't return page 292, but here's the corresponding text: "there is in Persia a law forbidding any woman to leave the country without first obtaining a special permit to that effect". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, Nikki. The spotchecks seem good enough to me; Nikki, up to you if you want to look at a couple more, since you have access to that source, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon, just pinging to make sure you saw this request. I've replied to a couple of points above; the only one that needs action is the page range issue; the other points are optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the Chick & Matthee source and have additional concerns about close paraphrasing. Compare for example "the King advised her not to be afraid, because it would be harder for him to put one woman to death than a hundred men" with "he told her not to be afraid, because it would be harder for him to put a woman to death than 100 men". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• This looks very interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• First, I see a good deal of duplinks, try this script to highlight them:[64]

• Fixed by the always helpful Ceranthor. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• The last paragraph under "Departure from Safavid kingdom and later life" is a bit of a text wall compared to the rest of the article, perhaps break it up somewhere?

• Good point, I agree. Do you have any suggestion? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps split before "She had the headstone inscribed". FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• "probably the first child born in England of Iranian descent" Who is this quoted to? Direct quotes should always be attributed in text, or just rephrased.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Mentioned within note "g", right behind the sentence. If you think it should really be mentioned outside within text and not inside the note, please let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Then I don't see why a direct quote is needed in the article body, though, if it isn't disputed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how to rephrase it, in order to get rid of the direct quote. Any suggestions? - LouisAragon (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• "reportedly saved her husband's life on two occasions" Any details on this?

• There is, but I didn't want to put WP:UNDUE weight on an anecdote. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, if this is part of the historical "myth", it needs to be mentioned for comprehensiveness, all you need to do is specify if the claims are dubious. Would warrant at least a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Will add a footnote about it. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Made some large scale adjustments. Let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "(the former capital)" I think you could specify Iran, as this is in a new paragrapgh.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• "They disgraced her to the King, and it was published in the court that the King intended to execute her by burning." If apostasy was illegal at the time, this should be stated.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "he didn't" Contractions are discouraged.

• Any suggestions? - LouisAragon (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The prefect, also a Georgian" Like who? You stated Tersa was Circassian?

• Yeah I meant to say that the prefect was a Georgian just like the governor of Shiraz. I rephrased it in order to prevent confusion. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• The frame in this[65] image is three dimentional, so is not PD; it could be cropped out.

• Just made a section at graphics lab/illustration workshop.[66] Will be solved momentarily. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Aight, its solved, thanks to PawełMM. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think the main text could mention their son died young.
• The intro seems to be out of chronological order, might be better to follow the structure of the article body. You jump form her early life to after Shirley's death, and then back to her travels with Shirley again.

• Valid point I think. Do you have a suggestion? I don't wanna mess up the grammar and overal coherence. @Ceranthor: Would like to have your opinion on this as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it would just be a matter of moving the existing text around. So that this part comes before the death of her husband: "Teresa was received by many of the royal houses of Europe during the voyages, such as English crown prince Henry Frederick and Queen Anne (her child's godparents) and contemporary writers and artists such as Thomas Herbert and Anthony van Dyck. According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time", but he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more." FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Tuson (2013) argues that Teresa's story has been overshadowed by "the partly selfcreated myth of the Shirley's"" What does this allude to?

• Well, the Shirley brothers were the main figures in this whole topic, as ambassadors between East and West. They were the "stars", not Teresa. Furthermore, they actively promoted the stuff their contemporaries wrote/told about them. Having said that, I think any further information/explanation about that belongs on the articles about the Shirley's themselves, rather than this article. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Made large scale adjustments and added quite a bit of information about this "myth". Should be much more clear now. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "An emancipated figure" Only stated in the intro which should not have unique info.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• You could spell out Henry Frederick in the article body as well.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated note - @FunkMonk: thanks for that script; it is incredibly helpful for cleaning up overlinking (see my recent contributions ha). ceranthor 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to spread the word in as many reviews as I can, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I took care of the duplinks for you. ceranthor 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• All the fixes look good, I still think it is more important than just a footnote to state their son died at a young age. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: (Actually had forgotten about that one) Done. Please let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - fascinating subject, and the context since added is a nice touch. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

@LouisAragon: Per the FAC instructions, please remove the "done" templates. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Done! - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: This has made good progress but hasn't yet achieved consensus for promotion. I've added it to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived if it doesn't attract some more support. --Laser brain (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I will support when my comments have been addressed, but nothing seems to have been done for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had dealt with all mandatory points as I didn't receive any response after my final two comments.[67]-[68] Guess I was wrong there. @FunkMonk: Could you please tell which ones you'd still like to be adressed (i.e. "mandatory") before supporting? I suppose the "saving her husbands life" part? Thanks alot, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, commonly, you would leave an answer to every point raised, explaining that/how you solved the issue or why you didn't, so that the reviewer knows what is what. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon, I think this is your first FAC? Sometimes those of us who spend time here don't realize some things aren't obvious. If you check the points that FunkMonk made which you have either not responded to (or which FunkMonk has followed up on with another question) and then note here if everything is addressed, then FunkMonk will take another look. Sometimes nominators can take a while to fix things, so reviewers often don't revisit until the nominator says they're ready for the reviewer to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Aight, understood @Mike Christie: Yep its my first FAC. Ok, good to know. I'll address the remaining points in the next few days. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Dealt with all remaining points. Three different users are now giving support. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading now, will provide my review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

From Jens Lallensack

• The favourite of Emamqoli Khan, who still wanted to marry Teresa, sent his servants to the Carmelites in Isfahan to capture her. – confused: who is the "favourite" who send his servants?

• Hi JL. Ceranthor asked me the same question, but "the favourite" is unfortunately not mentioned by name in the sources, nor are any further details known. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, but is "favourite" meant in the same sense as defined in the article favourite? If not, maybe another term would be more fit? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Jens Lallensack: Yeah, its meant in "that" specific way. I just added a link to "favourite" (nice find btw, didn't know we an article about it on Wiki). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Teresa was buried at the convent – in the convent?

• Fixed. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• It does not become clear where precisely the grave is, "in the convent" is quite general, first I thought of a grave yard (it seems to be within the church Santa Maria della Scala according to the image caption, but that need to be stated in the text as well). Is the gravestone still accessible/open to public?

• I agree that "in the convent" sounds a bit vague. The grave is located inside the church, according to the sources. Adjusted that as well. Please let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• That's all quibbles I found. Prose is not always perfect (I sometimes had to re-read), but good enough to allow me to give my support once the above has been addressed. A very interesting article, thanks for that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Jens Lallensack: Twofingered Typist performed an absolutely amazing copy edit today (big shout out to him/her). The prose/overal layout should be much better now. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Great! Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

From Ian

Hi, although my colleague Laser brain was looking after this one I was thinking of just nipping in and promoting it when I walked through the comments above, but upon going through the article itself I had sufficient concerns that I think it best I recuse as coord and leave Laser brain to determine when and how to close. Before continuing, let me say I think it's great to see an article like this at FAC and I congratulate the nominator on a strong debut here.
My concerns generally relate to the use of quotes -- firstly I think we have too many; secondly I think too few, in particular several that offer opinions, are attributed inline; thirdly in at least one case I wonder if an individual author's opinions are being given too much weight. I'll go through these one by one up to but not including In popular culture:

• The main sources that deal with Teresa's life are the "predictably semi-hagiographic" accounts stored in the archives of the Vatican and the Carmelite order... -- I can see this is sourced to one work, by Tuson, but I'd like to know clearly that it's she who's offering the quoted opinion.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Though the Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia evidently portrays a positive image of Teresa, the accounts are considered to be "patchy" and "contradictory" on some occasions -- again sourced to Tuson but are "patchy" and "contradictory" her opinions or is she reporting a consensus among scholars? If the former, you'd have to say that she considers them so, not that this is general opinion, as it reads now.

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• "probably the first child born in England of Iranian descent" -- an interesting fact but not a memorable quote, can we just paraphrase?

• Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• "was still alive in 1622 when his English grandmother passed away, as confirmed by the annuity she bequeathed him" -- cited to two works so would need inline attribution but again not a memorable quote in itself so can we try paraphrasing?

• A rather tough one; any suggestions about how to rephrase? - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• How about just He is believed to have survived until at least 1622, but to have died at a young age? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Sounds good to me. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• the King advised her not to be afraid, "because it would be harder for him to put one woman to death than a hundred men" -- marginally worth keeping as a quote IMO, but needs attribution; cited to two works, and in any case is even one of those authors saying this or the King himself or another contemporary?

• This is reportedly said by the king according to contemporaneous accounts (which are compiled in Chick & Matthee's work). Regarding the "Andrea 2019, p. 110" reference; it basically just gives a summary of Chick & Matthee's compilation of primary accounts in relation to the story, i.e. it doesn't include an unique statement by the author (just an additional ref to back up the Chick/Matthee source, basically). Anyways I added a few words to the sentence, please let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The In popular culture section is rife with quotes and quote fragments (five in the second sentence alone), some that probably don't need to be there, some that could stay but need attribution -- perhaps in light of my advice above you could work on that yourself and get back to me...

• I find it difficult to rephrase these sentences as I believe the quoted material is pretty "on point". Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well, rather than make suggestions, I might just have a go at what I consider the worst offenders, then you can let me know here if I've misinterpreted anything, and what's left you can attribute inline, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Okay Louis, I've tweaked and trimmed, leaving only "hybrid identities" and "exotic wife with an even more exotic life story" as unattributed quotes that I found intriguing or otherwise useful -- pls let me know what you think of the result and who was quoted in those two cases. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Hey! Thanks, looks perfectly fine to me. I just addressed the two quotes as well as the "died young" part (per your earlier suggestion). Please let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Hi, thank you for your comments/feedback. Pinged you just to make sure. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tks Louis -- your changes so far look fine to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tks for your latest changes, Louis -- I did play around with the phrasing a bit but have hopefully left the meaning intact.
• Happy to support, and hope to see more of your work here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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