Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2021

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2021 [1].

Battle of the Saw

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Carthaginians again. Hannibal's father making his name during a nasty episode in a nasty war. This has been through a GAN and recently an A class review - with thanks to @Hog Farm, Buidhe, Zawed, JennyOz, and CPA-5:. I have given it a little additional work since, and believe that it may now approach the standard required for FAC. I invite your critical comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit

Here we go again with this nasty episode.

  • Is it possible to split the second paragraph in the lead?
Done, but I don't personally like it.
  • Hamilcar and fellow general Hanno followed and in late 238 BC wiped them out MOS:EGG here.
I'm not seeing it. In what way might a reader be surprised to click through to an account of a battle in which the rebels are wiped out?
  • Optional and their commander on Sicily agreed the Treaty of Lutatius --> "and their commander on Sicily agreed to sign the Treaty of Lutatius"?
No. He did agree to sign it, but he also, and more importantly, agreed it first.
  • and were thrown into a pit and buried alive.[26][29 Okay here we are again I don't believe unnassary citations like these should be here if a couple of sentences after this already uses these citations.
Removed.
  • the modern historian Adrian Goldsworthy describes this as "a gross oversimplification".[35] Same as above.
Removed.
  • had indigenous African forest elephants at the time.[note 3][40] Per this first citation and then note.
I can see no requirement, nor even a suggestion, as to which order they should go in. If I am missing it, entirely likely, could you quote the policy.
  • Well I don't think it's really called a policy. However, it uses the citation first and then the note as an example and since it's meant to help Wikipedians I assume we should follow it or otherwise it has no purpose.
Help:Explanatory notes#Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes explains how to use sfns and notes in the same article. It has to use one of the two possible alternatives when giving examples. But there is no indication that the one chosen is compulsory. If it was intended to be, surely that would be explicit; elsewhere when something is mandated the text is pretty clear. Even if it were explicit, which it isn't, this is a how-to guide, not a policy or even a guideline.
  • and they were massacred to a man. The rebel leaders were crucified in sight of their comrades --> "and they were massacred to a man. The rebel leaders were crucified insight of their comrades"
No. "Insight" means something completely different to "in sight".
  • Can you give me an example or two?
His destination is in sight.
I shall keep you in sight as I do not trust you.
They died in sight of each other.
He possesses an insight into his own condition
Einstein had some important insights.
Luxury brands are built on insights about customers' desired lifestyle.
  • After immense materiel and human losses on both sides Typo here?
Not that I can see. What were you thinking of?
  • Typo of material?
Ah! Wikt:materiel means "Military equipment, apparatus, and supplies."
  • Hanno's attitude towards tax raising from Carthage's --> "Hanno's attitude towards tax-raising from Carthage's"
Done.
  • rebel force under Spendius, which kept to rough ground --> "rebel force under Spendius, which kept to the rough ground"
I prefer it how it is. Rough ground hasn't previously been mentioned, so it would be inappropriate to talk of the rough ground; I am refering to rough ground geberally.
  • cause the Carthaginians supply problems --> "cause the Carthaginians to supply problems"
No, that would not be grammatical.
  • and either lure them onto ground of the rebels' --> "and either lure them onto the ground of the rebels"
Same issue as with "the rough ground".
  • On a thin pretext Hamilcar took Spendius, Autaritus, Zarzas and their lieutenants prisoner. Do we not need an apostrophe after lieutenants?
Good thought, but no - "their" has already established the possessive.
  • Was thinking double possessive here as in "their lieutenant's prisoner" you know the prisoner of the unnamed lieutenant or "their lieutenants' prisoner" as the prisoner of a couple of unnamed lieutenants. But I assume that's not the case.
Ah, again. If I meant Hamilcar took Spendius, Autaritus, Zarzas and the prisoner of their lieutenant/s prisoner then I would use one of your suggestions. But I don't, it is the actual lieutenants who are being taken prisoner. Does that make sense?
  • Is it possible to add another image in the sections "Opposing armies" or "Campaign"?
Done.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, that is very prompt of you. All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, do my changes address your points? Is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 and thanks. My round of responses to yours is above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Pompeii,_Statuette_of_a_war_elephant.jpg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work
Done.
In an 1890 French edition of Salammbô by Gustave Flaubert. Eg here, mistakenly, I believe, given as 1887.

Comments from Eddie

edit
  • Will do Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Carthaginian army of 20,000 men on Sicily was evacuated to Carthage." Given that this is the first sentence in a section, I think it would benefit from some more context (why they were evacuated-- possibly "upon the end of the war" or something somewhat similar)?
Good point. Done.
  • "The discontent seemed to have abated when discipline broke down." to me this could read as "because discipline broke down the discontent seemed to have abated", when you probably mean more like "just as discontent seemed to have abated, discipline broke down" I think that could be clarified?
Rephrased.
  • "the Senate's negotiators were taken prisoner and their treasury was seized" the senate's negotiators had their treasury seized?
I am not sure if that is a question or a suggestion. If the former - yes - if the latter - I think that the negotiators being taken prisoner needs to be mentioned.
Because the modern equivalent is Utica, to which it is already linked. Same as with Tunis.
  • "He was shadowed by a superior-sized rebel force under Spendius, " is there a reason not to say "larger rebel force"?
No. (I was probably paraphrasing to avoid similar language to the source.) Changed.
  • "swapped sides with his 2,000 cavalry" perhaps it's just me, but I think this sentence could be a bit more explicit as to what sides were being swapped
OK. Done.
  • "ny further prisoners taken by the Carthaginians were trampled to death by elephants." I think this unnecessary because you already express it in more detail and context below
Removed.
  • Several duplinks are present, including Gaul and war elephant
My duplink tool is playing up. Are there others it/I has/have missed?
  • "The rebel situation was not sustainable," I think it worth reiterating their situation here
Done. Briefly, you will wish to check it.
  • "The rebel commanders led an effective campaign, but they could not match Hamilcar's experience." I think this sentence is redundant to what's already been expressed
I disagree. Up to that point I have talked about their experience. Surely at some point I need to tell the reader what actually happened?
  • ". On a thin pretext Hamilcar " can you be any more specific?
It's one of those where I really need most of a paragraph to explain the details, or leave a reader wondering. It's not worht that many words, so I'll take it out; it's not a vital point.
  • "The rebels were massacred to a man" I'm personally not a fan of 'to a man'- I consider it an unnecessarily complex way to say 'without exception'
Interesting; when copy editing I tend to swap out "without exception". Gone for "All of the rebels were killed".

Great work as always, may have some further comments at a later date. Comments are minor, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie891, your usual insightful set of comments. All addressed, including one where I have not gone with your suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, Happy with your responses. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 19:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow

edit

Looks excellent to me. Only a few comments, most of which are probably personal preference - Dumelow (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • After immense materiel and human losses on both sides, the Carthaginians were defeated[2][3] and their commander on Sicily agreed the Treaty of Lutatius.[4] My understanding of MOS:CITEPUNCT is that the citation should follow the punctuation in all but a very limited set of circumstances.
I am not sure that I understand what change you are suggesting. My citations have been placed with "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies", from the guidance you mention, in mind.
Perhaps WP:CITEFOOT is better: "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." But it's worded more as a suggestion and the last part of the statement muddies the waters. I've always put citations only after punctuation (and usually at the end of the sentence only) but see now that this is personal preference and maybe out of line with the guidance! - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used to group my cites more, but had several complaints from source reviewers that this made it difficult to verify my text. Now that I source review myself I can appreciate that, say, three cites at the end of a sentence when you only have access to two of the sources makes spot checking very difficult. So I try, but don't always remember (nor is it always possible) to attribute as close to the text referred to as I can. Or, to be more succinct, as you say: it is largely personal preference.
  • Several soldiers insisted that no deal with Carthage was acceptable, a riot broke out, dissenters were stoned to death, the Senate's negotiators were taken prisoner and their treasury was seized. Presumably this is a local treasury at Tunis? From the way that it is worded it could be construed as the Senate's main treasury (or maybe hat was at Tunis?).
The negotiators were despatched with sufficient cash to settle the back pay of 20,000 skilled men over several years. The sources strongly suggest that it was every bit of ready cash the Carthaginians could scrape together. This amount of state cash in one place and under the control of an official seems to me to meet the definition of treasury. I had hoped that the use of "their", ie the negotiators', would avoid any confusion with the broader use of "treasury" as a state treasury. But I am certainly not wedded to the word and would be happy to entertain alternatives.
For some reason I hadn't made the connection with money that was sent with the negotiators but it is obvious now - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathos ordered two groups of rebels north to besiege the two main cities – other than Carthage – that had not already come over "come over" strikes me as a bit colloquial.
Well, a quick search of the one source I can access electronically throws up "come over" in this sense twice. But changed to "rebelled".
  • Hamilcar defeated a large rebel force at the Battle of the Bagradas River and then brought various towns and cities which had gone over to the rebels back to Carthaginian allegiance with varying mixtures of diplomacy and force. "various" and "varying" felt a bit repetitive to me
True. In fact I am not sure what "varying" adds, so removed and tweaked.
  • It might be beneficial to name some of the numbered locations/movements on the map to help the reader follow the adjacent text. For example, I had no idea where Bagradas River (5?) was in relation to the previously mentioned Carthage, Utica etc.
I got told off in a previous FAC for a non-concise caption with the same map! Good point. I have added captions for Bagradas and the campaign prior to the Saw. I am disinclined to add captions for, eg, the Battle of Utica - the 4 next to the crossed swords next to Utica should be comprehensible. See what you think.
Yes, that is helpful. As you say, I think the other movements/battles are obvious - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dumelow, this is very good of you. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dumelow, appreciated. A comment above continues our discussion on citation positioning. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • "on a thin pretext he took the rebel leaders prisoner" - I see the prisoner piece in the text, but not the pretext?
Good spot. I removed it from the main article after discussion with Eddie891 above, but forgot to check to see if I had mentioned that in the lead. Now removed there as well.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for publications, and if so how these are formatted
I have included locations for all books but not for articles. I had not included a location for the encyclopedis article (Eckstein) but had otherwise messed it up - see next point. Location now included for this. The only discrepancy in formatting I can see is whether I have given the next level of geographic location. I have done so where there would be ambiguity if I just gave the first level. Eg there are two places named "Chichester" in the UK, plus one in Canada and one in the US. I have removed "California" from after "Stanford" on the grounds that the publisher being the university should remove ambiguity.
If it is some other formatting inconsistency I would be grateful if you could specify. Thanks.
  • Can you verify the Eckstein ref? The doi is not working and the details from the ISBN don't appear to match up
I made a mess of Eckstein altogether. It is an encyclopedia and I managed to mix and match with "cite book"! I had skipped the location because it was an encyclopedia, but the template is now reformatted and contains the location. The doi works for me.
Hm. Still not working for me - what's the link where you end up? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edition statements shouldn't be part of title.
Fixed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikkimaria. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This nomination could do with a prose review from someone who is not a military history regular, in particular to check for jargon, recherche language and general understandability to those not regularly accustomed to the specialist terminology of military history articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still needed, or do the reviews below suffice? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Funk and thanks for asking. I would guess that the extant reviews would suffice, but that is a question for @FAC coordinators: . While you are waiting for their opinion, do feel free to have a look at my latest offering at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Inverkeithing/archive1. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll have a look there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request to coordinators

Ealdgyth, Ian Rose @FAC coordinators: : This one seems to be ticking along. Can I have permission to fire up my next one? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine to, yes. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Very cleanly written. We disagree on commas, but I hesitate to add too many, having read Lynn Truss on the subject. I have a couple of prose questions and a couple of more general points.

How droll. I hadn't seen that before. Possibly a trifle harsh.
  • While the war with Rome was being played out: a little informal and a little imprecise -- I can't tell whether this means "During the war with Rome" or refers to the concluding phase of the war.
Changed to "During the last years of the war with Rome".
  • The news of a formed, experienced, anti-Carthaginian army: do we need "formed"? I can't see that it adds anything.
Ho, hum. OK, I am being both pedantic and technical. Excised.
  • There's almost no discussion of the ancient source(s). Different articles take different approaches to this problem; I've written articles such as Ælle of Sussex where the sources are so scarce and hard to interpret that a section on them is obligatory. I don't know that that's necessary here, but the article seems to express no doubts at all about the reliability of what facts it gives. That's fine if the historiography supports it but I wanted to check since I know that not every Roman historian is a neutral observer.
There is disagreement between reviewers as to whether a section on sources should be included at all. I have settled on a compromise - a personal one - of including them in articles on wars, but not on campaigns or battles. I could however lift the section on "Primary sources" from the FA Mercenary War and insert it with little tweaking if you feel that would be helpful. As you can see from reading that section, the main primary source is considered a paragon among ancient historians - this is solidly reflected in the secondary literature where virtually all of the debate is around how to interpret his summary style and little or none on his veracity or accuracy. Hence the "no doubts at all about the reliability of what facts it gives" feel to the article; if such doubts aren't in the secondary sources, there isn't a lot for a Wikipedia editor to say.
Yes, he seems ideal. I'll strike the comment but you might consider a footnote for this and other articles in which the sources are not explicitly discussed, placed at the first mention of Polybius and saying he is regarded as one of the most reliable ancient historians. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that less than half the article is specifically about the Battle of the Saw; everything in the body other than the "Campaign" section would need to be in other articles too, perhaps in more detail. Or am I misunderstanding what's specific to this battle? I had a look at some of the other Mercenary War articles and I am not necessarily arguing that this should be merged, just checking that there's a good reason for this article to be separate. Is the argument that separate battles, indexed separately in the sources, should have separate articles?
As there were six main battles in the relatively short Mercenary War (for comparison, there were four significant land battles - or arguably five - in the 23 years of the First Punic War) there is, it seems to me, inevitably going to be a fair bit of overlap around background and aftermath. That said, there are differences, usually significant, in the "War" and "Aftermath" sections as the chronology moves on. I am probably digressing. Yes, the argument is indeed that there is enough material in the sources to warrant an article for each of the six battles, the events leading up to it and the events immediately after it. One could, of course, make them more unique by removing some similar material - eg "Opposing forces" - but this would seem to pointlessly deprive a reader. Given our discussion above on sources there seems to be a case for introducing further non-unique text. Given that, for example, Hoyos bangs on for over 300 pages in Truceless War (including 21 specifically on the Saw campaign and battle) I don't think that six articles and a summary article is "milking" the sources. Obviously, other opinions may be available.
I have rattled on a bit there, apologies. Hopefully I have at least partially addressed your point.
I wasn't concerned that the articles were stretching out what the sources could supply, more checking how the division into subarticles was made. If the sources you're using go into that much detail then a separate article does seem warranted, and I take your point about the need to repeat context -- I don't think you could make the article any shorter. I think Wikipedia is inconsistent about this; we have separate articles on rulers who are no more than a name in a regnal list, which seems silly to me. Here I'd be more inclined to wonder if there's more you could add from the sources, but since I'm not familiar with them I'll trust your judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, all good stuff. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I haven't read any of the previous Punic War series but found this works fine as a standalone article, and could find little to criticize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Gog, only a few tidbits to contribute...

  • infobox "Spendius, Zarzas, Autaritus" - are commas intended?
No. Removed.
  • years BC - MOS only says "It is advisable to use a non-breaking space." Your call.
I'm not a fan, but added.
  • The news of an experienced, anti-Carthaginian army in the heart of its territory spread rapidly and many cities and towns rose in rebellion. - ambiguous? rebelled against or with the mutineers? Sorry, I just don't understand why locals sided with the mutineers who were "in the heart of its territory". They were peeved re taxes same as Mathos so joined in?
Yes. I thought that was clear, but obviously not. I have added a "caused" to clarify the causality.
  • rebels with his 2,000 cavalry and joined Hamilcar - move the cavalry link up to first mention at "from the rebels, 2,000 cavalry, and 70 elephants"
Ah! Done.
  • deserted the rebels with his 2,000 cavalry and joined Hamilcar. - maybe 'taking' instead of "with"? or and 'they' joined Hamilcar?
Gone with "they".
  • subordinates, notably the Gaul Autaritus - dab the Gaul link to Gauls? (so that, see my next point...)
Oops. Done.
  • Both Iberia and Gaul provided - now link Gaul?
And done.
  • Hanno was recalled to Carthage - why? to 'defend' Carthage?
Because he was an idiot who should never have been allowed to run around with a loaded army. I could lift in the couple of sentences to sketch in the political, military and personal reasons: " In mid-239 BC, he was joined by Hanno and his army, but the two men disagreed as to the best strategy and operations were paralysed. Unusually, the choice of the supreme commander was put to a vote of the army – possibly only the officers – and Hamilcar was elected; Hanno left the army." But it seems to be "going into unnecessary detail" to me. But I am not too bothered if you disagree.
Giggle. Yes I first read it that he was basically sacked but then when I got to "10,000 defenders of Carthage under Hanno", I reconsidered and thought maybe he'd been specifically sent to defend it. No problem and no need to add anything. Between you and Bagnall I see why the demotion.
  • leaving the 20,000-man-balance of their force - not sure second hyphen necessary?
No. Well, you have read my essay where I confess my helplessness with hyphens. Removed.
  • operate effectively.[45] and harassed - swap full stop to comma (or remove)
Should have been a comma. Done.
  • account of a months-long campaign of - "a months" sounds singular ie one month (yes even though there is no apostrophe) so maybe 'the months-long'? Or, if available a 2-3 months-long for example. Or an adjective after "a" would help eg 'a busy/active/shifting months-long'. I do note you say the sources are confusing though.
Changed "a" to "the subsequent".
Perfect!
  • likeness of their outline to the tool. - do sources say to the tool's teeth?
No. Almost certainly because the primary source giving this name doesn't. "around the place called The Saw; which acquired this name due to the similarity of its appearance to the tool so called."
  • as "unhelpful" to the rebels and any attack was clearly hopeless - whose attack, rebels? maybe 'any attack by them'
Done.
In this case I am referring to the contents of the baggage train, the actual baggage, not the train.
  • including every Carthaginian citizen of military age - every male citizen?
Redundant. Women weren't citizens.
  • Now, about the latest edit (15 Jan) which changed text and wlink to "Northern Africa had indigenous North African elephants at the time". The wlink for the elephants changed from African forest elephant to North African elephant. It appears the forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) is a living species. The North African elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaohensis) is an extinct subspecies of the living African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana). But that newly linked North African elephant's lede says "Other names for this animal include the North African forest elephant, Carthaginian elephant, and Atlas elephant". (my underline)
That was a good faith drive-by edit. A consequence of Mercenary War being TFA on the 15th I think. I usually leave TFA edits a few days before tidying them up, and that was on my to do list. There is grave doubt as to whether the North African elephant ever existed as a distinct sub-species, the Wikipedia article notwithstanding. (I have had this conversation before.) I have switched it back to how it was. That OK? (Don't you hate drive bys who change things to what they think makes sense and leave a phrase which is contradicted by the source?)
Well, as you say "good faith" but naughty- I don't know how you prolific article writers have time to also be vigilant stewards.
Do sources clarify this is the correct species/subspecies?
All of the sources refer to them as the African forest elephant.
Certainly the text now looks odd with "Northern Africa had indigenous North African elephants at the time". It could possibly appear better (to ease the rep) if changed to 'Northern Africa had indigenous forest elephants at the time' (or similar).

That's me. Pls let me know if I haven't explained my confusions enough! JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great [User:JennyOz|Jenny]], thank you. Your comments to date all addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good Gog. I've added a few replies above but no further clarifications needed so am happy to add my support. JennyOz (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 January 2021 [2].

Sennacherib

edit
Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about ancient Assyria's most famous king. Sennacherib appears as a ruthless conqueror in the Bible, with his attack on Jerusalem being portrayed (and later remembered) as a near-apocalyptic event, the city only being saved through divine intervention. The real Sennacherib was more tragic and seemingly uninterested in conquest. He was superstitious due to a religiously damning fate that befell his father and he built the greatest city the world had ever seen up until his time. Throughout most of his reign he was plagued by problems caused by his arch-enemy, Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon. Sennacherib stands out among the Assyrian kings as a complex figure in his own right; his reign and his actions read more like a narrative, riddled with twists and heartbreak, than the otherwise seemingly randomly directed campaigns of his predecessors and there is significant discussion to be had in regards to his actual character and who he was as a person. The article has passed through a GA review, peer review and a copy edit and I believe any potential remaining issues could be addressed during the FAC process. Should the article pass, it will be the first FA of an ancient Assyrian king. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sennacherib/archive1, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
Any edits I do this week are actually procrastination but if Acamptonectes is still in need of reviews by next weekend (which I assume will be the case), I can take a look then :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, I see a bunch of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script:[3]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects of images should preferably face the text instead of away from it. Though you don't really have much room to do that everywhere here, I think the first image after the infobox could be right aligned so that Sargon II faces the text. Then the image just below in the "Sennacherib as crown prince" section could be left aligned.
Realigned the two images specified. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Neo-Assyrian and other terms only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body (these are not seen as duplinks).
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sargon claimed he was the son of the earlier king Tiglath-Pileser III" You could perhaps say "claimed he was himself the son of" for clarity, had to read it a couple of times to understand you didn't mean Sennacherib.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assyria and Babylonia shared the same language" Mention which?
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The relationship between Assyria and Babylonia was not entirely unlike the relationship between Greece and Rome in later centuries; Assyria and Babylonia shared the same language" This would imply Greece and Rome shared the same language, but that wouldn't be the case, no?
Languages of the Roman Empire – Latin and Greek were the two official languages of the Roman Empire, even before Byzantine times, so Rome and Greece did share a language. You are correct however that the linguistic aspect isn't really relevant to the Rome-Greece comparison on account of Latin eclipsing Greek among the Romans. I've moved the bit on them having the same language to its own sentence after this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce "Assyriologist Eckart Frahm", but not for example Josette Elayi. Would be best to be consistent throughout when introducing modern people.
Made it consistent throughout the article to introduce with "Assyriologist" or corresponding occupation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit problematic that the svg maps used are in German. Maybe English versions could be made? Perhaps the author, Enyavar, could be asked?
I've asked Enyavar at their talk page, so we'll see what happens. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because portions of the Assyrian army were away in Tabal in 704 BC, and Sennacherib, possibly considering a two-front war too risky, he left Marduk-apla-iddina unchallenged for several months." This sentence is pretty convoluted and hard to understand. Seems to be something grammatically wrong? Perhaps the words I bolded need to be removed.
Looks like it has already been removed. I've also rewritten the sentence and split it into two, should be clearer now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had fled to the southern Sea Land" Anything to link?
The Sea Land is explained right after and we don't have an article on it yet (though one should probably be made). I can't link to Sea Land since that redirects to the Principality of Sealand, where Marduk-apla-iddina definitely did not flee to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brother of an Arabian queen" Link Arab? And isn't "Arabian" more of a geographic designation than ethnic, unlike Arab?
Don't think "Arabian" is explicitly wrong as the queen in question ruled in Arabia but Arab should be fine as well seeing as Assyrian inscriptions explicitly title her as the "queen of the Arabs". Changed "Arabian" to "Arab". Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroying the fields of the Chaldeans, Arameans and Babylonians who had supported the revolting regime and taking over two hundred thousand prisoners." Confusing who did the bolded part. If the Assyrians, you could say "and took over two hundred thousand prisoners" or such.
Yeah, it was the Assyrians. Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sennacherib described Bel-ibni as "a native of Babylon who grew up in my palace like a young puppy"." That's kind of hilarious!
Gotta love ancient writings. There's a lot of fun to be had reading ancient Mesopotamian documents commenting on politics (also if they are written by someone making the decisions themselves, such as Sennacherib) or random stuff (this customer service complaint is a classic for instance). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I really like the quotes sprinkled throughout, adds colour! FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lachish is linked in two successive captions. Each term only needs to be linked in the first caption it is mentioned in.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proclaimed a noble by the name Ethbaal as the new king of Sidon as his vassal" The double "as" is confusing. Do you mean "and" the second time?
Yeah, changed to "and" at the second time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; changed so that it is two separate links. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article becomes very image-heavy as you go down, and the images seem to almost clash with each other. Perhaps related images could be collected into double images, as I tried in for example Podokesaurus and Réunion ibis?
Oh, I see you had already done this a few places, but perhaps more could be tried, I attempted small fout image compilations yesterday at quagga... Could maybe be used to collect some of the Lachish reliefs?
Not ignoring this; I'll go through and fix the images sometime after christmas. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and grouped together many of the images. Unsure about some of the ones I didn't group together, so see how you feel about the images as they are now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levant could be linked in the article body too.
Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Negal-ushezib and the Elamites attacked the Assyrian army " First time you spell the name "Nergal"?
Yeah, Nergal is correct (it comes from the god); fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some Babylonians seized their king Ashur-nadin-shumi" Not sure what else you could do, but seems somewhat inappropriate to refer to someone imposed on them as "their" king...
Very true. Removed "their king" entirely so that it just says that the Babylonians seized Ashur-nadin-shumi. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The king who had anxiously considered" Is there a reason to use the ambiguous" the king" when you are dealing with two kings here?
See under the next point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The king who had anxiously considered the implications of Sargon's seizure of Babylon and the role that the city's offended gods may have played in his father's downfall was gone, replaced by a king wishing to avenge the death of his son and tiring of a city well within the borders of his empire that had repeatedly rebelled against his rule." This s very specific and almost seems like mind-reading, so could be made clear if this is speculation by later historians or somehow implied by Sennacherib himself.
I've reworded this part and split it up into more sentences; this is Brinkman's interpretation of Sennacherib's reasoning. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This leaves the blame of the fate of the temples not personally on Sennacherib himself, but on the decisions made by the temple personnel and the actions of the Assyrian people." This also reads like one historian's interpretation, so could need in-text attribution.
Something is up with this being the only action during Babylon's destruction that Sennacherib doesn't take personal credit for, but yes I agree. I've added in-text attribution here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eradication of the Babylonia" Is "the" needed? You don't use it elsewhere when you mention Babylonia.
Removed "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction of Nineveh" This title made me think he constructed it form scratch. Is there a way to imply it was more of a expansion, rebuilding, or similar?
I've changed "construction" to "renovation", if that works better? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where colossal statues of bulls from Sargon's palace depicts them with five legs so that four legs could be seen from either side" I think it should be "depict"?
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father forced Arda-Mulissu" This seems oddly worded considering the article is about this father (and not about Arda-Mulissu), why not just say "Sennacherib forced"? Perhaps switch it around: "Sennacherib forced Arda-Mulissu to swear loyalty to Esarhaddon, but Arda-Mulissu made many appeals to his father to reinstate him as heir".
Yeah, changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as he had reached the height of his popularity but was powerless to do anything to him" This is a bit unclear. Maybe the last "him" could be "his brother"?
Changed "him" to "his brother". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escaping after murdering Sennacherib" Perhaps add "after murdering their father Sennacherib?" for context?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the meantime, Esarhaddon had raised an army" Where was he at the time of the murder?
This is already in the article; he was still in "the western provinces", where he had been sent by Sennacherib, who feared Arda-Mulissu would hurt Esarhaddon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything specific on how his death was lamented? Anything on his funeral, ceremonies?
I don't think anything is recorded for this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is possible that Sennacherib suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder" This seems awfully speculative, and should probably have in-text attribution.
Yeah, you're right. I've attributed it to Frahm in the text (his full name is given earlier in the article so just including his last name down there). Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medieval Syriac tales, characterize Sennacherib" Why the comma?
Removed the comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where some have even been reburied" Why?
Elayi doesn't say anything except that they were large; maybe to avoid damage being caused to them by the elements (since they were too big to transport out of there)?
  • "Hormuzd Rassam returned" You shouldn't spell out his full name at second mention.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the Assyriologist T. Madhloom" Can we find the full name? And if not, what's the point of a red link?
I've added his full name (Tariq) and removed the link entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The traditional assessment of Sennacherib as a ruthless conqueror has faded away in modern scholarship. Writing in 1978" But can you cite a single 1978 article for this broad statement?
I've added Elayi's 2018 assessment of Sennacherib as well. Maybe this introductory sentence could be reworded to be less all-encompassing but I can't find many other concrete assessments of who Sennacherib was. I don't think many modern scholars hold the view that he was a ruthless enemy of God. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exhibited at the Iraq Museum" You don't mention the museums in any other image captions, so it should either be removed here or added to all of then, I think...
Removed this part of the caption; IIRC it was mentioned in one of my previous Assyrian GA:s that mentioning the museum was unnecessary in image captions since objects tend to move around a lot and only be exhibited sometimes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's interesting to note even if something is exhibited somewhere temporarily, as wherever something is now, it was there when the photo was taken... But the most important thing s just to be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various more terms that you link multiple times in image captions which only need a link at first occurrence.
Think I've fixed all cases of this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or because of the ill omens associated with the battlefield death" The article body doesn't seem to say specifically this was due to ill omens?
I've removed "ill omens". Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His most famous work in the city is the Southwest Palace, which Sennacherib named his "Palace without Rival"." Should this perhaps be past tense, as it doesn't exist any more?
The palace doesn't exist anymore but it is only the "most famous work" today, hence the present tense. I'm unsure on this one but I can change it to "was" if you think that is correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any speculation at all on why Arda-Mulissu was replaced at crown prince?
Not beyond the little speculation that is already in (that Esarhaddon's influential mother might have had something to do with it) - it is clear that it was a strange decision in comtemporary times as well since even Esarhaddon, who benefitted from it, commented on it later. I'm not sure if it is needed here since it might clog up an already long article, but Esarhaddon's account of this stuff is in his article, with some quotes, if readers are interested in that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arda-Mulissu and another son" Not sure, but would it be appropriate to name the son here?
Yeah it is a bit strange to only mention one of the conspirators (even if Arda-Mulissu was clearly the senior of the two), I've added Nabu-shar-usur to the lede as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be nice to find a higher res version of this drawing[4] and clean it up a bit, it's pretty cool...
The image is huge (2839 x 3486) in the source specified at Commons so I've added the larger version. I agree that it's pretty cool. What type of cleaning did you have in mind? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, quite an improvement, I was thinking a version could be made where the border was cropped and the contrast and tint was corrected, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the 1553 drawing is really useful here, it is pretty nondescript (it looks like any random guy), and the images are really crammed in that section. Perhaps put it in a double image with the somewhat similar Georg Pencz woodcut?
I've removed the image entirely; think it would look even more crowded if grouped with the George Pencz woodcut, which looks a bit cooler anyway IMO. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking your time to go through this one (it's one of the longest I've done) and for the support! I'm gonna have a busy spring but I'm hoping that at least one more of the Sargonids makes it over here to FAC in the not too distant future :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support (including source review) by A. Parrot

edit

This looks close to FA standard, but I see two overarching problems. One is wordiness: ideas are often conveyed in a repetitive way, to such an extent that whole sentences could be shortened and combined with each other without loss of meaning. I've cut out some verbiage myself, but for more major instances I've listed my suggestions in the bullet points below. Second, the article seems to speculate a lot about Sennacherib's thinking and character. I'm uncomfortable with speculation about the thoughts and feelings of ancient people, especially before classical antiquity, in which we have more extensive evidence of what individuals' personalities were like. In most cases the speculation seems to be supported by the sources (though I haven't done a thorough source check), but in at least a couple of cases it seems like the article text could express more caution, and if there are sources that challenge the speculation, they should absolutely be brought in. A. Parrot (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working through the article and for offering your input. I'll work through your comments soon, just wanted to quickly clarify that I haven't inferred any of Sennacherib's thoughts or anything of his character myself in the article; it should all come from the sources. Some of the assumptions could probably be better attributed, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Levantine War of 701 was made necessary by…" It seems like this sentence can be combined with the description of the beginning of the war in the preceding paragraph.
I've almost entirely removed the beginning of this paragraph; less repetition now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…a campaign recorded not only in Sennacherib's own accounts, but also in the Second Book of Kings in the Hebrew Bible." It doesn't seem necessary to mention Sennacherib's own accounts here, as it's only one of many campaigns the Assyrians recorded. Secondly, why is "Hebrew Bible" used and linked here, while "Old Testament" is used and linked in the first paragraph?
Removed mention of both Sennacherib's account here and of the Hebrew Bible (since this is already stated in the first paragraph). Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening paragraph leaves one wondering why Ataliya was ever considered Sennacherib's mother. Elayi specifies that Ra'īmâ was identified by a new reading on her stela, so it seems worth pointing out that a recent development changed the picture. According to the article on Sargon II, Ataliya's grave is also a fairly recent discovery, from the 1980s, so if the sources specify that those two developments changed the picture, it seems best to say so.
Added dates and changed some things around here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would Sennacherib's mother have to have lived to 692 BC? Or should that clause apply specifically to Ataliya because her approximate date of death is known? If the latter, does it derive from her grave?
Inscriptions mention a "Queen Mother" as alive in 692 BC and as that title only applies relative to the king, that means that Sennacherib's mom was still alive by then. Added this with source to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…though his letters indicate he wanted to please Sargon, they also show he knew him quite well." It's hardly surprising that these would both be true. It would be more straightforward to say "his letters indicate he knew Sargon well and wanted to please him."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sennacherib may have resented his father for this as he missed out on the glory attached to military victories." Elayi mentions this possibility in a rhetorical question, which seems like an even weaker way of putting it forward than stating "Sennacherib may have…". If it were me I would leave this sentence out, but if you want to keep it, at least qualify it further by attributing it to Elayi.
Elayi brings this up later in the book again (amended the citation to list both pages); so she appears to believe that it is a possibility and I think it is worth noting. I've attributed it to Elayi in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…not entirely unlike…" is wordy, and this kind of double negative is rarely advisable. "Similar to" works fine here. That said, the paragraph as a whole is great at clarifying the cultural background, and it ends with the kind of punchy sentence that we rarely get to write in Wikipedian NPOV-speak.
Changed to "similar to". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He appears to have been in denial, refusing to acknowledge and deal with what had happened to his father." More psychologizing; I can only access a snippet of the source on Google Books, so I can't see on what grounds the source suggests it, but it seems like it would need greater qualification. In the snippet that I can see, the wording is uncomfortably close to that in the article text.
I've attributed it to Frahm and added in his direct quotes, which should help with the problem of the wording being uncomfortably close. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…images that Sargon had created at the temple in Assur…" Were they statues or reliefs?
The source did not specify. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sargon's wife Ataliya was buried hastily when she died without regard to the traditional burial practices…" In what way? She was stuffed in a coffin with another body, but the structure of the sentence implies that there was more to it than that. In addition, the sentence would be clearer if rearranged to begin with "When Sargon's wife Ataliya died…".
The odd coffin-sharing was the "withour regard for ..." thing IIRC, changed the wording here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notably, it is the most well-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period" could be shortened through merging with the preceding sentence: "…is very well-documented compared to many other events in the ancient Near East and is the best-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period."
Done as per your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marduk-apla-iddina's main strength…" This sentence seems redundant with the one about the results of Elamite support later in the paragraph.
Removed the sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that begins "He conspired with Egypt…" is confusingly structured, making it unclear whether the actions later in the sentence were performed by Hezekiah or Sidqia.
Hezekiah did them; made this clearer. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sentences about the Rabshakeh could be shortened and combined with each other.
Shortened and combined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same is true for the beginning of the paragraph about Ashur-nadin-shami's apparent position as crown prince.
I've shortened this paragraph a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The king who had anxiously considered the implications of Sargon's seizure of Babylon…" This sentence feels like it could be shortened a good deal.
I've split it up and changed things around, you're welcome to take a look and see if parts of this should still be removed or if you think it's fine as is. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…it is possible to assume some aspects of Sennacherib's character." I think "infer" would work better here.
Changed to "infer". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…the popular image of the king has been mainly negative. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is…" The middle sentence could be cut out and "The first" amended to "The first reason…"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "world event" is worth putting in quotes (as it is, because it's not a common term), it should be attributed.
Attributed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Midrash, similar examinations of the Old Testament…" Similar to what?
Removed "similar" here, unclear why it was there in the first place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'm thinking about doing a source review for this article as well, given that I'm familiar with an adjacent field and source reviews are in short supply, but I'm not good at detecting problems with the formatting of sources, and I'm not sure I'll have time. In any case, here's my last round of comments outside a source review.

My only substantial point is about Egypt: Egypt in Sennacherib's time was really the Kingdom of Kush, which should be mentioned and linked. Moreover, there's a hypothesis (first advanced in a rather polemical fashion by a non-expert, but deemed worthy of consideration by a whole volume's worth of RSes) that the Kushite forces were responsible for the lifting of the blockade of Jerusalem. I don't know how you want to treat that, but I'd be inclined to briefly mention it as a possibility. The rest of my comments are mostly more prose stuff. A. Parrot (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that Egypt was under the Kushites in the time of Sennacherib. I think the hypothesis of Kushite intervention is worth mentioning as a possibility; I've added it to the article but I haven't elaborated on it; a more elaborate discussion of this idea (and the other ones) could probably be added in an eventually expanded Assyrian siege of Jerusalem (where it is already mentioned briefly). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the third paragraph could still be trimmed a bit, like so: "In the Levantine War, the states in the southern Levant, especially the Kingdom of Judah under King Hezekiah, were not subdued as easily as those in the north. The Assyrians thus invaded Judah."
Trimmed as per your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the discovery of Ataliya's grave would go more naturally in the sentence that mentions the information derived from it: "…Ataliya's grave at Kalhu, which was discovered in the 1980s, indicates she was 35 years old at most when she died."
Yeah, I agree. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Assyria and Babylonia as husband and wife is awkward. Perhaps: "The relationship between Assyria and Babylon was emotional in a sense; Neo-Assyrian inscriptions implicitly gender the two countries, calling Assyria the metaphorical 'husband' and Babylon its 'wife'."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passage about the Rabshakeh's threat could be rendered more directly: "According to the Biblical narrative, a senior Assyrian official with the title Rabshakeh stood in front of the city's walls and demanded its surrender, saying the Judeans would 'eat feces and drink urine' during the siege."
Amended to almost your suggestion, with "threatening that" instead of "saying". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear to me from either Luckenbill or 2 Kings that Sennacherib remained at Lachish while fighting Libnah. Perhaps you could say: "According to the biblical account, the Assyrian envoys to Hezekiah returned to Sennacherib to find him engaged in a struggle with the city of Libnah."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…and Sennacherib granted substantial portions of Judah's land to the neighboring kingdoms of Gaza, Ashdod and Ekron."
Changed to this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph about the Elamite campaign could be crisper; something like "Sennacherib was cut off from his own empire by Elam and Babylonia, whose alliance now had the upper hand."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Hanigalbat goes to Mitanni, a kingdom that had been defunct for centuries in Sennacherib's day, though apparently Hanigalbat became a province within the Middle Assyrian Empire. Was the term used for a city in Sennacherib's time?
Good spotting. I made a mistake here; Hanigalbat is used as a name for the wider geographic region corresponding to the ancient kingdom in the source. Fixed the error. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

As I said, I'm not the best at finding errors in source-list formatting, but everything looks well and consistently organized. Most of the sources look to be of excellent quality. There are a few I can question, though. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Barcina Pérez has some problems. It seems to be a master's thesis, which isn't generally regarded as an RS, but you've formatted the citation as a journal article, which it doesn't seem to be. Can it be replaced with a stronger source? If not, is there anything about it than makes it more reliable than a typical master's thesis?
I've removed the source entirely; it was only used to substantiate a date when two sons might still have been alive, this info is not critical here and is more important in the articles on Arda-Mulissu and Esarhaddon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckenbill is a very old source. Luckenbill 1927 is an anthology of primary source texts, but Luckenbill 1924 is a history, and a lot of the article is dependent on it. Interpretations of ancient texts can change a lot in a century. My advice is to look over the passages cited to Luckenbill and see if they can be replaced or bolstered by a citation to a more recent source.
This query hasn't been replied to. I don't object to the use of Luckenbill as a source for quotations from ancient texts, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with Luckenbill used as a secondary source interpreting the texts; see my comment about Humban-numena's jaw below. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: Yes, I intend to go through the Luckenbill citations in the article soon but it is easily going to be the most time-consuming point so I have been saving it, did not intend to make it look like I was ignoring it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: I've gone through and (with some necessary rewrites) significantly reduced the number of citations to Luckenbill (1924) and the extent to which information is cited to the source. I'm not sure if any (and then which) of the remaining uses are egregious enough to have to be replaced, so I await your comment on that (for the Humban-numena issue, see my response below). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also weird to include Luckenbill's two books in the external links as well as the works cited. The works-cited entries already link to the online copies of Luckenbill, so putting them in the EL section is redundant. I know that that if you remove them the Commons category box is left sitting awkwardly on the right side with nothing under the section header, but you can use {{commonscat-inline}} to put the Commons category in a bullet point instead.
I figured that both books contain translations of Sennacherib's own works; they work not only as sources but also as works that an interested reader could easily access and learn more from. Is there policy against including something both under EL and in the sources? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found that there is, in a section of WP:EL: "Links to these source sites are not 'external links' for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section.". A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed them from external links and changed the commons category box to the template you suggested. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark seems to run one of the better publicly accessible ancient-history sites on the web, but that doesn't make him an RS. The only thing you cite him for is the statement that Sennacherib is one of the best-known Assyrian kings because of his prominence in the Bible; do none of your other sources say that?
I'm not sure what exactly makes Mark unreliable, but I can see the merit in finding another source for this. I've got an 1870 source that says pretty much the same thing but I'd wager that this source might be too old? The first page of Elayi's introduction to the book on Sennacherib could be used to substantiate a similar sentence, though she calls him one of the "main" Neo-Assyrian kings rather than one of the "best-known" and points out that his image is negative due to the Bible and the destruction of Babylon, not that he is famous for these things. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Leave Mark as it is. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google Books URLs often include specific search terms that only apply to one passage in the article. It's more convenient to have a nonspecific link to the book.
Removed the search terms from all the URLs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and spot-checks

I've checked at least twenty citations to the sources that I can access. Most have no problems, but here are the problems I found.

  • Why are there citations in the lead section? FAs generally shouldn't (though there seems to be an unwritten exception for details about spellings and pronunciation of a subject's name). Aside from the details about the name, I don't see anything in the lead that isn't supported in the article body aside from the assertion that Sennacherib is one of the best-known Assyrian kings, which should be somewhere in the Legacy section.
I'm going to be very busy for the next 10 to 11 days so I won't be able to deal with most of the source review very fast but I'm going to respond to this point immediately; I agree that there shouldn't be any citations in the lede (with the exception of the name stuff, which feels appropriate when compared to other articles). I've added that he is one of the best-known kings in the legacy section and removed that citation from the lede. The remaining citations in the lede serve to counteract vandalism. There have been at least one time where someone tried to remove that Marduk-apla-iddina was a Chaldean (unclear why) and the passage about how it is unlikely that the Assyrians were outright defeated at Jerusalem and that Sennacherib actually won the Levantine war (through Hezekiah submitting to him) was very frequently vandalized (since it contradicts the Bible) before the citations for that part were added to the lede as well. Not sure if there is policy justifying this, but there has been much less vandalism since they were added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand Citation 4, though I assume it's meant to function as a note as well. I'm assuming this is how Sennacherib's name was spelled in Sumero-Akkadian as opposed to Assyrian cuneiform, but it's not apparent why it's moved down there when the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform spelling is in the running text, especially because the article doesn't contain any other notes. I can't make head or tail of the cited source either, though I'm guessing that Sennacherib's name in cuneiform is contained within the inscription.
This citation was not added by me and I don't really understand the citation to the CDLI website either; could it be removed? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say remove it for now, but copy it onto the talk page in case the editor who added it—apparently it was User:पाटलिपुत्र—wants to make a case for its inclusion, though if it does get re-included, it should be in a less cryptic way. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation structure in the section on Sennacherib as crown prince is odd, treating pages that are very close together as if they have to be cited separately. Citation 18 could easily be changed to pp. 30–31 and Citation 16b eliminated so that Citation 18 would cover most of the paragraph. Similarly, Citation 21 can simply be merged with Citation 20, which includes the same page as Citation 21.
Done the changes you suggested. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 32, to Frahm, checks out in and of itself, but it doesn't say anything to connect Sargon's unspecified "sin" with the taking of Babylon, nor does it say at what point in Sennacherib's reign he expressed concern about it. Unless Brinkman (which I can't access) says something about it, the sentence about Sargon's "sin" looks rather like synthesis.
I don't see the problem here. Frahm states that Sennacherib was investigating the nature of "a sin" committed by Sargon, which is repeated in the article here. The article text does not explicitly connect what Frahm says with Babylonia; if it did Frahm's comments would be presented before the part which talks about offending Babylonia's deities (which comes from Brinkman). I don't see the time in which Sennacherib searched for answers in regards to this being relevant and it is not mentioned in the article so it's not something that goes uncited; the idea that Sargon could have committed a sin illuminates Sennacherib's views on Sargon after Sargon's death and is important in regards to everything related to Sargon mentioned after. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the Luckenbill 1924 citations, I particularly wonder about Citation 59: the assertion that Humban-numena had suffered a stroke that locked his jaw. I don't know the which ancient text says this (Luckenbill leaves it unclear), but it seems like the kind of thing that some later scholar might reinterpret as a metaphor or as a derogatory remark by the Assyrians. Do the more recent sources say anything about it?
It is apparently true; I've added a more recent source (2018) which repeats that he suffered a stroke that locked his jaw. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the text supported by Citation 74 is uncomfortably similar to that of its source.
With the work that has been done the number of the citations has been changed around but I amended the portion I think you mean. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 95 ("He viewed Assyria's enemies as people who did not respect the gods…") seems to be cited to the wrong page, and possibly the wrong book (it's to Elayi 2017, which is her book on Sargon II, rather than the one on Sennacherib published in 2018).
Yes, this appears to be a mistake. I've removed the sentence and the associated citation since Elayi does not say this about Sennacherib. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

edit

I enjoyed reading this article a lot – I found it easy to read and well-explained, and therefore learned much from it.

  • Why do you choose the name Kalhu and not Nimrud, which is much more widely known?
IIRC I believed that Nimrud was the biblical name whereas Kalhu was the actual Assyrian name, but looking it over I realize that Kalhu is actually from the Bible. Nimrud also appears to be more widely used both popularly and academically, so I've changed all instances of "Kalhu" to "Nimrud". This makes the choice of name contradict the use in other related articles, but that can be fixed with time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The population of Babylonia was divided into various ethnic groups with different priorities and ideas – I don't understand what you mean with "ideas" here. "Ideals"?
The main point here is that the groups were different ethnically and in what they wanted to do (ideas); I suppose "ideals" is a better fit; changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Assyria and Babylon" provides the basic background. Why isn't this the first section of the article?
The background section is structured so that it first provides the personal background of Sennacherib (his lineage and early life), then his occupation before becoming king (crown prince and what he did then), before moving on to give the geopolitical background. I like it the way it is but if you feel the geopolitical background should be first I can move it to before the others. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before he began any other major projects, one of Sennacherib's first actions as king was - these two parts of the sentence are somewhat redundant, maybe remove one of them.
Removed the first part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the command of his commander – what does this add? It seems unsurprising to me that the commander had the command.
Hehe, you're right. Don't remember why this was done; removed the part in question. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • seemingly spent the rest of his reign in peace, – reads a bit awkward, maybe this can also simply be removed as the rest of the sentence tells everything already.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the reliefs were completed, – this also seems redundant.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • makes this idea somewhat unlikely – Can we drop "somewhat" here? Also, is this accepted consensus?
Dropped "somewhat" and added attribution to who said it was unlikely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • apparent for several years – "apparently"?
The position is heir apparent. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event and its aftermath affected and had consequences for not only the Assyrians and the Israelites, but also the Babylonians, Egyptians, Nubians, Syro-Hittites and Anatolian peoples. – what are those consequences?
I've added an "according to Kalimi" before this; it's not entirely clear what he means from his text; I can make guesses but I won't be able to add them since they would constitute original research. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of Sennacherib's reliefs are exhibited today at the Vorderasiatisches Museum, the British Museum, the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Louvre in Paris. – Some of these museums were already mentioned for the inscriptions; seems repetitive and redundant to list them again for each category of objects. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I still feels like it is nice to bring up that his reliefs are widely exhibited, could replacing this with something like "Today, Sennacherib's reliefs are exhibited in historical and art museums across the world" work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens Lallensack, are you feeling able to either support or oppose this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I thought I already did this! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

edit

Image review

edit
  • Some images are missing alt text
Added alt text to all images
  • Suggest scaling up the maps, and would it be possible to get English versions? If no, suggest including the displayed labels as translations in the caption
Scaled up. I have asked the author of the maps if it would be possible to translate them, waiting to see if translations are made. What do you mean by including the labels as translations in the caption? The relevant portions for this article (Babylonia and Assyria) and where they are on the map are already made clear in the captions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be as simple as saying "Assyria (Assur)" - as per MOS:COLOUR we should avoid relying solely on colour to convey this information, especially as here there is already labelling that just needs minor clarification. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I've changed the caption. Do the other terms need to be translated as well or does this suffice (just the terms that are relevant to this article)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions need editing for grammar
I've slightly changed two captions but I don't know which captions you refer to here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:CENTURY. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images of 3D works from places without freedom of panorama should include explicit tags for the original works
With 3D works do you refer to all the reliefs (technically 3D but I'd argue that they ought to be classified as 2D) or just actual 3D works, such as the prisms? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out this required significantly less work than I anticipated since most of the works are in London or Berlin, where freedom of panorama exists. The only ones not are the picture of Sargon II and the picture of Esarhaddon and his mother. I am unsure where the infobox picture comes from (the description is in German though), so I will investigate that one further. The picture of Sennacherib's crown prince is also from a place without freedom of panorama but I assume that nothing more needs to be done with it since its page is already clear on why it's public domain. This should all be a quite quick fix, what do you mean by explicitly tagging for the original works? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is usually meant is that we must indicate it is also PD because the artist died more than 70 years ago, which should be self-evident, but it seems the tag is still needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the century in which they were created to the commons pages under the "date" field, which should be enough to indicate that the creators are long dead, do I need to add some template (a PD one?) as well?. On the infobox image; everything suggests (based on the uploader's upload history) that the image was taken at Cizre (in Turkey), where freedom of panorama applies, so leaving that one as is for the time being. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should still include a specific tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added (hopefully the right) tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:DESTRUCTION_OF_SENNACHERIB'S_HOST..jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Inschrift_über_dem_Kopf_des_Königs_Sennacherib.jpg
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Former still seems to lack author date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says "1817-1894" after his name in the source field and it's in the PD template as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I managed to confuse "former" with "latter"; I've updated Dore's image on commons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Palace_of_Sennacherib_Restored.jpeg: source link is dead, needs a US tag
Added US tag and an alternate source link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:A_dictionary_of_the_Bible.._(1887)_(14801703843).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, this should have additional tagging indicating specific reasons why it's PD
Added additional tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Which images? I've added locations to two of the images that were missing it and I have removed one of the images; as far as I can see the only real offending image left is the one of Sargon II (this one), I was reverted by the original uploader when attempting to tag it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sargon_II,_Iraq_Museum_in_Baghdad.jpg, File:Capture_of_Lachish_-_Assyrian_camp.jpg, File:Assyrian_Crown-Prince_MET_hb32_143_13.jpg, File:Adad-nirari_III_transparent.png. Also File:The_Flight_of_Adrammelech_Murch.jpg is missing author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you. I've replaced File:Capture_of_Lachish_-_Assyrian_camp.jpg and added author date of death to File:The_Flight_of_Adrammelech_Murch.jpg.
For File:Sargon_II,_Iraq_Museum_in_Baghdad.jpg and File:Adad-nirari_III_transparent.png I have contacted the original uploader since they were opposed to my edits on commons. What is the issue with File:Assyrian_Crown-Prince_MET_hb32_143_13.jpg ? The image was donated by the museum that has the artifact and designated as PD by the museum itself? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs a tag for the original artifact. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've added tags to the image, and to the other two, so everything should be addressed now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2021 [5].

Columbia, South Carolina, Sesquicentennial half dollar

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another of the commemorative half dollars issued in 1936. This one wasn't scandalous and they went out of their way to be fair, other than unnecessarily having the coins struck at multiple mints, increasing the cost to the individual collector seeking a complete set. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • New images need alt text
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to the state legislature's site, which contains the history and so it's out of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Sources are of the first rank. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit

Am currently obsessed with old and rare coins.

  • Link Treasury Department?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was a committee to be established by Columbia's mayor Who is he?
Named.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davidson, a Jewish immigrant from Russia If he was from Russia then pipe it to the Russian Empire if he's from Soviet Russia then we better link that.
He left in 1922, but the source doesn't say exactly when in 1922. Although the USSR was formally created close to the end of 1922, I don't like to presume it was after Davidson left. Open to ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9,007 were struck at Philadelphia, 8,009 at Denver and 8,007 Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid numbers at the start of a sentence.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox

  • "Value: 50 cents (0.50 US dollars)" Shouldn't it be "(.50 US dollars)" I don't know I thought that Americans don't use the nought before the full stop in numbers a lot?
I believe the idea is that the leading zero provides clarity.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of the half dollar, in 1936, was defined by section 15 of the Coinage Act of 1873 as "twelve grams (grammes) and one-half of a gram (gramme)". Although the other dimensions are not prescribed by law, it seemed best to be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Composition: 90.0% silver 10.0% copper" I don't know if it's necessary but shouldn't the noughts be rounded since they're unnecessary?
They are not required in this case but earlier in US coinage history it wasn't an even 90 percent so again, consistency seemed in order. I don't see it as a big deal either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the US/imperial conversion of the mass?
Generally, we've avoided using it because of possible reader confusion between the total mass, and the amount of pure silver it contains. It's easy enough to convert.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Due to real life, it may be two or three more days until I can deal with these.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done or replied to. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I collect silver dimes and nickels, so I might actually have some background knowledge as to this subject. Hog Farm Bacon 06:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It strikes me as odd for some reason that you use both "fifty-cent piece" and "half dollar" in the lead.
They are the same thing, and saying that the Columbia half dollar was a commemorative half dollar would not be an improvement, I suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frustrating coin dealers who hoped to accurate more to resell to their customers." - Disclaimer: I speak a very bastardized rural form of South Midland English, so maybe I'm just illiterate. But I have never in my life seen an instance in which "accurate" would have the correct meaning here. Is this a typo, or did I increase my vocabulary today?
Typo. Burned by the autocorrect on a recent edit and wasn't careful in checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, you say that the New State House was completed in 1907, the body says 1903
It seems a bit foggy as work continued until 1907, but there's a book used as a source in our article on the State House that says it was declared substantially completed in 1903, so that's what I'm sticking with.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncited stuff in the infobox: not seeing where mass, diameter, the reeding, the composition, or the quantity of silver is cited.
Cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my comments. This one is in pretty good shape. Hog Farm Bacon 20:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I've responded or made changes regarding each.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, very nice work here. Hog Farm Bacon 00:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • Not a source review, but I see you have an ISBN for Taxay, which is given as 1967; do you need an orig-year parameter here?
I don't have my copy with me so changed to 1966 per Worldcat and will double-check.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • was settled by British colonials: I would have expected "colonists" here; is there some distinction of meaning?
They were of British origin, not necessarily born in Britain but descended from. "Colonials" I thought more common for pre-1776. Open to suggestions.
Footnote dropped.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A concise and well-written article; I was unable to find a single thing to copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. See above for responses.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I think the wording in the footnote needs a tweak. Shouldn't it be something like "The flag of the Confederacy had 13 stars..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24

edit

Being such a short article, I suspect I'll do a source review after this content one. Aza24 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are some dup links
I saw sabal palmetto. That was because the first link was in an unexpected place and I thought it best to relink it for the design section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have A. Wolfe Davidson in the lead but spell out his first name everywhere else
A lot of the sources just use the A. I've standardized with the Abraham.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my mind it makes more sense to stick with "Lady Justice" consistently, rather than sometimes "Justice" – but I'll leave that completely up to you; either way, the lead doesn't capitalize "Justice" but you do so in the Preparation section
Cleaned up.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say, I'm not sure what is meant by "coin redemption" in the lead
Surplus commemorative coins were often returned to the Mint and they paid the face value and then melted them for recoinage. I've tried to clarify a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely "despite the fact that the...."? or perhaps something like "despite the Treasury Department's opposition and President Franklin D. Roosevelt asking in 1935 that Congress..." would be better
I've done that a bit differently. Does that help?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that works better in my mind
  • you mix up ." vs ". but perhaps you're following a convention of some sort?
Not sure what you're saying here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean sometimes your quotes have the quotation mark before and sometimes after the period. I'm not sure if you're following a convention or it's just inconsistent. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is that complete sentences take quotes after the period, and partial sentences don't. I'll review to ensure I'm consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's consistent now, after review of the article and one of the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright that seems to be it, there's little to say here, though I tried to give you something. Good work!
  • Was doing a source review but am now seeing Ceoil checked through them above. Well I can also confirm that there are no issues in formatting or reliability. Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Everything's done but need clarification on one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have responded above. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, happy to support this one Aza24 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

edit
  • What is the difference between the publisher/source of ref 18 and ref 23 to justify the different format?
Merged. Good catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it was called until 2014.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edge is noted in the infobox but not in the prose, and Reeding is not accessible to a non-expert.
Our article says ridged, or milled. Reeded is the usual technical term, and it's explicitly used in Yeoman for every commemorative half dollar.
It's a term non-experts would need to click on to understand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a footnote with a brief explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does thickness need two citations?
Yes, one to show that the coins were to have the dimensions of the standard half dollar (the legislation) and one to show what the dimensions were. I don't have a source that says it all in one go.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approved by the CFA, and they also met the approval" feels repetitive.
Massaged.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the first 24 hours of sales, the coins were available only to residents of the city and could only be purchased by mail order." I am mildly confused how this worked for mail order, did people all pre-order and those that arrived in the first 24 hours of the date of the sale opening got one?
I've clarified after looking at this and other sources. It looks like they filled orders locally and then did mail orders, so there was some sort of in-person operation for local residents.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten it all. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 January 2021 [6].

Hi-5 (Australian band)

edit
Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5 - they once rivalled the Wiggles in popularity, but as of this year, the band is inactive, ending a 20 year run. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and I have worked on it for 5 years now. This is the 4th attempt at a Featured Article nomination, however, my most recent attempt was hindered due to minimal comments on the review. Now that I am more familiar with the process, having just secured my first FA with Bluey (2018 TV series), I believe that I will be able to secure more comments on this review. I am fully committed to the process, ready to collaborate with other editors, and have seeked out the involvement of mentors through a very successful and detailed peer review which has just been closed.

@Aoba47: and @SandyGeorgia: I am so grateful for your guidance through the most recent peer review, and would appreciate your continued feedback here.
@Casliber: @Dweller: @HĐ: @Nick-D: @Shaidar cuebiyar: @Aircorn: Thank you to these editors who have all been involved in GA reviews, FA nominations and peer reviews of this article in the past. If you are able to, I hope you will provide your feedback to the article again.

Looking forward to feedback. Thanks in advance! SatDis (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was also copy-edited through the Guild of Copy Editors by @Twofingered Typist: SatDis (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Just a reminder to leave some comments if you are able to. Thank you in advance! SatDis (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My policy when I have previously engaged an article (on talk or at peer review) is to wait until uninvolved editors have been through, as they will likely see things that I didn't. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for letting me know! SatDis (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Apologies for the ping again. Just wondering if there's been enough traction for you to leave comments now? I'm eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit

Comments move to the talk page. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for all of my comments. I thought I might as well finish the review today. I am only focusing on the prose as I am not familiar with the publications being used as I am not from that area. I hope these comments are helpful, and have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the responses to everything. The only point remaining is that there are three "with +ing" sentence constructions in there that could be corrected. Once that point is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope this FAC does better this time around given all of the work you have put into it over the years. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for the comments @Aoba47: I have changed those -ing sentences. I really appreciate it, and I will definitely be working hard to make sure this article gets more comments this time around! SatDis (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

As I am increasingly busy irl, there will be a delay in my review. Placing this as a placeholder. On first glance, the article is in good shape for FA. As I voiced my support for this article based on prose (May 2019 FAC), I'm hoping to support on prose again. As mentioned by another review in the previous FAC, however, there may be spotcheck issues, which I'll leave to the source reviewer, HĐ (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe then-record should be avoided unless a mention of who broke the record and when it was broken is there
  • Fixed.
  • I am dubious if the personal relationships between members (i.e. Crawford and Foley's planned marriage) are necessary here
  • Hmm, okay. Other FA the Wiggles mentions the wedding of two of its members, but I will remove if you think I should.
  • Overall the flow is easy to follow, which I think is excellent
  • Thankyou! I've spent a lot of time on perfecting this.
  • Are there any info on "iconic" songs or performances by the band?
  • Not so much performances, though I have mentioned the Sydney Opera House as a highlight venue. Hard to find reliable sources about iconic songs which aren't advertisements.
  • I think a link to A$ is needed
  • Have linked on first time in lead and prose.
  • I will not be reviewing sources, but I have some concerns with Twitter as a source used in this article.

Overall that's all I have. A well written article! Will be happy to support once my concerns have been addressed, HĐ (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize the Stevie Nicholson tweet was not about himself; I agree that his tweet cannot be used to source a fact about other members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, have removed that Twitter reference but kept the other one as it's from the official account.
  • Thanks @HĐ: I have addressed your comments. Please let me know if anything was missed. SatDis (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Le Panini

edit

As per request from my featured article review, I'll leave some comments that will eventually lead to a support. It's a good article, hence the GA promotion, and have little to pick at. This could be nitpicky depending on how you view it. This list isn't really organized, as I kinda just jumped around.

A featured article review is for articles that need to have their already-conferred FA status re-evaluated. Yours is a featured article candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • The article should have a short description.
  • Thanks for picking that up.
  • "In July 2006, de Leon Jones said she was intent on returning to Hi-5, however, in July 2007, made the decision to leave the group permanently to focus on being a mother." This should be split, using either a period or a semicolon.
  • Done.
  • The sentences about Crawford and Foley's relationship floats between two paragraphs, and should be merged to one of them.
  • Have moved these.
  • Is there citation for the sentence Hi-5 continued to film one television series and record one album each year.?
  • No, I have removed this line.
  • "Four of their albums reached the top 10 on the ARIA Albums Chart; It's a Party (number four, July 2000), Boom Boom Beat (number three, August 2001), It's a Hi-5 Christmas (number four, December 2001) and Hi-5 Hits (number ten, July 2003)." Why are these not organized in any numeric order? I think the sentence would flow better with it, but probably not.
  • I have listed these in order of their release, which I think flows nicely. Let me know how you might word it if it were changed.

But seriously, fix these and a support from me. Good job! Le Panini [🥪] 05:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! You have a support from me. Le Panini [🥪] 15:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

edit
  • created the television series for the Nine Network → they actually created it specifically for Nine?
  • Yes, they pitched it to Nine and I have cited the source again to make this clear.
  • Ref 2: Do you have access to Newspapers.com? If so you should clip the article rather than linking to the page. The citation should also include via=Newspapers.com regardless. I can clip it if you don't have access. Additionally, the newspaper is The Sun-Herald, not The Sydney Morning Herald.
  • Really? Thanks. I have changed to The Sun-Herald, but the page I was reading said The Sydney Morning Herald. I only have access to the OCR transcripted on that web page, but I am unsure what you mean with "clipped"... I would appreciate your help.
  • Ref 3: The date says November 19 for me, not November 18 (maybe time zone difference?). It does not refer to her as the co-creator.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 5: it only goes to page 8?
  • Error with the chapter archiving - this is now been fixed.
  • Ref 7: She doesn't say it "could", she says it does.
  • Fixed.
  • The band's work had multiple layers → like what?
  • Have removed mention of layers as it is ambiguous.
  • Ref 8 doesn't mention the editors given in the citation
  • Removed, was previously added in GA review.
  • Ref 4: pages 41–42 cited don't mention them intending to act as older siblings
  • Thanks for picking up, have amended as it was on page 40
  • Harris's inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised she could develop a show with universal appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals. → her quote could be better explained than this (right now I don't know what living in England and the realization she could develop a show with universal appeal have to do with each other)
  • Have changed to Harris was inspired develop a show with universal appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals.
  • She strove to incorporate items of current interest → like what? are we talking current events, news stories, pop culture references, etc.??
  • Have updated to She strove to allude to items of current interest (such as relevant curriculum as well as popular jokes, films and music) as supported by the reference.
  • Fixed.
  • I know sources differ but it's kind of hard to understand what the target audience is when some sentences say 2–8 year olds and others only refer to preschoolers.
  • The target audience is 2–8 year old (that is referenced), but I think it's important to keep preschool, for reasons such as awards in the "Best Preschool Program" category (which is also referenced).
  • The creators saw the need for "life-affirming" television for rapidly maturing preschoolers and found most children learned from shows which incorporated movement and song. → How were pages 131–151 accessed when the given URL only goes to page 8?
  • Again, this relates to the issue addressed above. Chapter 6 features pages 131–151 and this has now been fixed.
  • was produced in mid 1998 → I think there's supposed to be a dash (mid-1998)
  • Fixed.
  • After auditions for the group in June 1998 (narrowing down around 300 people to only five), the television pilot for Hi-5 was produced in mid 1998, with the original cast consisting of Kellie Crawford (née Hoggart), Kathleen de Leon Jones, Nathan Foley, Tim Harding and Charli Robinson, who were aged between 18 and 24 at the time of filming. → This should definitely be split into two sentences.
  • Now split.
  • with the original cast consisting of Kellie Crawford (née Hoggart), Kathleen de Leon Jones, Nathan Foley, Tim Harding and Charli Robinson, → not in source
  • Have added correct source
  • who were aged between 18 and 24 at the time of filming → I think it's kind of original research to assume they were 18–24 at the time of filming when the source says the "cast are aged between 19 and 25" in September 1999
  • Have amended to explicitly state who were aged between 19 and 25 by the time the show aired and avoid original research.
  • ref 15 is probably unnecessary as ref 16 goes into more specifics and is more reliable
  • I will remove if deemed as unreliable, but the premiere date has been contested before so I feel as if two references are important here.
  • In September, Sony Music released the corresponding debut album, Jump and Jive with Hi-5 → this article is about the group, so maybe "the group's debut album"
  • Fixed.
  • The group toured Sydney in their first year. → Right now this sentence could mean they toured around different places in Sydney. The source only refers to one show in Newcastle.
  • Have reworded to explicitly state The group performed at venues such as the Newcastle Civic Theatre in their first year..

Given the amount of comments (and sourcing issues) I found myself writing for just three paragraphs, I am probably going to find it hard to support promotion. I might suggest looking into The Wikipedia Library if you haven't already as you may have an easier time finding higher-quality sources using ProQuest, etc., especially for the earlier years. Heartfox (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: While I appreciate the suggestion, I have just looked through 10 pages of ProQuest to double check, and I could only find 1 or 2 relevant articles - many are from 2010 and beyond, and mainly advertising material. I'm sure you can understand how there are little articles on this Australian band from the early 2000s available, and I believe I have found the best resources (including theses) available.
  • @Heartfox: Thanks for looking at the artcile. I would really appreciate your continued comments and feedback. I've gone to great lengths to work on this (five years researching, successful GA review, in-depth peer reviews, full copy-edit from GOCE and detailed FA reviews here) and I always put in the effort required. Others have supported the nomination, and you have picked up extra items that everyone else has missed (and many of them are easy fixes). I'm sure with your help the article can reach FA standard, and I love working with you. SatDis (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

edit
As I understand it, Ealdgyth has left unstruck 1) https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/85/2/02Whole.pdf and 2) http://web.archive.org/web/20151211022149/https://www120.secure.griffith.edu.au/rch/file/729e04d9-6c13-d33b-3f06-db209d5ba376/1/07Chapter6.pdf
On 1), as it does seem to be a doctoral thesis, I am looking at what it is used to source. Most instances of where it is used are double or triple cited, and are not statements that concern me as to needing higher quality sourcing. Except:
  • Article says: The series' creators based it on an underlying educational structure, citing Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences primarily. They recognised that each child learns differently, so each group member targeted a different aspect of learning.
  • The source seems to say that a different program (Dora the Explorer) is "based on Gardner's multiple intelligences theory". When addressing Hi-5 specifically, the source uses the term "loosely analogous" wrt Gardner, and says that "Harris designed the program to represent the style and energy of a music video". It is not clear to me if the two instances (Dora the Explorer versus Hi-5) are confused, although I may be missing something in the source. Unless I am missing something, I am concerned we may be drawing too strong of a conclusion from this source.
  • Separately, the article later says, "The group's musical performances were fast-paced, designed in a way which would replicate the energy of contemporary music videos", which is too close paraphrasing of the source.
  • I am also concerned that this part of the source is based on personal correspondence with Harris, so one could wonder how accurately it is portrayed. All other instances of the use of Hynd seem OK, but that this examination revealed some close paraphrasing unfortunately indicates that a more indepth source review will be needed.
On 2) similarly, most of what it is citing does not raise eyebrows, or is double or triple cited. But on the one instance I want to check, the page range is much too broad for me find and verify the specific instances (the document is almost 20 pages long, and ctrl-f is not producing the desired content). Page numbers should be tightened for this source, and excerpted quotes to back the following article content would help me review check it here:
  • The creators saw the need for "life-affirming" television for rapidly maturing preschoolers and found most children learned from shows which incorporated movement and song.[5]
That's all for now. I have disabled web pings, but will see them when I check email, so please do ping me when you have finished resolving these. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tightened page numbers for both thesis citations. I have done this by listing the thesis in a bibliography and citing individual pages. Please let me know if I need to make further changes, as I am eager to correct any mistakes. SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jayfax

edit

@SatDis: Just some quick first-read comments.

  • Hi-5 were an Australian children's musical group, don't think there needs to be a comma here.
  • highest paid entertainment entities "entertainment entities"? Tell me if there's otherwise a subtle distinction being made here, but wouldn't it "entertainers". Could not find the word "entity" in the Business Weekly articles.
  • Changed to "group" as they were collective.
  • and that the following years spent with the group were her favourites favorites -> favorite
  • Robinson (then referred to as Delaney) exited from the group in February 2008 left would be better word than exit
  • the remaining original cast members had stated their intent to withdraw from the group. withdraw from -> leave
  • Park also stated she would be departing the group depart -> leaving
  • They did not receive the same critical reception as the original members the same (positive?) critical reception
  • Burgess and Maddren declared their departures in late 2012 declared their departures -> left the group
  • Datuk Jared Lim, Asiason's managing director, conveyed plans to expand Hi-5 throughout Southeast Asia conveyed -> described
  • Will have another read later. JAYFAX (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JAYFAX: Thanks for the comments. Just a quick note, one of my strongest suggestions from another reviewer was not to use "leave/left the group" so much as it became repetitive. Not sure if going back to simple terms is better or not? I have fixed all of the other suggestions. SatDis (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @JAYFAX: I understand the concept; though I don't think "exited", "withdraw" or "departure" are unclear or distract the reader, as the policy suggests. Did you have any further comments? SatDis (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SatDis: There is another instance of entertainment entities I perhaps should've mentioned in the "Reception section.
  • I don't intend to do an informal source review, and rereading the article I'm overall quite happy with it. The level on detail is on par with The Wiggles, something I read once described "like a history of a small country". Will indicate support after this fix. JAYFAX (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit
  • Harris said Hi-5 was primarily a television series, but the music itself stood alone. - "stood alone" is odd - I get what you mean but odd wording
  • Harris was inspired develop a show with universal appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals. - I'd say "broad" rather than "universal" here (nothing has universal appeal)
  • A serious motorcycle accident in June 2007 left Harding unable to keep up with the high energy of Hi-5 - "high" unnecessary here. "pace" may be better than "energy" too.

Otherwise looks in good shape. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the comments, I have addressed those suggestions. SatDis (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ImaginesTigers

edit

Comments moved to Talk. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. My question now, is that should the "Musical style" section be merged into the "History", as it is quite small? The last line (quote from Wilcher) could move into "Reception." SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could merge Musical style and Educational theory into a single subheading called "Musical style"? — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • @ImaginesTigers: Just a quick question before I tackle the comments - what do you mean by writing out the Awards in full? As in expanding "ARIA" to "Australian Recording Industry Association"? Or as in making sure "Best Children's Album" is on every row? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like League of Legends#Accolades; de-table-ify it. I can't see anything in the Manual of Style, though, so don't worry about it.
  • Also, if I remove the TV awards from this section, does that mean remove them from the prose? It is kind of hand in hand information about the group and the TV show. That would mean a lot of other information on the page would become irrelevant as well. SatDis (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a question outside the scope of this FA, right? The articles need to have their own focus, but I think overlap is probably fine, you're right. Similar to this question, with League of Legends, I include awards won by the game for esports events. That's pretty similar. Don't worry about this one either.
  • Noted. In saying that, I have directed the focus of this article to the group specifically and not the TV show, as best as possible. They do link, and in previous nominations, it was agreed that the group themselves are receiving the awards for their work on the TV show. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Australian group, personally, but vocal ensemble probably does fit better. Either would be fine (band is definitely not right, though!).
That is a very good question. You'll have to ping the co-ords or post on WT:FAC, because I genuinely don't know. Sorry for the delay. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted on WT:FAC and the reply was, to wait until after this nomination is closed. Editors, please note that I will be changing the title to Hi-5 (Australian group) after this nomination is closed.SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged my replies with my sig. Article is looking decent overall; give me a ping when you've replied. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 January 2021 [9].

Pepi I Meryre

edit
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Pepi I Meryre third pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt in the 24th century BC, who faced many challenges yet became one of the most important Old Kingdom pharaoh. This is this article's second FA nomination: it has received a thorough copy-edit by Twofingered Typist since its first FAC. In addition, all changes advocated by wikipedians during the first nomination have been implemented, including a layout change. I am pinging users who supported or participated in the first FAC: Aza24, A. Parrot and Dudley Miles.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit
buidhe THe book was published in 1907, I updated the wikicommons info with a web-access and publication year. In addition, the author, Eugene Grébaut, died in 1915.

Support (incl. source review) by A. Parrot

edit
  • If I remember correctly, you generally write in British English, but that isn't consistent here; "center" instead of "centre", for instance, appears several times. (As an American, I'm not likely to catch all the Americanisms).
Done for all instances of center and for americanisms wherever I could catch one.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more usual and more intuitive to place notes after ordinary citations, rather than before them. Notes are like separate passages of text, and they often have citations of their own, so they shouldn't come between the text that precedes them and the citations that support that text.
You mean like this ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. But to clarify, you put, e.g., Note 6 before Citation 51, even though Citation 51 seems to be supporting the passage that comes immediately before Note 6. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done A. Parrot Ok I had totally misunderstood you and thus had inverted the order of the footnotes and references sections at the end of the article, now back into normal order. For the footnotes' placement in the text, it is now done throughout as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the son of the founder of the Teti dynasty…" I'm not as familiar with the sources on the Sixth Dynasty as you are, but I've never seen it referred to this way. Since the name "Sixth Dynasty" is mentioned in the previous sentence, you could say "He was the son of Teti, the founder of the dynasty…"
Fixed this was written during the copy-edit and I did not catch it. I have changed it back to the right version.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sixth Dynasty necropolis at Saqqara was used as a stone quarry from the New Kingdom until the end of the Late Period with the dismantling of the necropolis' monuments resuming later in the Mamluk era of the Middle Ages when most of Pepi's pyramid complex was destroyed." This sentence needs simplification, and the two phases of the dismantling aren't significant enough that they absolutely need to be in the lead. Perhaps "Pepi's monuments began to be quarried for their stone in the New Kingdom, and in the Mamluk period they were almost entirely dismantled."
Done I agree with you, this wasn't crucial info. I modified to your sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote the Aegyptiaca mentioning the succession…" The wording here is rather opaque.
Fixed, another sentence changed during the copy-edit which I did not catch. Now changed back to the original "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote that thee Aegyptiaca mentioned the succession "Othoês → Phius → Methusuphis"", unfortunately the way the Aegyptiaca is known is as byzantine as Syncellus !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about the Sed festival is somewhat unclear. When it says "The festival had a considerable importance for the king," is it simply establishing general background about the nature of the Sed festival, or did Pepi emphasize his festival more than other kings did? Similarly, it's not 100% clear that "…the state administration seems to have had a tendency to mention Pepi's first jubilee repeatedly in the years following its celebration…" is meant to indicate something that was unique to Pepi's reign.
Clarified the former sentence regards all kings of the Old Kingdom period, as the source explicitly says "every king" (although in the context of Old Kingdom archaeology); while the latter is specifically for Pepi. I wrote : "The festival had a considerable importance for Old Kingdom kings. [...]As further evidence of the importance of this event in Pepi's case, the state administration seems to have had a tendency to mention his first jubilee repeatedly...".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncertain about the organization of sections on politics and economics. The politics section seems to be a catch-all section for major events of Pepi's reign, and the "politics and power play" title for one of its subsections creates redundancy. Moreover, that subsection deals with administrative matters that seem to have some overlap with the subsection on domestic and economic policies.
Unfortunately, I do not know which is best. The current layout was suggested by Dudley Miles in the first review. Do you have a proposition ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think you could retitle "Politics and power play" as "Provincial administration", or something similar, and move the first sentence of "Domestic policies" into it (as that section is about domestic economic policies, which that sentence doesn't address. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done we will see if someone else raises the problem of the layout once again. I hope we can converge to a consensus.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…he desired political appeasement in times of troubles." "Appeasement" doesn't seem like the right word here.
Actually this is the exact word used by the source. I would thus prefer to keep it.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…see this as highly unlikely and outright extravagant respectively…" "Extravagant" is a strange word to use for a hypothesis, though something like "outlandish" might work.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…the concepts of family and power were still close, that is the bureaucracy had not replaced the family in the business of government." A bit awkward; maybe something like "the government was still dominated by the royal family [or "powerful families"?] rather than the bureaucracy."
The source is talking more broadly about the notion of family and not just about the royal family. He is saying that family / bloodlines are the primary factor in determining professional status, duties and allegiance. Also, "not replaced the family in the business of government" is almost word for word the way the source phrases it. From the context of the source, I take it to be a general observation on the organisation of Egyptian society at all levels of power in the time of Pepi.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Maybe it could say "...at the time of the Sixth Dynasty, government was still shaped by family relationships more than by the bureaucracy", or similar. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done I wrote "...government and power was still largely determined by family relationships rather than by bureaucracy."Iry-Hor (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later" means Nebet was the first woman to be a vizier, but the text doesn't actually state that.
Clarified yes I clarified this: "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet, a woman, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could still use some adjustment. Perhaps: "The political importance of these marriages is further demonstrated by the title held by Khui's wife Nebet, that of vizier of Upper Egypt. She was the first woman to hold such a title and the last until the Twenty-sixth Dynasty some 1800 years later." A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spelling of Coptos/Koptos is inconsistent.
Fixed to Coptos everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best to specify that the temple of Min is thought to have benefitted because it was the same region that Khui's family was from.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the Unas FAC, I dislike the use of "Bedouin" to refer to the desert dwellers in dynastic times, as the term is generally applied to Arabs, an ethnic group that probably didn't exist at this time. "Semitic people" is all that needs to be said here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…the Egyptians did invade their opponents…" sounds strange, and I think the whole sentence could be reduced to "The Egyptians campaigned up to what was probably Mount Carmel or Ras Kouroun, landing troops on the coast using transport boats."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weni reports the destruction of walled towns…" This sentence feels a bit awkward. I suggest "Weni reports that walled towns were destroyed, fig trees and grape vines were cut down, and local shrines were burned."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ka is treated inconsistently: sometimes capitalized, sometime lowercase and italicized.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The close association between Ka-chapels and temples…" I think clarification may be needed here. I'm irked that no Egyptologist seems to have supplied a definition of the difference between a temple and various other religious buildings that are often called something else, and the distinction is particularly a problem in the Old Kingdom, when the tradition of massive buildings dedicated to deities didn't really exist. "Temples to deities" might be better here than simply "temples".
Done, now that you point this out, it is true that a Ka chapel is a temple after all ! I think the sources make it clear that a Ka chapel is really a small room with a naos housing a statue of the Ka of the person being venerated. I believe this is what they mean by Ka chapel, as opposed to an entire temple dedicated to a deity. But I haven't seen a discussion of the difference between both concepts, although I haven't specifically looked for it either.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "…the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time" mean?
Fixed here in the sense of strengthening, I wrote so.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says the necropolises of Merenre and Pepi II border Pepi I's complex, but looking at a map, the pyramids of Merenre and certainly Pepi II look like they're a sizable distance from that of Pepi I.
Actually, this is not what the text says: "Pepi I's mortuary complex was neighbored on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during his own reign and those of Merenre and Pepi II". It says only that next to Pepi I's pyramid is a necropolis built during his own reign and those of Pepi II and Merenre. But this necropolis is not the same as the necropolises built around Merenre's and Pepi II's pyramids. Indeed, from the sources, it is rather clear the necropolis around Pepi I's pyramid was being actively built during his reign and those of his sons. Is the sentence not clear ? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a bit ambiguous, but fortunately it can be fixed with just a tweak: "the reigns of Merenre and Pepi II". A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tombs of Meritites and Ankhsenpepi III, both built after Pepi's reign, and tombs from later periods of Egyptian history in the necropolis are not discussed here." This kind of self-referential remark (Wikipedia talking about what Wikipedia is about to discuss) is generally not found in regular article text, and it's not clear why one would expect these tombs to be discussed here.
These tombs are really in the midst of the necropolis of Pepi I and are always talked about at the same time as the other tombs of the necropolis in the sources. Yet, they are subsequent to Pepi I's reign and thus cannot be described in details in this article as the sources all do (because the typical source on the subject isn't specifically about Pepi I but rather about his necropolis). Thus, a reader acquainted with sources could be surprised. In fact, looking at e.g. the German wikipedia, we find that they included these later tombs in the article as the sources do, but I don't think this is right other than in passing, as this article is on Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vertical columns of inscribed hieroglyphic text…" I think this sentence would be better if split, so that the part about the paint and its symbolism is its own sentence and the location of the text is established first.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot Thanks for this first round of comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Almost all sources are impeccable, and the few that one might question are mostly straightforward descriptions of artifacts. I have a couple of small points, though. Lehner's Complete Pyramids was published in 1997, and I don't think it received a new edition, so the 2008 date must be a mere reprint, which I wouldn't count as a publication date. My other question is about Bongioanni and Croce: what are their qualifications? Is the book authorized by the museum? (Hawass would be an RS, but he only contributed a preface to it.)

A. Parrot This is a good question: I actually do not know, I thought the book seems legit and I can't tell more precisely as I don't own a copy of it. I don't find anything on how this book could be crackpot stuff. It is on oclc, owned by Trinity College, Dublin's Library for example. Two of the contributors Amenta, Alessia and Araldo De Luca have a bit more publications including at least one conference proceedings from Egyptology. Croce, Maria has a few more similar books presenting museum collections. Bongioanni has written books on Egypotlogy see here. Also the list of editors/authors for the book is not the same on Amazon and oclc.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'd like to see the date for Lehner changed to 1997, but that's a minor point.
Done thanks I had forgotten to do this after searching about Bongioanni and Croce.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also spot-checked 25 citations, and although most checked out fine, there are a few problems. I've labeled the citations based on how they were numbered at the time I made this edit. A. Parrot (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 17a: The source mentions the decree in Coptos and Iput's pyramid, but it does not mention inscriptions in that pyramid.
Fixed. I added a reference to a source mentioning the inscriptions and more. I would have like to say even more by I don't have access to Grajetzki's Ancient Egyptian Queens: A Hieroglyphic Dictionary, so I used another, less exhaustive source.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17c: This fact is found on page 78, not 76.
Ok thanks for updating. Weirdly on my version it is p. 76, however it is probably an overseas edition and not the one in ref list so I think it best to keep p. 78 as you changed.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 35: Strudwick 2005 p. 353 says "great of affection" but doesn't use the Egyptian "weret-yamtes". The Egyptian term might be mentioned elsewhere in Strudwick (I can't access a full preview of the book and can't tell). The article text should probably explain the meaning of the Egyptian words.
Fixed Indeed Strudwick does not say "weret-yamtes" at all, but directly translates the title as you pointed out. I updated the text in consequence, gave another ref for the untranslated version "weret yamtes" and also pointed to Strudwick's footnote 25 on p. 377 which emphasizes that this is a title and not a name and that her name is purposefully lost.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 106: I can't find this on page 151, and the organization of the book doesn't make it easy to find where the conspiracy might be mentioned.
I don't understand: to me it is on p. 151 of the document (in the source link, click 04prosopographical register dynasties I-X.pdf) and watchout p. 151 of the document is actually p. 171 in any pdf viewer.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake; I wasn't looking at Volume III! It checks out. A. Parrot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 125a and b: 125a can be deleted, as text supported by 125b, which has an identical page range, comes immediately after it. However, "The Hatnub inscription may simply show that Manetho made an error…" isn't supported by that citation.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but the sentence about the Hatnub inscription that precedes it still isn't sourced. A. Parrot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I based this assertion on Baud & Dobrev 1995 p. 50 quoted just the sentence before. They state (I translate directly from French): "It is not possible to consider that his years of reign were numbered starting from his hypothetical accession to the throne [they are talking about Merenre and a coregency] to reconcile the Hatnub 5th occasion, that is 10 years, inscription with the 7 years credited to him by Manetho". Since this is already said in a clearer fashion in the previous sentence, I removed the one about the error. It is possible that I wrote this with another source at hand where it really talked about "error", but I can't find it anymore thus it is in doubt and it is better to remove the statement. This is surprising though, it is not something I would do (to have written that without a source).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 159: The citation should be expanded to include page 132 as well as 133.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 200: This quotation should be attributed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 205: The source supports Pepi's connection with Hathor, but not that "son of Hathor of Dendera" was found on numerous vessel, just one example (which is on a different page, p. 144).
Fixed you are right and the ref is correct in e.g. footnote 32. The ref here supports the "including vessel found abroad", for the "numerous" part, I have added several sources showing or mentioning vases from various parts of Egypt where Pepi hold the title of son of Hathor, Lady of Dendera. One of the sources explicitely says that many such vessels have been foundIry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ideally, the Matthiae ref should be used again in the "Temples" section when it brings up the multiple vessels that refer to Hathor. A. Parrot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 251: 251b can be deleted, as the citations at the end of the paragraph, including 251c, together seem to support the two last sentences of the paragraph.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "who ruled for around 50 years during the second half of the 24th century BC". This does not make sense. You cannot rule for around 50 years in a period of 50 years. It also contradicts the infobox, which says "or early 23rd century" and most of the estimates are below 50 years. I suggest "around 40 years at the turn of the 24th and 23rd centuries BC".
Fixed but with "over" rather than "around". Virtually all the recent sources are centered on 50 years of reign for reasons explained below.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likely around five decades, in the second half of the 24th century BC or early 23rd century BC". This also needs amending to say "likely around 40 years in the late 24th century / early 23rd century BC".
Updated I wrote "over 40 years" though as explained below: this is because some of the slightly older sources have not yet integrated the debate that followed the publication of the Hatnub inscription which probably talks about Pepi's 50 year of rule.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several difficulties accumulated during Pepi's five decades on the throne" I suggest "Several difficulties accumulated during Pepi's reign"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making both Khui's wife Nebet and her son Djau viziers" You could link to Vizier (Ancient Egypt). This article implies that there was only one vizier at a time. Were they viziers jointly or successively?
In general, there were multiple viziers simultaneously, as the article implies in several places such as "the viziers Inumin and Khentika, who served both Teti and Pepi I" or when the article says there were viziers in Upper Egypt but not in Lower Egypt. However, the article does say explicitely that Nebet and Djau were viziers successively, presumably because they belonged to the same family and in this case the parent (Nebet) was the original recipient of the title, while the son only inherited it.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a queen is thought to have conspired to make her son heir, should her son not be listed as another probable son of Pepi?
Well these are suppositions: the cause and objective of the conspiracy is not mentioned by Weni so nobody really knows. The sources do not credit Pepi another son in consequence, they just conjecture that this is possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Length of reign'. This discussion is contradicted by most of the reign length estimates in the infobox, which as commented above are shorter. You need to discuss the shorter estimates - or delete them if they are not worth discussing.
Fixed I have updated the content to make this clear. This has to do with the reading of the South Saqqara stone in 1995 and 1997, which seems to mention Pepi's 50 year of reign and the subsequent debate in Egyptology. Older sources tend to credit him a shorter in consequence, while the more recent the longer. Most estimates are over 40 years, while the most recent center on the range 49-50+.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The circulation of high officials in key positions of power occurred at an "astonishing" pace" This is unclear. Do you mean that they only served for a short period or that they circulated between different positions?
The source means both : they were awarded various charges in quick succession and changed positions regularly after serving what Garcia deems to be short terms.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I clarified, however I hope I am not saying something wrong now. The source does not attempt to make statistics on who might have been sacked vs who simply changed position. We do know that some weren't sacked but assume numerous duties one after the other since we can see the many charges they held throughout the course of their careers in their tomb biographies (see Weni).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that A. Parrot commented while I was drafting these comments, and would add two comments on his comments. 1. I have copy edited the quarry text since he queried it. 2. The use of "likely" to mean "probably" is another Americanism.
Changed likely to probable/probably.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Thanks for your comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shows that the person of the king was no longer untouchable" Why no longer untouchable? His father was murdered.
Fixed removed "no longer", this was meant to be understood as a comparison with times prior to Teti/Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the same problem with the new version. The murder had already showed that the king was not untouchable. Also, if the nature of her crime is not known, how do they know that it was a conspiracy against him? Why not adultery or an assault on someone else? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Well Weni was appointed as a special judge by the king himself and there is little that a queen could do that would lead to such a trial if not a direct attack against the king (here parallels with Ramses III's reign come in mind). Furthermore, I emphasize again the conjectural nature of the murder of Teti and of the conspiracy involving Pepi's vizier. In fact the one involving this queen is the only one with direct solid contemporary evidence even though we do not know what she did (a source sees this as evidence that she did something really grave). In comparison, Teti's murder is reported only by Manetho and the other conspiracy is pieced together from controversial evidence by Kanawati. This is why I want to keep the sentence or another meaning the same thing: because the source referenced to here recognizes that we know little for sure about these (possible) conspiracies. But the accumulation of hints demonstrates that something was probably off for the king at the time, hence the source conclusion that this shows the king was no longer untouchable. Of course if you think it is a given that Teti was murdered, then it is weird to point out that the king seems no longer untouchable. But such certainty is nowhere to be found in this article ! I conclude from this that the article is not cautious enough about the uncertain nature of Teti's murder, so I emphasized this (see the changes). Remark that this "no longer untouchable" (quoting the source directly) was the one conclusion from this source on this matter!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the New Kingdom bit is just something I thought: it is of course not in the article, nor in the source. The source makes a general plausible reasoning, pointing out also the increase in the number of bodyguards and the quick removal of some of them accompanied with the desecration of some of their tombs. All of this is also in the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iry-Hor (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet, a woman, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt". This sounds a bit odd. We do not need to be told that Khui's wife was a woman. Maybe "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, a woman, Khui's wife Nebet, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pepi grants exemptions to the people serving in the two pyramids of Sneferu". This is confusing as it appears to refer a town's two pyramids but Sneferu links to a pharaoh. I suggest "Pepi grants exemptions to the people serving in two pyramids dedicated to Sneferu" The following quote refers to "these two pyramid towns" Which towns?
Clarified, actually it should read "people serving in the two pyramid towns". To understand this, you have to know how royal tomb building functioned in the Old Kingdom. In fact close to each pyramid a small town was built early in the first stages of planing to house the workmen and all the people require for work to advance properly: bakers, beer-makers, water-carriers, scribes etc. These towns perdured after the construction of the pyramid itself, as they would continue to house craftsmen, priests, builders and the like. There were a lot of pyramid towns in Egypt, notably next to Sneferu's Bent Pyramid but also in Giza and most certainly in Abusir as well. I have added a footnote to explain the concept with a wikilink.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Egyptologist David Warburton sees such perpetual tax exemptions as capitulations by a king confronted with rampant corruption." No change needed but this seems to me very dubious. Strong kings have often granted such concessions to favourites.
Yes I agree I find the argument a bit misconstrued in the context of Pepi's reign. That said Warburton is also pointing out the problem that such repeated exemptions pose on the long term: all kings since the 5th Dynasty did at least some of that, so that towards the end of the Old Kingdom period, the amount of land under direct royal control and which would be available to levy tax was reduced to next to nothing. In addition, it seems that at least some of the exemptions granted by later 8th dynasty kings were nothing more than an official recognition of a de facto existing state, whereby people would have long stopped to pay anything to the king and the king would tell them they have the right to do so.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether to hyphenate 'Ka chapel'.
Fixed all now hyphenated.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not link the first usage of Ka.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to [[Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#kꜣ "double"|Ka]] is wrong. It should be [[Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#Ka (vital essence)|Ka]]
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Ka is so important in the article, you should explain it (which you do not unless I have missed it) as well as linking it.
Done Added a footnote at the point where Ka appears the first time in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pepi I's mortuary complex was neighboured on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during his own reign and the reigns of Merenre and Pepi II." What does "was" mean here, that the necropolis no longer exists?
Fixed you are right it should be "is".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The tombs of Meritites and Ankhsenpepi III, both built after Pepi's reign, and tombs from later periods of Egyptian history in the necropolis are not discussed here." This should be in a note, not the main text.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles All done so far !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the same fashion as royal pyramids since the reign of Djedkare Isesi" it would be helpful to add the approximate number of years earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent how to spell Ankhsenpepi or Ankhesenpepi.
Fixed well spotted thanks.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether serdab is capitalised.
Have you fixed it already ? Because all instance of serdab have no upper case first letter in the current version.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it assumed that the pyramid of Ankhsenpepi I has disappeared?
It is not known where her pyramid is. A few reliefs bearing her name have been found but the location of her tomb remains unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the necropolis throughout the end of the third millennium BC until the Middle Kingdom". "throughout the end of the third millennium BC" sounds odd. I would delete.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, during the reign of Ramses II, some sort of restoration works" I would delete "sort of" as vague and colloquial.
Actually I wrote this because Egyptologists disagree on the nature of the works and their extent. Some say restorations did take place at the time, while others contend that "restoration" is a modern word and Khaemwaset's works were really not that extensive, merely writing his name here and there. I propose " limited restoration works" has I don't have a good source specifically addressing this debate in the context of Pepi I's pyramid.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""recalled his proprietor for posterity". I do not understand this.
Proposed solution. This is quoted verbatim from the translation of the Egyptian text. Proprietor means "the holder of property", here the pyramid original owner. So Khaemwaset essentially made Pepi's name remembered for posterity. As I can't change the sentence as this would not be the Egyptologist's translation anymore, nor can I put a footnote with my explanation as I don't have a source to support it, I propose to wikilink proprietor to the wiktionary. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The royal annals bear the mention of the feast of the union of the two lands" This sounds odd. Maybe "The royal annals mention the feast of the union of the two lands".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles I think I am up to date with your observations, let me know if I missed something !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments from Jens

edit
  • Consort, wives, queens: these terms are used as if they mean the same, but I guess they don't?
They do mean the same in this context, and are used interchangeably to avoid repetitions.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would always use the same term for the same thing. Because readers have to assume that different terms refer to different things if they are not sure what they mean. I think this is just confusing, and repetition is the lesser evil. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well then by the same token, shouldn't all synonyms of a word be avoided ? I propose to include a footnote explaining that the terms designate the same thing here instead of putting everything back to one version.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Within the same text, definitely. See e.g. [10]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a footnote will be of help here. The footnote would have to be attached to the first mention of one of the synonyms, in this case "consort". When first reading "consort", the reader thinks he knows the word, and reads on without clicking on the footnote. Then he encounters the other synonyms, thinking "hey, wait, were there different hierarchies of wives in ancient Egypt, the queen being the highest, maybe?" At this point, he has already read past the footnote (and may have forgotten it exists in the first place). I think this confusion is unnecessary and avoidable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jens LallensackFixed I wrote "consort" everywhere I could instead of queen or wife. The word "queen" was retained in certain places where it cannot be avoided, for example the name of the pyramids of Pepi's consorts are always "queens' pyramids" and "queens' necropolis" in the sources and so it is in the text. I hope the current state is ok for you.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and succeeded by Merenre I Nemtyemsaf – "was succeeded by"?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • made in celebration of his first Sed festival. – Maybe state this celebrates the 30 year jubilee right away? All the background information on this festival comes quite late, would be great to have this explanations earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples can now be found in museums throughout the world: – I think it is nonstandard to refer to figures this way. I would simply provide a list of examples to make the text as independent from the figures as possible.
If this is acceptable to you, I would prefer to keep this, although I recognize that this is non-standard. Yet this is not against the MOS usage as far as I can tell.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is ok with me, I just wanted to mention it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • said Pepi's father's own bodyguards assassinated Teti. – I think "Pepi's father" and "Teti" are the same person? If so, it is highly confusing to use different names for the same person this way.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • identity and his relationship to the royal family remain uncertain. – Make clear it refers to Usherkare, that does not become clear.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as he reused the blocks for his own mortuary temple – It does not become clear what the evidence is for this reuse.
Clarified. Blocks inscribed with pieces of reliefs mentioning the queen were found inside the walls and rubble used to built the motruary temple. This indicate that these blocks were taken from their original context (which was thus dismantled) only to be used as infill (construction material) in a new building.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horus name – link/explain?
Done wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fact that for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt. – That means that Nebet had the title again 1800 later, when she was already dead?
Actually, the sentence does not read as you have written: rather it reads "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, a woman, Khui's wife Nebet, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt." which I think make it clear that it is the fact that it was a vizier woman which was unparalleled for 1800 years.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my version which I read offline (maybe two or three days old) "a woman" was not at the place where it is now. Now, this makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, this is because the sentence was modified several times by the copy-editor, myself and the two reviewer Parrot and Dudley Miles.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Ok, I am looking forward to the rest of the review!Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In parallel with these developments, Pepi decreed tax-exemptions to various institutions. – The previous sentence was about developments in the preceding dynasty, so they cannot be "in parallel"?
Removed. You are right it makes no sense anymore. This is because this paragraph was moved when a reviewer asked for layout changes. Originally this sentence followed another paragraph about some of Pepi's decisions.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In parallel with these developments, the consequences of the long-lasting cults of Old Kingdom pharaohs during the New Kingdom are apparent in the Karnak king list. – Here I also don't understand the "in parallel with these developments" part, especially since "are apparent" is present tense, so how can they be in parallel? Maybe remove that part if it isn't adding much.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the Bubastis ensemble of Pepi I – Where is this ensemble located? Can it be linked?
Bubastis is a city, it is the place where Pepi's building is located. Bubastis is already wikilinked to earlier in the text when it is first mentioned. There is no wiki article about Pepi's chapel in Bubastis, but one of the images illustrating the article shows some of the ruins.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • canopic chest – I have no idea what this could be; can it be linked or explained?
Done I added a wikilink in the article, see Canopic chest. It is a chest in which the viscera and brain of the deceased where placed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pyramid texts in body.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pepi's consort Mehaa was buried in a pyramid on the south-west corner of Pepi's enclosure wall – dot missing
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archaeological evidence shows that these activities continued in the necropolis throughout the end of the third millennium BC until the Middle Kingdom. – bit repetitive as already mentioned in the pyramids section
Fixed: I reduced this sentence a lot, and made what remains of it a part of the previous one.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The buildings are described in great detail, especially in the "Necropolis of Pepi I", where each queens pyramid has a separate heading. I wonder if this is excessive detail, as it is not directly about the figure. I feel this information is better placed in the Pyramid of Pepi I article (where one can already find it); using summary style here would significantly improve reading experience (the article feels quite wordy at the moment).
Regarding the queen's pyramids: those presented in Pyramid of Pepi I include more generally tombs form his necropolis but some are subsequent to his reign, which is far from clear in "Pyramid of Pepi I". Here only those believed to have been built during his reign are identified and presented. I thought they have to be presented somehow as they represent major construction works dating to his rule and which presumably occurred on his direct orders. They do also relate to the section on his family, as they belonged to his consorts. Furthermore, in doing so I am following FA precedent, see e.g. Nyuserre Ini. Regarding the pyramid texts : I thought there was no need to dwell on them as there are several wikipedia articles on the subject already: there are discussed in Unas (first pharaoh to have them inscribed), in Pyramid Texts, and there is also a lengthy exposition of them specifically in the context of Pepi's pyramid, in Pyramid of Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a follow up from the note above, I'm wondering if there is undue balance, since the pyramid texts (the longest of the Old Kingdom) are only discussed with a few sentences while there is more than a screen page on the necropolis. Aren't the texts more significant? For example, the content of the texts could be discussed. To be clear, I'm not requesting that such information is added to an already long article; I'm just asking why the buildings are described in such detail while the texts are not.
See my answer above. We could say more about the pyramid texts if needed, but I think it important that the pyramids Pepi made are presented at least summarily in this article.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Thank you for your time. I hope I addressed your concerns as thoroughly as possible. I am ready to do further modifications if needed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good work this is. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 January 2021 [11].

Shake It Off

edit
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC); TheSandDoctor[reply]

This article is about a song that does not need an introduction (probably). This song was so huge back in the day that it was the most annoying thing to appear on earth. Looking back, though the song may appear silly, it was a cultural reset for catapulting Ms. Taylor Swift to superstardom.

While this remains one of my least favorite songs on the album 1989, I ventured to expand the article on a song that attracted much praise and criticism alike. To ensure an encyclopedic tone, I wiped out any source considered gossip blogs/fanzines, and squeezed my resources from the Wikipedia Online Library to find peer-reviewed material. Nominating this to FAC may be the boldest thing I have done on this site, so I am honored to co-nominate with TheSandDoctor, who has helped with prose issues. Any comment would be much appreciated, HĐ (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

I liked this song when it came out, but am close to deleting it off my iPod as it hasn't aged well. I like it more than 'Bad Blood' though, which is the lowest point of what's an otherwise very good album. My musical tastes aside, I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews the country pop sound of her previous repertoire" - bit clunky
  • "Contemporary critics received "Shake It Off" with moderate reviews" - this is unclear - changing to active voice would help
  • "They found the song's dance-pop production catchy, but lamented that the lyrics were not up to par with Swift's traditional vivid songwriting" - was there really a consensus on this as this suggests? (I also doubt that Swift was widely considered a strong songwriter as this suggests - it seems she's taken on this mantle only with her latest couple of albums). The later section of the article notes a range of views.
  • Is there any commentary which discusses this song in the context of the various (many?) songs Swift has written responding to her critics? It seems to be a strong theme in her career, including the (IMO) wretched Reputation album.
  • "having sparked speculations of new music via her social media accounts" - clunky
  • "A day following its impact on US radio stations" - unclear
  • "Despite Swift's announcement of abandoning country" - clunky
  • " Media publications pointed out potential references to other cultural events" - weren't these pretty explicit references? Please also change this to active voice.
  • "earned accolades at professional awards. " - clunky
  • "At the 2016 BMI Awards, the song was one of the award-winning songs that helped Swift earn the distinction of Songwriter of the Year." - this is unclear. Is the criteria for this BMI award that the songs have to have received other awards or similar as this suggests?
  • "Retrospectively, critics have considered "Shake It Off" an effective opener for Swift's 1989 era, which transformed her image from country to mainstream pop" - this isn't supported by the source, which is the views of three NME writers who don't say it reflects broader views
  • "While the article was of comedic purpose" - overly formal/academic
  • An interesting element of the #Tay4Hottest100 issue which was discussed in the Australian media was that a cover of the song by the (all male) band Milky Chance recorded for Triple J was eligible, while Swift's original version wasn't - this might be worth noting.
  • It's also likely worth noting though that the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign was basically bad faith - as Triple J had never played the song (as it sits outside its scope of highlighting 'alternative' music, especially by Australian artists), it was always clearly ineligible.
  • " the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign had overwhelmed the Hottest 100 for 2014—over 7,341 Hottest 100 posts over the past 30 days related to Swift, compared to 230 related to Chet Faker" - this is unclear - what was overwhelmed? As the Hottest 100 attracts very large numbers of votes, 7341 would have been a drop in the ocean for the IT system, etc.
  • Are there any updates on the lawsuit by Sean "Sep" Hall and Nate Butler since October 2019?
  • "to which Swift expressed her approval on social media" - change to active voice
  • Do we need the 'Cover versions and usage in media' section? It seems like few of these versions were ever commercially released (the Milky Chance version noted above was released by Triple J, ironically)
  • Very successful and iconic songs like this always attract tons of covers, so listing each performance seems like overkill. I think that the appropriate bar to set here is where the cover is itself a significant element of that artist's work rather than something they performed once while on the radio or TV. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I have replied to your concerns per above (except concerns regarding the information included in "Covers and other usage" section, which I am awaiting further discussion on whether to excessively cut it down) HĐ (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of further comments:

  • I've made some edits to simplify wording - please check that these are accurate.
  • "After having sparked speculation about new music on social media, Swift appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon on August 13, 2014, where she announced a live stream via Yahoo! on August 18, 2014." - this is hard to follow - was she on The Tonight Show, or a Yahoo stream (5 days later?). Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd still prefer to see the Cover versions section get the chop, but I think that the FA criteria are met. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and review, Nick-D! --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Taylor_Swift_-_Shake_It_Off.ogg has an incomplete FUR
It says here that Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. The law at the time granted the owner 28 years to file a copyright registration, though a little more digging might be needed. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

edit

As apposed to Nick-D, this music is not my cup of tea at all, in fact never heard of it until this nom and spent 30 seconds listening on YouTube before turning off, but then again its not meant for my demographic/age profile, grumble, grumble. Nonetheless, the page is mostly good enough on prose, and would like to see it suceed. Here are some suggestions:

  • which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews her previous albums' country pop sound - who uses the word "eschews" in 2021
  • for digital download worldwide - worldwide digital download (this is a wording preference only)
  • traditional vivid songwriting - source for "vivid"... and do you mean "earlier" rather than "traditional"
  • In "Background", the red in Red incorporates various is left unexplained
Red incorporates various pop and rock styles Red what now? You just need to link or better explain Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove renowned from "with renowned Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback"
    @Ceoil: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard's Jason Lipshutz considered it a sign of a "bold foray into the unknown", with which Swift could experiment - "in which Swift..."
  • Would severely trim the very long "see-also" section so it doesnt seem like a random rag-bag. First by trimming anything already linked above, then by cutting links to long and very broad lists; ie those that are not directly germane. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Credits and personnel" should be Credits only.
  • Sources look mostly good, from first look, only dont recogonise slotop50.si.
  • The sub-heading "Cited literature" comes across as pretentious; no offense as edit on pop culture also often, but from a scan its far from literature ;) Better rename as "sources", or "further reading", or some such
  • Thank you for your comments so far. As Nick-D mentioned above, the "Cover versions and usage in media" section needs to be trimmed. I would like to have your comments regarding this as well, HĐ (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see all addressed. The page is beautifully written; nice work. Support Ceoil (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the review and kind words, HĐ (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Heartfox

edit

Maybe it's just my eyes but I found it hard to differentiate between the * and the ^ in the certification template. Do you know why it can't use another symbol like # ? I may or may not read the article/leave comments if I have time. Heartfox (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template for certifications is automatically generated ({{Certification Table Entry}}). I think * and ^ may be hard to distinguish for certain people... so maybe a discussion at the Template talk page should help, HĐ (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DMT biscuit

edit
  • "Shake It Off" is an uptempo dance-pop song... → It is an uptempo dance-pop song... Having two repetitions of Shake it off underneath each other is clashing and ugly. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I follow? These two quoted bits are two sections apart and it is necessary to repeat the information—which the second instance rewords slightly—as the lead is supposed to reflect the content in the page and have its citations etc in the second mention. The article alternates between "the song", "it", its proper name, and "the single" with some frequency. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lyrics are about... → The lyrics describe... DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that this song was featured on decade-end lists by only two publications, I think it's fair to include their names here. 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The magazine Drowned in Sound described "Shake It Off" as "undoubtedly ... the most significant cultural event" since Radiohead's 2011 album The King of Limbs." Hindsight is 2020 and perhaps I'm too biased to speak but King of the Limbs wasn't a particularly significant cultural event. This bit strikes me as a bit fan-esque. It is, of course, the assertion of a writer not the article, so that can be reason for it to stay. Just something to consider.DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work; just needs a little bit of tinkering. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note How is the image review looking @Nikkimaria: And has there been a source review and spot checks? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not thrilled with the sample's FUR; otherwise good on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested for a source review at WT:FAC. HĐ (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon – Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • retrieval dates missing for: refs 7, 29, 64, 73, 244
  • language parameter for ref 205, 203, 67, 165, 199, 236?
  • ref 131 missing author(s)
  • ref 140 should be "pp."
  • for ref 199, Hung Medien seems to be the publisher, "austriancharts.at" could be put as the work or website I would think
  • ref 207 isn't in a template so the formatting is showing up differently
  • no other issues I could spot there
Reliabillity
  • since amazon (ref 28) is generally considered an unreliable source, and the place you use if already has another ref, do we need it here?
  • the Paul Zollo (ref 14) is a medium post, though I would assume he's well regarded enough to qualify as reliable here – perhaps link to his page to minimize any doubts of reliabillity
  • nothing else stood out as concerning to me; seems to all be from reliable news sources or statistical web information. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thank you! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the source review! --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Aoba47

edit

Since I helped HĐ with their past FACs, I will contribute a review here even though I'm retired and will step back from Wikipedia editing (I'm slowly getting there lol). Here's one quick comment as a placeholder, and I will have a full review up by the end of the day.

  • There are a few times in the article that Swift is references as a "star", such as which transformed Swift's sound and image from a country singer-songwriter to a pop star and had experienced during her rise to stardom. While Swift enjoyed great success in music, I'm a little uncertain about these descriptions as they are told in Wikipedia's voice and could be perceived as going against WP:NPOV. What are your thoughts, and do you think the "star" parts could be avoided? For instance, I could see the first example I cited going to which transformed Swift's sound image from country to pop or something similar.
  • The part in the "Music and lyrics" section on the "Mean" comparisons are fascinating as I never would have put these two songs together. With that being said, I would think the second sentence needs some sort attribution to indicate who is saying this as it is currently being presented in Wikipedia's voice.
  • I do not think it is immediately clear in the prose that Swift is the one making this statement so I still think direct attribution is needed. Just so we are on the same page, I am talking about this sentence: If "Mean" was where Swift assumed victimhood, "Shake It Off" found Swift in a proactive stance to "take back the narrative, and have ... a sense of humor about people who kind of get under [her] skin – and not let them get under [her] skin". Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little uncertain about this part, to produce a catchy, radio-friendly. I do not have an issue with catchy as that is something that can be studied more objectively, but I am uncertain if "radio-friendly" is more an opinion or praise toward the song rather than a more objective observation.
  • Would it be possible to briefly expand on the bridge part in the final paragraph of the "Music and lyrics" section. In the past, I have been discouraged from putting lyrics in the prose unless there is more critical commentary attached to them. The Paste review later in the article describes this as spoken word so that could be useful, and I would not be surprised if critics had more to say about this part to add at least a little something to justify the lyrics' inclusion.
  • Would it be possible to clarify this point, After having sparked speculation about new music on social media, as I am not entirely sure what it means? It just seems rather vague to the point that I could understand a number of different ways.
  • I would move the Nate Jones from New York review after the Alexis Petridis review. I suggest this since Jones has a more mixed opinion of the song and I think it would serve as a better transitions from the positive reviews to the negative Paste review. Also, I am assuming the Paste source is the only negative retrospective review (at least by a reliable, high-quality publication)?
  • I'd keep the Nate Jones review where it is now, as it corroborates with Mylrae's opinions on the song's impact on Swift's pop image. So far, it seems Paste is the only source that is downright critical of the song. Rolling Stone is more mixed, and the three other are kind of positive, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link social media in the section on the music video when the concept is mentioned earlier in the article.
  • I am concerned about the Audrey Hepburn image as the scene is quite dark and it is rather hard (at least for me) to really see what is being pictured. I showed it to my brother and he had a similar concern even when viewing the image in full rather than in a thumbnail. However, since this was not brought up by @Nikkimaria:, I may be over-thinking. I still wanted to raise this to your attention though. I would recommend finding a different image, but again that is just me. Either way, I believe the caption needs to be revised as Swift's black turtleneck and jeans drew comparisons to Hepburn's outfit in Funny Face not Hepburn herself.
  • Revised the caption. It is hard to find an alternate version to the screenshot, as the trailer itself is also of poor lighting quality... I wonder if some image rendering/manipulation could work on Public Domain files. If that is possible, then probably a brighter edit of the image should suffix, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been a while since I watched Funny Face, but what I remember, that scene is set in a rather dark room. I doubt a better lit substitute could be found without editing. I am against image rendering/manipulation to change the lighting as it would no longer be accurate to the film. I would instead replace both images and use of the other comparisons discussed in this section (as there are a few other possibilities). I know it may sound extreme, but I think the Funny Face image quality is an issue. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed! However, given this specific Funny Face example was discussed in a scholarly article, I think other alternatives would be less then desirable compared to this one.. HĐ (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point. Since an image review was already done for this FAC and this issue was not brought up there, I will press this further. I agree that it is better to go with the comparison that has the higher quality sources. I was honestly expecting a screenshot from one of the twerking/break-dancing parts given the attention there, but I think it's best to not have a visual focusing on something negative. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the "Analysis and reception" section. With that being said, I am uncertain about the Maryn Wilkinson sentences, specifically the ones later in that paragraph where the information is more so worded in Wikipedia's voice rather directly attributed them back to the writer. I also have a similar concern with a Dubrofsky sentence in the second paragraph (i.e. the one about what roles Swift "naturally" embodies and does not embody).
  • For the last two sentences of the "Cover versions and usage in media" section, I would having two sentences in a row with "covered".
  • This is more of a silly question, but I am guessing that none of the high-quality publications that covered this song compared it to the Mariah Carey song of the same name lol?
  • I thought so, but just wanted to check. I did my own search and got similar results. I do not think Bustle is terrible, but I agree that it is best to keep it out of the article (particularly for a rather silly comparison lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if anything needs clarification, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to your concerns as above. I hope you are doing well, and since I know how tempting it is to fall back to Wikipedia after a brief period of "retirement", just take it easy :) Hope you are having a great weekend, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. You are right that coming back to Wikipedia is very much tempting, but I still have a lot of off-Wiki things I'd like to get accomplished. I'll make this the last thing I do on here. There are a few remaining points above. Have a great weekend too! Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully you could balance things out! I am a bit worried that I'd also get compulsive with Wikipedia again after I'll have announced my retirement, but given my many off-Wiki projects, I believe we could sort things out and practice self-discipline. Thank you again for your comments :) HĐ (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad I am not the only one that struggles with it lol. Thank you for your comments. I agree with your response on Funny Face, and I will not press that point further as I do like the way the images are compared and it is most likely the best comparison to pair with a visual. I will read through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you and then I will likely support it (which should hopefully clear it for promotion). Thank you again for your prompt responses and your positive and patient attitude with this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this nomination for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and support, Aoba47, it is greatly appreciated! --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Aoba. I wish you all the best with your off-Wiki projects, HĐ (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 January 2021 [12].

American logistics in the Northern France campaign

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a sequel to American logistics in the Normandy campaign, but it covers different ground literally and fugitively. This campaign saw a fast-moving pursuit of the German armies back to the German border, which placed the American logistical system under enormous strain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing as coordinator to have a look at this. I went through it at A class and was impressed.

Nota bene* FAC coordinators have to put "recuse" or "recusing" into an edit comment on the review so the Bot will know. Only one is required, so just add it to your next comment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, "recusing" is the first word after the section header.
Sure, but the MilHistBot would have to grab the page history, download and parse each edit you made, and attempt to find the word in the edit. This way it only needs to look at the page history (one call). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 Just so I am clear - I can be hard of thinking at times - when you write "edit comment", that is the same as the "Summary" at the bottom of this edit page, yes? So the edit summary of this edit will do the trick? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the edit summary. You only need to do it once though. It's fine now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bocage and any other non-proper name foreign language words should be in lang templates, not just in italica.
    The dictionary asserts that "bocage" is indeed a mot anglais, albeit an obvious loan word, so I have removed the italics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the logistical system had facilitated a great victory, these factors would be keenly felt in the fighting in the months to come." Optional: Something like 'While the logistical system had facilitated a great victory in Normandy, these factors would be keenly felt in the fighting in the months that followed" seems a clearer summary.
    Done, but used "Northern France" instead of "Normandy". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of an explanation of what a "measurement ton" is? And how it differs, or doesn't, from other types of ton[ne].
    US customary unit. A measurement ton (sometimes called a shipping ton) is 40 cubic feet (1.1 m3). Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and seizing the Seine ports of Le Havre and Rouen as an alternative to those in Brittany, neither of which had yet been captured." Does neither refer to Le Havre and Rouen, or the Brittainy ports. if the latter, does "neither of which had yet been captured" imply that the Brittainy ports had? (Yes, these are rhetorical questions.)
    Move the clause forward to remove ambiguity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "operational art". Could we unpack this a little? To spare the majority of raders who will assume that you are actually talking about some sort of art.
    Added a definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the planners had estimated that no more than 12 divisions could be maintained beyond the Seine, 16 were by mid-September". Do you mean 'Although the planners had estimated that no more than 12 divisions could be maintained beyond the Seine by mid-September, 16 were"?
    I think the original is better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonel Roy W. Growler's Base Section No. 1 had arrived at Utah Beach"; "Brigadier General Leroy P. Collins's Base Section No. 1 moved to Le Mans". Base Section No. 1 x 2?
    Ooops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another 40 miles (64 km) further away". One of "another" or "further" is redundant.
    Not sure. Changed as suggested. See if it works.

To MT. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead it states "The difficulties were exacerbated by the poor supply discipline of the American soldier". Could you point me to where that is expanded on in the main article?
    Lost in splitting the article. Restored to the POL section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masterful. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hawkeye7, as a relatively long, specialist and detailed article this seems less likely than average to pick up drive by reviewers. You may wish to see if any other of the ACR reviewers would be up for reviewing here, or call in some favours, or post a general request at MilHist - once the ACR activity has died down. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great to see another of these loggie articles. Some comments:

Lead
Body

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still a couple of things that need better formulation for clarity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Hawkeye, sorry I'm sooo slow but finally finished my comments...

lede
Background
Breakout and pursuit
Base organization
Petrol, oil and lubricants
Railways
Motor transport
Resupply by air
Ports
Outcome
Caption
Senior Allied commanders. Left to right: Bradley, Tedder, Eisenhower, Montgomery and Simpson - is full stop ok?
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me I reckon, JennyOz (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for above, Hawkeye. Pls check 3 minor tweaks I just made. I am happy to add my support for promotion. (Non-milhist reviewer) JennyOz (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit

I am concerned that one source is cited for this one-sided opinion: it seems that the opinion should be attributed or backed up by other sources, and I wonder if there are alternate opinions. ... Subsequent events demonstrated that Eisenhower's decision was the wrong one; the German army in the West was not destroyed and neither the Ruhr nor the Saar was reached in 1944. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose. Because my background is in Operations research, I am partial to the British strategic and logistics efforts during World War II, and enjoy reviewing these logistics articles. I have not gotten to the prose nitpicking, because this one is sending up red flags, and I have bigger concerns about possible bias/balance. The statement that:

was in the A-class version,[13] followed by an opinion which appears to be based entirely upon Dick:

  • "It is possible that the Ruhr could have been reached had Montgomery's proposal been adopted."

Here is what some other sources say:

  • Keegan, John, ed. (1989). The Times Atlas of the Second World War (1st ed.). Harper & Row. p. 158. ISBN 9780060161781. "The Allies pursued, hampered by shortage of fuel and supplies. Hitler had ordered the ports along the Channel coast to be held as fortresses; of these, Le Havre was besieged until 12 September, and Boulogne and Calais fell on 30 September but Dunkirk held out until the end of the war. This obliged both Montgomery and Patton to draw on shipments landed across the Normandy beaches—necessarily both slowing the Allied advance and limiting the amount of supplies available to them. Each petitioned Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Commander, to allot him a major share of the supplies available, thus provoking what came to be called the “Broad verus Narrow” dispute over strategy. Montgomery insisted that he could break into Germany via Holland, if given the lion’s share; Patton similarly argued that he might rush the Siegfried Line through Lorraine. Eisenhower diplomatically distributed equal shares, with the result—probably inevitable in view of Hitler’s mustering of reserves—that the Allied advance came to a halt on the approaches to the German frontier in early September."
  • Keegan, John (1994). Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation of Paris. Penguin Books. pp. 318–19. ISBN 9780140235425. "And yet at the turn of the year, Hitler’s Germany was no nearer imminent collapse than it had been in the summer. By frantic measures of rearmament and recruitment, a new strategic reserve had been assembled, which endowed Hitler once again with the power to counter-attack and so, locally at least, impose an initiative. … [Followed by a paragraph about the fuel/truck logistics problems. Followed by a paragraph that the Germans had overcome their logistics problems by retreat, but their success was short-lived as the American strategic bomber force took out railroads.] … [R]etrospectively, the six months between the end of the Battles of Normandy and Army Group Centre and the appearance on the Rhine and Oder of the armies which had won them certainly had something miraculous for Germany about them. The Allies' failure to capitalize on their great victories could not be laid at the door of logistic difficulties alone. It had also to do with the continuing ability of German industry to produce, despite every sort of damage to railways, factories and fuel sources which the Allied bombers could inflict, and to the extraordinary resilience of the German army."
  • Summary of Chapter 6 from C.J. Dick: "The British and Canadians ... however, suffered from periodic ammunition shortages and restrictions on usage until well into August. And both armies suffered again from a dearth of munitions in September and October. To a large extent, this was caused by a lack of logistic lift, a problem resulting from conscious trade-offs in the planning process and greatly exacerbated by the discovery that 1,400 newly procured British three-ton trucks suffered from engine defects (which afflicted replacement engines as well). The major failing of each of the Allies was the inadequate provision of infantry replacements. Each army faced a manpower crisis sooner or later. For the British, it was sooner. As a result of drawing faulty lessons from the North African campaign, the War Office seriously underestimated the infantry’s likely casualty rate (by almost half) while simultaneously overestimating that of the other arms."

Yet the opening statement of the article-- indeed the perspective and premise of the article (In the first seven weeks after D-Day, the Allied advance was slower than anticipated because the well-handled and determined German opposition exploited the defensive value of the Normandy bocage country) overlooks this entire argument. (Noting also that the British article, British logistics in the Normandy campaign, downplays the 1,400 defective trucks, with one sentence: "An exception was 1,400 Austin K5 three-ton lorries, along with all their replacement engines, which were found to have faulty pistons and gave trouble", which is sourced to the Army itself rather than the independent source, Dick.)

The overarching political argument made by Robert Blake, Baron Blake on page 297 of The Decline of Power: 1915–1964, Oxford University Press, 1986 is overlooked.

The British logistics failure at Antwerp as covered by William I. Hitchcock on pp. 69–72 (The Bitter Road to Freedom, Simon & Schuster, 2008) is not in either the British article or this article. He argues that the logistics problem was made worse by the failure to clear the approaches to Antwerp for several months after it was captured. "While the Allied armies started to ration their ammunition, the Germans, so bloodied and disorganized after their retreat from France, swiftly resupplied their forces and prepared to defend their homeland."
All of these sources together add up to a picture that it cannot be known if either Montgomery's or Patton (Bradley)'s plan to launch a spear into Germany (from their own sector) would have been successful, because of the ability of the Germans to muster reserves and resupply. This suite of articles seems to advance a British POV, and does not seem to encompass all sources, and seems harsher on Americans than British in blaming logistical failures for delays. It is not knowable if Montgomery's planned spear would have worked; it is known what happened at the Battle of the Bulge (which started within three weeks after Antwerp was cleared), where the Germans attacked with 30 divisions assembled in total secrecy.
I am concerned that a statement that "Eisenhower was wrong" was in the version that passed A-class peer review, yet does not appear to be supported by the source, because when I questioned it, it was deleted. And I've found several other instances that are shaded to a British perspective. Although I don't have the book, the chapter summary from Dick does not appear to take that approach. My suggestion is that this article a) be sent back to A-class for closer scrutiny by our MilHist experts, and b) be subject to a source-to-text integrity spotcheck. I am concerned whether similar is a factor at American logistics in the Normandy campaign or British logistics in the Normandy campaign. @Gog the Mild and Peacemaker67: ... even though this sentence has been deleted, it was a red flag, and I worry that there are similar issues throughout the three articles that warrant a closer look by our esteemed MilHist colleagues.
Leaning oppose, as I suggest that a closer look at a new A-class review is preferable to working through a spotcheck on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued discussion moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the reason for the British logistics in the Normandy campaign using the 21st Army Group history as a source for the 1,400 three-ton lorries with faulty pistons was that I did not have Dick at the time that article was written in 2017. I would have liked to supply more details, but while I found explanation of what had gone wrong, it was not in sources that would pass our RS bar. I was concerned at the time that it might have been downplayed in British sources, which by and large don't mention it. British primary sources do tend to be more downbeat than American ones.

It is important when considering the articles to remember the dates of the campaigns that the US Army has officially laid down. These were used to frame the scope of the articles to prevent them becoming too large. I split the original article in two for that reason, and I think it works out well. The Northern France campaign officially starts with Cobra, and ends at the start of September. The campaign and therefore the article covers the breakout and pursuit. The fighting on the Siegfried Line in Lorraine, and around Antwerp, as well as the ammunition and shipping crises and the problems with winter clothing all belong properly to the subsequent Rhineland campaign.

Here's what Dick has to say:

The actual unfolding of events demonstrated that Eisenhower’s decision in favor of an advance right across the front was mistaken. Each of the armies in his Northern and Central Groups culminated short of its assigned geographic objective, and the German army was vouchsafed enough breathing space to recover its strength and balance in the operational pause that followed. Operational and tactical failings undoubtedly contributed to this disappointing result, but the main cause of the Allied failure was the logistic system’s inability to cope, especially on the part of the Americans.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Thank you for the (very logical) answer on my concern about the trucks and the British article, which eases my concerns about the other two articles.
  2. And thank you for the quote from Dick. So, his POV is that Eisenhower was wrong, which eases my concern about source-to-text integrity, at the same time it raises a more serious concern. In what is possibly one of the most hotly debated topics of WWII (the broad vs. narrow front controversy), there are many opinions which differ from his, and when we have some equivalent of the Broad vs. narrow front controversy in World War II article, it would presumably cover all points of view, giving due balance to each, including that a spear would not necessarily have worked because of long supply chains being vulnerable and the German capacity to resupply. The outcome is not knowable or provable.
    So, when a statement as obviously POV as "Eisenhower was wrong" makes it through ACR, and three FAC reviewers, then I suggest we still need for everyone to revisit this article carefully to make sure no other unattributed, undue opinion is being stated as fact in Wikivoice. The surprising part to me is that one does not need to be a context expert or a MILHIST editor (as I certainly am not) to have seen this red flag. In any content area, we don't make statements like that without attribution. I would feel much better about removing my lean oppose if the knowledgeable MILHIST editors would comb through this article one more time, before I sit down to my nitpicks (which I didn't write down as I was reading through last time, but are mostly minor-- sorry, but I was sidetracked by what was clear POV to me).
  3. And finally, I am confused about the scope of this article. Hawkeye, you clarify above how you divided the series by date, and yet this article has an Outcome section (as well as statements in the lead) that gets in to what happened after the time period you defined above. The premise of the article seems to go beyond logistics and to strategy. So I really wonder how this article can be written well when we don't even have an overview of the Broad vs. narrow front debate anywhere on Wikipedia, and where you draw the line in this article and what that one would be if it existed. I am concerned that the Outcome section in this article is getting into territory that would belong in the wider controversy article, which had to do not only with strategy and logistics, but the German capacity, and Eisenhower's need to account for the politics because Montgomery (like Patton) was viewed as such an insufferable egotist that he (Eisenhower) would have been severely questioned had he given either of them all the resources at the expense of the other. All of this is for another article, but I am concerned that conclusions are being drawn here that may not be supported by a balance of sources, and hope other knowledgeable MILHIST editors can help sort this (meaning, the boundaries of this article vs. the article not yet written, as well as any possible remaining unattributed opinion) before I start nitpicking the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also have concerns about the dates of some of the sources used. I realize these sources are specific to logistics (while those I provide on the Broad-front controversy are not focused only on logistics), but logistics and strategy overlap, and some of the sources I cite above are newer. Why so much Ruppenthal? And one of his articles supports the position I am offering based on other, more recent sources. At "Logistics and the Broad-Front Strategy", he says, "It also was clear that the maintenance of large-scale operations would remain unsatisfactory until the port of Antwerp and adequate rail lines of communications were made available. The operations of the 21 and 12th Army Groups, consequently, were to be dominated throughout the fall of 1944 by the necessity of developing a new administrative base in closer proximity to the front lines." The British did not get the approaches to Antwerp cleared; his position seems to be that the spear could not have worked without this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carlo D'Este article, "A Lingering Controversy: Eisenhower's 'Broad Front' Strategy" may be of interest.
  • The war of words over the choices by which the war might have been won was, in the end, all but irrelevant. Not only was it politically impossible to have permitted the British to win the war by means of the narrow front, there is ample evidence to question if such a drive, if mounted, could have been logistically sustained beyond the Ruhr.
  • Another major point that further muddied the waters was Montgomery’s contention that his offensive encompass forty divisions, a figure wildly beyond the capacity of the logisticians to have supported without the port of Antwerp, which was then still in German hands. The most reasonable figure was a mere twelve divisions. The great argument has focused on whether or not the war would have been shortened had Montgomery’s single thrust strategy prevailed. On this point historians still disagree, as did the logisticians in 1944. Eisenhower questioned, even if given the necessary resources, if Montgomery could have carried out a systematic, aggressive offensive into the Ruhr. He concluded Montgomery could not.
  • Monty’s failure to secure Antwerp in furtherance of the logistical advance into Germany can only be viewed as problematic to his one coordinated thrust into the Rurh strategy. His remarkably flawed Market Garden plan showed that his idea of a single narrow front thrust was going to leave a large portion of the Allied land armies unable to react to any German counteroffensive, which they were very adept at in spite of allied air superiority.The same German reserves used in the Ardennes could very well have cut off Monty’s advanced XXX Corps units and made the losses of Market Garden pale in comparison. Bad planning and wishful thinking isn’t a strategy for victory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could write the requested article, but let's concentrate on the one at hand for the moment.

  • The original plan was for US forces to be supported through the Brittany while the British used the Channel ports (ie the situation in World War I) Antwerp did not figure in the plan, because it was not expected to be captured before D plus 300.
  • The German strategy was to deny the Allies access to ports; first by holding in Normandy, and then by holding or destroying the ports.
  • With a shorter line of communications, fewer troops and access to the Channel ports via intact railways (along with better organisation, and more experienced staffs and commanders) the 21st Army Group was in a much better logistic situation than the Americans. This was not a coincidence; they had intended this to be the case from the very beginning.
  • Because Bradley decided to forego the Brittany ports, the 12th Army Group was forced to use ports captured by the 21st Army Group. The importance of Antwerp is clear in retrospect, but the 21st Army Group didn't need it, and the 12th Army Group did not recognise it. It was up to COMZ to press SHAEF for it. I've combed through the records, and there is nothing about it from SHAEF before it was captured.
  • Montgomery did not put Bradley on the short leash he had on Dempsey and Crerar. This was for political reasons: a firm hand from any British general would have been resented, but Monty's prickly and eccentric personality did not help.

Let me ping @Nick-D: for an opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two issues that I can see from the above and looking at what Beevor says about this (I am a bit surprised Beevor hasn't been used). Beevor (p. 891 in my ebook) says

    The First Canadian Army had not yet managed to retake the Channel ports, which were resolutely defended on Hitler’s orders. So Antwerp was the only solution. Yet, although the British Second Army had taken the city and the port virtually undamaged, Montgomery failed to secure the land and islands along the Scheldt estuary from the North Sea. He had ignored Admiral Ramsay’s warnings that mines and German coastal batteries on the islands, particularly Walcheren, would make it unnavigable and therefore render the vital port useless. The fault also lay with Eisenhower and SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces) for not having insisted to Montgomery that he should clear the estuary before he attempted to dash on to the Rhine. The Germans had time to reinforce their garrisons on the islands. The result was that long and complex battles, including amphibious landings, were later required by the Canadians to rectify this mistake. They sustained 12,873 casualties in an operation which could have been achieved at little cost if tackled immediately after the capture of Antwerp.

Also, talking about "could have been logistically sustained beyond the Ruhr" (as SG has above) really is out of scope even of the broad front argument. Surely that argument is about who could get to the German industrial heartland first and thereby shorten the war? But I agree that the article probably does stray into longer-term outcomes and could be trimmed to concentrate on the immediate outcomes of the logistics of the Northern France campaign rather than operational strategy, where, whilst it was important, logistics was not the main determining factor, because stiffening German resistance, reserves, and equipment and ammunition production were also clearly major factors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not knowing what to do next, I will formally switch to Oppose in the hopes that will bring resources to getting things sorted by MILHIST editors (as opposed to me becoming increasingly confused as more and more sources emerge).
First, scope: on where this article begins and ends, and what to do about the missing broad vs. narrow front article (which should at least be a red link, but even better, a stub).
Second, whether the entire Outcomes section extends beyond the scope of this article, and includes unrepresented sources or unattributed opinions.
Third, unclear why Hawkeye's response above is about Brittany; the article is critical of the US failure to capture ports in Brittany, but downplays the destruction of those ports by Allied bombardment and German sabotage ... where do we put (which article?) things like:
  1. Montgomery himself acknowledged the necessity of the use of Antwerp. He admitted his error in not giving priority to clearing the Scheldt: "I must admit a bad mistake on my part – I underestimated the difficulties of opening up the approaches to Antwerp so that we could get the free use of that port. I reckoned that the Canadian Army could do it while we were going for the Ruhr. I was wrong." (See Omar Bradley memoirs.)
  2. The Brittany ports were unusable per the reasons discussed at Battle for Brest. Considering that, and their distance from the front, it is understandable why those ports were not used.

On minor things to help the layreader (besides a broad vs. narrow front article):

  1. There is War Department (United Kingdom) and War Department (US); in several places, I lost track of which country was being discussed.
  2. Major General Frank S. Ross seems to warrant a red link (at one point, I lost track while reading of whether Ross was Brit or UK).

I would feel much better about MILHIST editors appraising whether there is any other unattributed or unbalanced opinion or underrepresented sources in the article. Once you all have given the green light, I will do the layperson nitpicking. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"War Department" always refers to the United States Department of War. The British equivalent was the War Office and since this article is US-centric, that is always prefixed with "British". Major General Frank S. Ross was an American, the ETO Chief of Transportation. I have red-linked his name, but people keep removing the red links.
I have removed the two paragraphs in the Outcome section about the broad front vs narrow front as out of scope.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye7; if you could entice some MILHIST editors to revisit for any other possibility of unrepresented opinion, I will get back to this as soon as I finish up some other pressing matters. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing; apologies for the delay (real life and Wikipedia work accelerated simultaneously). I am disappointed to see that no other MILHIST editors have engaged (perhaps also the holidays), so I will struggle on with my piecemeal layperson knowledge.

  • Not a sentence ... The tardy delivery of vehicles adversely affected the training of motor transport unit personnel. A misread on my part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple issues of layperson confusion here. Theater (warfare) refers to an area (I know that much :) But in this article, "As with many other service units, the European Theater of Operations (ETO) was compelled to accept partially trained units", ETO refers to a unit. And in this article, it is referred to as ETO, where in the linked article (European Theater of Operations, United States Army) it is referred to as ETOUSA. Things like this make it hard for me as a non-military person to keep straight who is who, what is what, and which refers to which country. Not sure how to fix this. I would rather see the acronym throughout be ETOUSA, as that provides a reminder about who is who later on. Is there a predominance of one acronym or another in the sources that we can go by ? Laypeople are not accustomed to sorting all the acronyms the military loves to use, and we've got ADSEC, COMZ, ETO ... and so on. Perhaps something along these lines to help readers like me get them sorted early on ...
    The US Army's logistical agency Advance Section (ADSEC) organized the Red Ball Express ... As with many other service units, the Army's European Theater of Operations (ETOUSA) command was compelled to accept partially trained units in the hope they would be able to complete their training in the UK. Approval for additional relief drivers was also slow, and racial segregation in the US Armed Forces complicated personnel assignment.
    Reading on further, I do see ETOUSA used ... is this not the same as called ETO in the lead? ... the European Theater of Operations, United States Army (ETOUSA) was ...
  • This is an example where I wish other MILHIST-knowledgeable would chime in: "At critical junctures in the campaign, senior American commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities." Is this a summary/conclusion supported by a multitude of sources, or is it an opinion that needs attribution, and are there other opinions and factors to counterbalance this one? The reason I question this early on is that the very next example given is the ports of Brittany, which some sources agree would not have/could not have been useful, and that the decision was the correct one. And the Outcome section of this article seems to also indicate that there is not broad agreement that Brittany ports could have been useful. (Particularly compared to the need to clear the approaches to Antwerp, a port closer to the action.) That is, the article seems unnecessarily negative about decisions that, best I can tell, many historians agree were the right ones.
    Answered below by Nick-D, but what he states is not coming across (to me) clearly in the article. Wordsmithing ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we have a similar opportunity to sort the which is which early on ... "ETOUSA and SOS were combined into a single headquarters, which was increasingly referred to as the Communications Zone (COMZ)". But ETOUSA and SOS were both US, while Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, and COMZ links to Communications Zone which says it included NATO ... this is not made clear on first occurrence. The combination involved more than ETOUSA and SOS, also NATO forces ? Could we establish the which country and unit and organization is which early on (at first occurrence)?
  • Similar continues here ... "To support Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, COMZ activated two subordinate headquarters, the Forward Echelon, Communications Zone (FECOMZ), under Brigadier General Harry B. Vaughan, with Colonel Frank M. Albrecht as his chief of staff, and the Advance Section (ADSEC), under the command of Colonel Ewart G. Plank." Since at this point I am understanding that COMZ is more than just US forces (unless that is incorrect), and since none of these people have articles or redlinks (which it appears they should), how do I know if we are referring to US personnel, or Brits, or what at this point? If they are all US personnel, can that be stated, but separately, if COMZ was an Allied Forces (NATO?) group, which are the non-US pesonnel involved there? It is this sort of thing that needs sorting at other places in the article, and in particular where there are no links (red or otherwise) to personnel.
  • Separately, you mentioned above that someone is removing WP:RED links. Why is that happening?

I'll stop here for now, as I could be missing something significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D
edit

Comment I tend to agree with the removal of the commentary on the broad front vs narrow thrust debate - this is a huge topic, which is largely outside the scope of this article. My understanding of the current status of this debate is that most modern historians think that Eisenhower's 'broad front' decision was basically right given that a 'narrow thrust' was unfeasible both on logistical and military grounds (e.g. the Allies had outrun their supply lines, and the Germans had recovered enough to clobber any narrow thrusts which were attempted, with the Market-Garden debacle demonstrating this). Modern historians tend to be much more sympathetic to Eisenhower than was the case with their predecessors. Criticisms of his conduct of the campaign end to be focused on losing control over Montgomery during September 1944, leading to the easily foreseeable failure of Market-Garden and the obvious mistake to not secure the approaches to the vital port of Antwerp. Re: "At critical junctures in the campaign, senior American commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities" - my understanding is that this is a very safe consensus view: the Allied plans for the liberation of Western Europe developed before Operation Overlord were based around a slow but steady advance against solid German opposition. When the Germans were outmanoeuvred and then driven into a chaotic retreat, the Allied commanders pushed their forces to the limits logistically to take advantage of this. This led to some of the fastest advances by land forces in the war, facilitated through some pretty dramatic logistical efforts such as 'grounding' entire combat divisions so their trucks could be used to support other units. The end result was that the Allies outran their supply lines, and got bogged down on the German frontier until early 1945, but this was an acceptable trade off for swiftly liberating France and Belgium at a fairly low cost in civilian and military lives. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have wonderfully summarized my understanding of the sources I have access to. But the article does not read this way at all. It has improved since the first version I read, but the flavor of what you just stated so well seems to be obscured. Factors that led to some positive outcomes read like net negatives. I can see it, but don’t know how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this could be fairly easily addressed with an extra para or two in the 'outcomes' section and some adjustments to the tone of it, as well as corresponding adjustments to the last para of the lead. At present, this material is written a bit from the perspective of logisticians, when it would be helpful to think about the views of French and Belgian civilians who needed to be be rapidly liberated and the Allied leadership who were pleased with the outcomes of the campaign but became over-confident as a result and believed that further successes could be rapidly achieved. The gap between the Allied success in running riot in August-September and the difficulties they experienced beyond that time until the Allied 'tail' caught up is probably the key issue. Hawkeye, from memory Martin van Creveld's book Supplying War might be helpful in this - it includes a description of this campaign where (again from memory) he argues that a great victory was achieved despite the Allied logisticians maintaining that it was impossible to achieve it. There's also a very succinct summary of the logistical constraints affecting the Allies in the introductory chapter of the final volume of the official history of the US Army in the ETO and what it looked like when this was overcome in chapter 15 (including the great quote "as the prospect of unqualified pursuit warfare loomed, there stood behind the awesome power of Allied armies a logistical establishment geared to demands that, had they been made during the pursuit across France the preceding summer, would have been preposterous"). Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, I am striking my oppose, not because the issues have been resolved as yet, but I see that you are on board and know how to fix them, so I leave it in your capable hands. You are better able than I to clearly state that which I believe the sources make clear, and will know how to fix this article so it better reflects those sources. I am striking so I can unwatch; in the New Year, I have decided there are better places to focus my limited reviewing time than at FAC. If there is a FAC that warrants my feedback, a post on my talk page is the way to get my attention, as I am disabling pings. I do hope that efforts to correct the kinds of problems I have found in too many FACs are heeded and addressed, both at FAC and at ACR; that this problem was apparent to a layperson is a concern. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy - Hawkeye, happy to help (including with checking van Creveld if you don't have access to a copy - I think I can remember where mine is!). Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My copy is on the shelf in Canberra. I will look it up when I return. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've found my copy if helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got mine, and have added it to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the material on the broad front vs narrow front controversy. I will create a new article on the subject in due course. I agree with your assessment that modern historians tend to be much more sympathetic to Eisenhower. This is also true of Montgomery, whose reputation has been burnished in recent years. The article is narrowly focused on logistics. The key point is that logistical failure was foreseen and to some extent accepted. When someone reads that the Allies outran their supply lines, they can turn to this article to find out what that really means, and the answers to the inevitable "Why didn't they?" questions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, Nick-D, and Peacemaker67: I popped back in to see if I am still the holdup here, and out of concern that I am, I have re-read the article to see what improvements have been made. I have one outstanding quibble, and would be prepared to support if you MilHist experts could reassure me wrt the Brittany ports. See Operation Chastity, but set aside the overstatement in that article that "the Allies had already seized Antwerp (on 4 September) with its port facilities intact" ... because the approaches to Antwerp had not actually been cleared, and that should be sorted out in that article. This article still seems critical of the decision not to take the Brittany ports, but that was a deliberate one. This article states that "the US Army's logistical difficulties in the pursuit were not a result of inadequate port resources" but that "the problem was the inability to deliver" supplies. The Allies were successful in bringing in supplies via artificial ports and over the beaches, even without the Brittany ports. So I don't understand what seems to be criticism of the deliberate decision to not divert troops and resources to attempt to take ports further away from the front, also considering that shortages at the front were partly the result of long supply lines (and other). What is my solution? Find a way to leave the Brittany question out of this article, or minimize what appears to be criticism, depending on what you experts say. ("The decision to abandon plans to develop the ports of Brittany left only the Normandy beaches and the port of Cherbourg for the maintenance of the American forces.") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Allies were successful in bringing in supplies via artificial ports and over the beaches in August and September (the period covered by the article), but this was contingent on the weather, which they knew would deteriorate as winter set in. Things became critical in October when the beach tonnages fell below that required for maintenance of the American armies. I have added an extra paragraph on beach operations.
  2. The port of Antwerp was largely intact, insofar as the quays and the 650 cranes were undamaged. However, the sluice gates had to be repaired. (And of course the Germans had to be removed from the approaches.) The article notes this. The statement you refer to is in the Operation Chastity article, not this one.
I have re-worked the first paragraph of "Outcome" to present both sides of the Brittany argument, and re-worked it to be less critical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through and fixed a typo, but it looks fine now, and SG's concerns seem to me to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This material also looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 January 2021 [14].

Star Trek Generations

edit
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992/93, the producers of one of the most successful syndicated television shows ever decided to end the series after seven seasons and make a motion picture instead. The result... was thoroughly mediocre. This is Star Trek Generations. Thanks in advance for your comments and critiques. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

edit

I'm excited to see this here! Some initial thoughts:

  • The lead seems a bit light for a film article. The sentence "Generations was conceived as a handoff from the original television series cast and their movies to The Next Generation." isn't very elegantly written and could use more context here in the lead. Do you mean the handoff of the "film franchise" (I suspect you do)? The narrative is a bit unclear since you go on to suggest that TNG was well into its production lifecycle by time this film was released. Even knowing the timeline as I do, the lead is not too cohesive.
  • I'm not entirely satisfied by the Plot summary. It's not clear from reading it what Soran's motivations are, what the nature of the Nexus is, and how Kirk and Picard ended up meeting in the Nexus. There is not enough explanation of the involvement of the Duras sisters and why they kidnapped LaForge. You call Soran the "villain" in the lead and go on to say he's obsessed with "re-entering the Nexus" but don't clearly explain how that ties in to his attempts on the refugee ships. I think his character was more complex than that and there's a lot more to say about how he uses Picard's grief to his advantage.
  • In that vein... there seems to be worthy discussion of Themes and I'd be surprised if enough wasn't written about them to formulate a good Themes section. Is there guidance within the Films wikiproject on when to include a Themes section? Suggestions would be time and mortality, family, and I'm certain I've read about the Nexus as a metaphor for substance abuse/dependency. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be interested in your thoughts on these. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Laser, thanks for the comments. I've taken a stab at clarifying and expanding the lead. I've worked on the plot a little too—I'm not really sure how much you can say about Picard and Kirk meeting in the nexus because the nexus famously doesn't really make much sense, but I clarified a bit more about Soran's motivations. I don't know how much else you want about the Duras Sisters—they're kind of irrelevant to the plot and La Forge doesn't really do anything but get tortured that isn't covered. I didn't include a themes section because the literature I've found searching GScholar, JSTOR, Gale, and the other databases I have access to are pretty thin in regards to Generations. At best, they're glancing one-off mentions about Generations as an aside to their main point, nothing I've found that singularly spends much time on the film itself or its themes specifically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll take another look today. As far as the Duras sisters, I'm thinking about how they fit the recurring plot device of how Soran uses other people to get his way. So he uses Picard's grief to his advantage, and uses the Duras sisters' desire to attack the Enterprise to get them to help him obtain the trilithium... you don't mention any of that and I feel it's a major feature of the plot. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dang, don't you remember the "time is the fire in which we burn" speech? OK, I'm letting my Malcolm McDowell fanboy status show a bit too much. Soran knew Picard has suffered a loss and was fixated on mortality.. and used that to convince Picard to let him go back to the lab. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, it's a great line, but it doesn't lead anywhere. Picard never actually says he'll get him back on the station, no one reacts like they expected him to be there when they go to the station to evacuate Geordi and Data. Critics didn't really go on about Soran as some master manipulator, I just don't really see how it's important to understanding the broad strokes of the plot, especially since we never touch on it anywhere else in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update—I was traveling last week but intend to revisit soon and update my disposition. --Laser brain (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Critical commentary on the film poster would bolster the fair use rationale per WP:NFCC#8. The other non-free image looks fine to me. Other images appear to be freely licensed. I made an edit to avoid sandwiching images. (t · c) buidhe 20:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Nearly four weeks in and very little interest. I shall add it to Urgents, but I suggest that the nominator do whatever they can to attract some reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to look in tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged a few more people. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If editors who have expressed an interest in reviewing this do so that should be sufficient to base a consensus or lack of on. However, a source review is needed. I shall add it to the list. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than eight weeks and even though it seems to have been positively received it still lacks a source review. It is top of the source review wanted list but that has not attracted anyone. Unless a source review is started very soon I am going to have to regretfully archive this. If the nominator can think of any favours they can call in, I suggest they do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Hi, Gog. Would you be willing to tell me what you're looking for, for this nom? I can get to it tomorrow if there's something in particular :) It has been going on for a while! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ImaginesTigers. I would like a source reviewer to confirm, or not, that the article meets FAC criterion 1c:

well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

and 2c:

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes

This traditionally involves checking that everything that should be cited is, that the cites and the sources are correctly and consistently formatted [see note below], and doing whatever spot checks of the match of the text against the sources offered the reviewer feels appropriate. Given that the reviewer has put 51 previous nominations through FAC it would be acceptable if you felt that the number of spot checks required was zero. If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to say so.
[Note] Eg, at a glance I can see a page range using a hyphen not an en dash, some ISBNs using hyphens and some not, and some books giving publisher locations and some not. This 'is not an exhaustive list, just a, hopefully, helpful indication of the sort of thing meant by "consistently formatted". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Gog the Mild, as the Dash Maven, I am not seeing the faulty hyphen on the page range, and the script is not picking it up. Could you point it out so we can figure out how it is foiling the script? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: Cite 9. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha ... it is foiling the script because of the URL link on the first page; makes sense, now fixed (the script is not interpreting the first page as a number because it is a URL). The same citation has the only location I can find (New York on Beyond Uhura, Nichols). David Fuchs, what is the reason for that one location? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No real reason. Removed (and stripped out the URL for the page range since there's already a URL for the book itself.) Standardized the ISBNs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit

(Not a trekkie, so please overlook anything especially stupid :)

  • This leave the impression that Valley of Fire is in California: on location in Valley of Fire State Park and Lone Pine, California;
  • MOS:ALLCAPS ... . "MOVIE REVIEW : 'Star Trek': We've Gone This Way Before : 'Generations' Relies Heavily on Audience Appreciation of the First Two TV Series". ... check throughout
  • Some authors in citations are last name first, others are first name first-- make consistent.
  • You can install this script to review duplicate links-- there are lots of them, some may be justifiable.
  • There are fourteen instances of also and also is almost always redundant ... see User:Tony1 writing exercises and doublecheck them.
  • There are several MOS:LQ issues, sample ... Coates summed up the subplot as "dreary."
  • Starting in to the lead, I am having to guess that Malcolm McDowell was not an original cast member ?
It is the seventh film in the Star Trek film series, and brings together cast members from the 1960s television show Star Trek and the 1987 spin-off show The Next Generation, with Malcolm McDowell also starring. --> would this work so I don't have to guess ...
It is the seventh film in the Star Trek film series. Malcolm McDowell joins cast members from the 1960s television show Star Trek and the 1987 spin-off show The Next Generation.
  • Not a trekkie, had to re-read this to figure out what it meant ...
Generations was conceived as a handoff from the Star Trek films featuring the original cast, to that of The Next Generation. -- > would this work?
Generations was conceived as a handoff from the original cast of the Star Trek films to the cast of The Next Generation.
  • Needs reworking, redundant ... Critical reception was mixed, with critics divided ... mixed reception and critics divided say the same thing.
  • Awkward ... In the midst of the distressed refugees beamed aboard Enterprise, one confronts a crew member about the rescue and pleads to be returned to his ship. -->
One of the distressed refugees beamed aboard Enterprise confronts a crew member about the rescue and pleads to be returned to his ship.
  • What is a holodeck ?
  • I didn't know Kirk was gone; thank goodness for Wikipedia ;)
  • Redundant: McDowell had previously worked with Stewart on stage decades earlier, ...
  • Redundant (to but): Initially, the entire principal cast of The Original Series was featured in the film's first script, but ...
  • Use a dash for a stronger punctuation break ? The script called for an entirely new location on Enterprise, stellar cartography.
  • Have you looked at the essay, WP:RECEPTION?

I think the article is quite competent and enjoyable to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Sandy (and having non-trekkies to read this stuff is vital so it's not incomprehensible!) I've gone through and addressed most of the above—the only thing I didn't really change was the "mixed" reception mention (although I tweaked the wording a bit), just because I wanted to convey the idea that aggregate critical opinion was mixed, but also on what specific elements critics tended to diverge on. Thanks for the dupe links script to add to my toolbox; I left the extra links in the cast section, just because I think it's useful to have them in context in plot as well as where they're specifically called out, but removed most of the other ones (or reworded to avoid needing to link something before it was super-relevant and cut down on excessive names to keep track of.) I did a line edit through the entire article to try and reduce unnecessary wordiness; I have read RECEPTION but the sections will forever remain my bane. I took a stab at further reducing specific mention of critics so there's less "X said" repetition, although I find it tough on a topic like this because there's so many points of disagreement between critics I can't just generalize their opinions on specific parts. More feedback with fresher eyes on areas to improve is of course welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All my quibbles addressed ... because I am not a trekkie or a movie editor, I am leaning support, pending review from editors experienced with the content area. Please ping me if I lose track (as I am wont to do)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erik

edit

Hello, I'll review by section. Please note that while this is a list of specific critiques, I recognize this article as very high-quality overall.

Lead section:

  • This may be a personal preference based on my reading of MOS:FIRST, but I think the first sentence should prioritize more noteworthy elements. In this case, the fact that it is directed by David Carson is not necessary to have in the first sentence, with the series linking and numbering, and the actors/characters, being more important. Any chance it can be placed later in the first paragraph or even in the second paragraph?
    • Moved the Carson mention into the production bit, and simplified the first paragraph to bring up the casting info quicker.
  • While I recognize that the Star Trek films have many actors, it seems remiss to not name Stewart and Shatner in the first paragraph, especially in connection with their roles. I also think mention of McDowell should be connected with the villain. (Basically, naming all the actors behind all the major characters mentioned.)
    • Mentioned Stewart and Shatner specifically.
  • "...while the final season of the television series was being made, and suffered from an extremely tight production timeline." I'm not a grammar expert, but is the comma and the conjunction properly used correctly here?
    • You can use a comma and conjunction with any clauses that could stand on their own; I've adjusted a few examples you brought up here just to make them occasionally a bit punchier.
    Same question with this sentence: " The film opened at the top of the domestic box office its first week of release, and grossed a total of $118 million worldwide."
    • Removed comma since it reads fine without the pause.
  • "Filming took place on the Paramount Studios lots, as well as on location in Valley of Fire State Park, Nevada and Lone Pine, California; the climax of the movie was revised and reshot following poor reception from test audiences." This sentence has a lot of information; perhaps separate it? And replace "movie" with "film" as the standard term?
    • Tweaked.
  • Recommend replacing "domestic" with "US" to avoid the relative nature of "domestic" and "international".
    • Done.

Cast

  • When checking for mention of Kirk/Shatner, I found it odd that he was mentioned in the fourth paragraph. Perhaps consider having an overview sentence in the "Cast" section mentioning the three main actors, then grouping the rest?
    • Shatner gets "and" billing on the poster block, and the Next Generation cast gets billed before McDowell, so I was trying (roughly) to stick to that while also grouping other cast mentions where it makes sense (including other TNG actors besides background roles with the TNG cast.) I've moved Ruck and the Enterprise-B crew roles down after the TOS actors so it lines up a little better; does that help?
      • Yes, that works.
  • "Producer Rick Berman told the press that, "Both Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley felt they made a proper goodbye in the last movie."" I think "that" should be dropped here, if it is a fully-quoted sentence.
    • Tweaked.
  • "Patrick Stewart said that he had made an effort to ensure that the original cast were involved in the film, saying 'I've been passionate...'" Seems awkward with "said" and "saying", especially with no comma after the latter. Could be smoothened out.
    • Tweaked.

Production

  • "mandated" seems like an odd word to choose when "required" seems better-suited.
    • Swapped.
  • "demise" could be replaced by "destruction", since "demise" sounds personal
    • Swapped.
  • "A revised version of the script..." This sentence is too long and detailed. I would recommend breaking it up into two. Also, not sure if it is me, but I can't tell what "the scene's joke" means here? Maybe an adjective to add to "sequence", like "tongue-in-cheek sequence" or something like that?
    • Simplified the sentence structure a little. The line is supposed to mean that Shatner basically thought the joke that the old crew couldn't figure out the new ship went too far, but since you stumbled on it I guess it's not necessarily clear. Do you have an idea about how to make that work better to your eyes? If not, we could always just cut it. It's a minor detail all things considered.
      • I would support cutting it as a minor detail.
  • Any reason there can't be a screenshot of the Starship Enterprise-B? Reading about the design makes me want to see it.
    • We have one later, in the Special Effects section, although it doesn't give a great look at the ship. There's alternate images such as this that give a better look at the ship while still showing some of the Nexus so they'd have a similar fair use rationale, but I feel like I'd still want to keep the image in Effects because it more directly relates to the image text regarding the Nexus' look and CG ships.
      • That's fine by me. One can search off-Wikipedia for images of it anyway.
  • Maybe call "Design and costumes" just "Design"? Costume design would fall under "Design" for me.
    • Adjusted.
  • "long serving" should be hyphenated.
    • Adjusted.
  • "wrapped" is kind of specialist industry lingo, maybe say "concluded" instead for laypersons.
    • Swapped.
  • "ILM CG Supervisor..." Seems like the closing quotation mark should be inside the punctuation since Schlag's quote is a fragment.
    • Adjusted punctuation.

Release

  • It may be worth changing "North America" to "US and Canada" since that's what it really means in film-industry lingo. See box office territory.
    • Adjusted.
  • "It was the highest-grossing film..." Seems like the comma and conjunction here needs to be fixed too.
    • Adjusted.
  • Regarding "Britain", seems like it should be "UK" instead, since the source mentions "UK total gross".
    • Swapped.

Critical response

  • I would suggest for CinemaScore-related content to be under "Box office" instead for a couple of reasons. I find the section heading to mean, literally, response from critics, who will watch the film whether or not they want to. Whereas with CinemaScore, the grade is based on opening-weekend audiences, and there can be an expectation-versus-reality issue with the grading. So I tend to prefer to tie the CinemaScore grade into "Box office" since it fits with the opening-weekend gross. Another opinion is to have "Critical and audience responses".
    • Moved to the previous section.
  • "overly long" should be hyphenated.
    • Adjusted.
  • There seem to be a few comma-with-conjunction issues here (with Boyar, Biodrowski, etc).
    • I've tweaked one or two, but to my eyes most of these are acceptable clauses on their own and work with the comma.
      • Works for me. I wasn't fully trusting my own grammatical expertise.
  • "winning the day" seems slangish. Maybe a more basic declaration.
    • Adjusted, see if that works better?
  • Seems like there is a mix of "wrote" and "said" used here. Not sure if these are at odds with each other, and needs to be cleared up with variations or alternatives?
    • I don't really have an issue with it in terms of reducing the same verbs without getting excessively flowery ("opined" and the like.) People use "said" for written content regularly, at least in AmEng. I defer to other sentiment if it's strong against said usage.

Please let me know your thoughts! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: thanks for the comments! I've addressed considerations inline; most I agreed with, but one or two could use your followup to see if I addressed them to your satisfaction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got your ping! I'm busy the rest of today but can follow up tomorrow. Will most likely support after reviewing your comments and answering. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GamerPro64

edit

This nomination needs more love. Will get to it soon. GamerPro64 05:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fourthords (satisfied article meets FA criteria)

edit
  • In the "Development" section, are the small caps part of the original quote, or is that a prescribed Wiki-affectation? I ask, remembering MOS:CONFORM.
    • They're part of the quote, but I changed them to italics to align with the MOS.
  • In the sentence "We were obsessed with the poster image of the two Enterprises", is the italicization of the plural 's' correct?
  • "The Enterprise-D's destruction also appeared—the saucer crash had first been proposed by Moore as the conclusion to part one of a sixth-season cliffhanger story that was scrapped." Do we know to which of the three two-parter conclusions he's referring?
    • It was called "All Good Things" at the time, but to my knowledge the episode didn't exactly make it in any recognizable form to the screen, so it's not really one of the two-parters that actually aired ("Gambit", or "Descent", et al.)
  • There is a comment in the "Filming" section that says, "add details from strange new worlds featurette from dvd". Is that still in the works?
    • Didn't clean up after myself. The mentions were ultimately trivial enough I didn't think it added much to include. Removed comment.
  • "Generations and The Next Generation were filmed simultaneously on different soundstages on Paramount Studio's lot." Should that instead be "Paramount Studios' lot"?
    • Changed to the ... lot, given that there's only the one and it's weird to make it possessive in that instance.
  • Still under "Filming": "The Enterprise-D crash scenes were filmed mid-May 1994, and were among the last remaining shots before the existing Next Generation sets were demolished to make way for Voyager." Are we referring here to Star Trek: Voyager or USS Voyager?
    • Fixed.
  • "with the cabin filled with props to represent Kirk's career, from a Klingon bat'leth to a painting of the Enterprise." Which Enterpeise?
    • It's not entirely clear from the citation. From the film itself it's clear it's the original 1701, but I put "his" in just to avoid a surprise link and bogging down the section.
  • I've already consolidated citations where obvious, but regarding the fourth paragraph under "Effects": since I don't have the source, can that whole paragraph be cited to magid-1995, 81–86?
    • It could, but I generally have preferred to keep citations separate when they're not on contiguous pages just so it's less likely that the citations will get broken later on and it's easier to verify.
  • ''[[Star Trek Generations: Beyond the Nexus|Star Trek: Generations – Beyond the Nexus]]'' Why are we piping this?
    • Dunno, removed.
  • Rounding out the third paragraph under "Critical response", why isn't the Ebert quote cited?
    • Moved to the end.

That's all I have, having gone through it line-by-line. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fourthords, responded inline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

edit
  • It is hard to believe that the poster used in the infobox was actually distributed in the movie theatres. It does not even have the film's name on it. When I type the film's name + words "DVD", "VHS" or "poster" onto Google, different results show up. Additionally, source used for the image on its file page takes it to joblo.com which has a different image.
    • As the caption says, it's the theatrical release poster art, which was used for many to most of its home video releases. I have adjusted the source.
      • Why can't this [15] be used instead? (from the same source) The one that is in the article looks like some fan art with logos/text removed. "Many to most"? I did a few dozen searches online for dvd/vhs websites for that film and they all use the poster I included; I could not find the one you used anywhere, only on star trek fandom website.
  • Looking at reference formatting, names of websites should not be in italics, such as Box Office Mojo, StartTrek.com, TrekMovie.com etc. The Buffalo News should be linked.
    • That's something you'll have to take up with {{cite web}}.
      • Well, you can use parameter "publisher=" instead using the same "citeweb".
  • In "See Also" section, "Star Trek film series" should not be there as it is already linked in the article's body, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO.
    • Removed the section entirely.
  • "Generations was followed by 1996's Star Trek: First Contact, exclusively featuring the Next Generation cast." is seen in the intro but not even mentioned in the article?? There is no a reference for it either??
    • I don't see how that needs a reference given that it's patently obvious.
      • I never seen any Star Trek films, so it is not obvious to me. Intro must summarise the article, so if it is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so it should be excluded from the intro too?
  • From the infobox, "Edited by Peter E. Berger", where is the ref for it? Again, why is not even mentioned in the body of the article??
    • Added a reference. Discussion of the editing of the film didn't come up in research, hence it's not unduly mentioned.
  • I think "the Internet" is always in caps?
    • Not per Associated Press, Chicago, and many other style guides.
  • In the intro, critical reception described as "lukewarm" (generally positive?) but the article's body describes it as "mixed". Is that really the same thing? By reading the reviews you selected I do not see many positive comments, it was mostly all negative. Not sure if it is all consistent.
    • Lukewarm means middling, neither hot nor cold. That jives with "mixed" reception to me. There are plenty of positive comments and reviews quoted in the section.
      • That is not the way "lukewarm" sounds to me at all. All the reviews appear to be either mixed or negative.
  • "Star Trek Generations earned mixed reviews from critics and fans." -> "Fans"? Where in the article does it say how fans reacted to the film in a "mixed" way? It says in the next sentence "picked for years by fans for its problems". What problems did the fans pick it apart? Which fans and how many of them? Did some fans react to it positively?
    • It mentions fans in the sentence right after the one you quoted. I'm not sure what the issue with the wording is here; it's not saying all fans, and it's not trying to identify exactly which fans any more than we ever specify exactly which critics when we talk about critical reception.
      • Right. With the first sentence you indicate fans in general had mixed feelings about the film but then you only provide one single website Tor.com to back such claim. You mention "its problems" as well which is unclear. What problems? Did the fans (same fans who were interviewed/polled by the Tor.com website?) have the same issues with the film as the critics?
  • Box office section is a bit short for me. Was the film a box office success or dissapointment? Bare numbers may not give a proper insight/understanding for the readers whether the film was financially successful or not. Did it earn more or less than the previous/subsequent Start Trek films? These two articles [16] and [17] interestingly not used in the article. They both describe the box office result as moderate. What about this article [18] which is not used either. By reading these articles, it appears that Star Trek hit its lowest point with this film and creators had to think hard on how to improve with the subsequent film. Why was this not even mentioned anywhere in the article? Why is there no "Legacy" section in this article when there is clearly a need for it? Based on that and the previous points I made, I am not convinced this article has been researched well. I am not very experienced in the FAC process, but I am not sure if this article is ready at all.
    • Star Trek already had a two-picture deal going into Generations, it didn't lose money, and there was no widespread evidence that it hit its "lowest" point (when you get to Star Trek: Nemesis you will start getting plenty of sources talking about it "killing" the franchise.) Pirrello's opinions on the film appear out of sync with the majority of sources, and why the article itself doesn't make the claim. I'm not sure where you're getting a clear "need" for a Legacy section. Most of the "legacy" regarding the film franchise is related to the film franchise itself, not Generations. There's no direct sequels to anything talked about in this film or spinoffs. It hasn't seen some great sea change in its critical appraisal years later. 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, I do not really know, I have not seen the film nor done any research about it. But the film is part of a film series, so I do not know how it would be unreasonable for a reader to expect to find some info in regards to how the film did compared to other films in the franchise, financially and/or critically. It would still be in relation to the film that this article is about. Unclear why this article [19] is not used; the screenwriters discuss the film and that they were dissapointed with it and wanted to redeem themselves. In what way does that not fit in this article?

Mymis (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied inline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mymis, did you have anything to add? cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my initial comments are still not addressed. Mymis (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the points I feel actionable; beyond that, Mymis and I simply disagree on elements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mymis it is difficult to determine here exactly what you still want addressed, as you did not strike those that have been addressed. But, for example, there is no clarity anywhere on Wikipedia as to what, where, when italics should be used in citations; even with multiple discussion and RFCs, there is nothing but inconsistency and information at odds with MOS, so this is not a reason to hold up a FAC (or, as David Fuchs said, take that up with the citation templates, which are at odds with MOS). We can't hold up a FAC when different pages are at odds with MOS. Which are your other unaddressed concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italics within refs is not a big issue. However, I raised an issue with the poster; unclear sentence about how fans reacted to the film; and lack of comments about how film did compared to other films in the franchise, per my comments above. The nominator appears to have disagreed with my suggestions but did not address my further points. I can see some tweeks were made since then, for instance, adding a sentence about the film's financial success (my initial comment about it was completely ignored). The source I found (BBC source and The Hollywood Reporter) described the film as a "dissapointment" and "modest hit". Recently added Den of Geek source used in the article described it as a success? Which one is it? Mymis (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Different reviewers are bound to have different opinions. Our role isn't to give credence to either of them, but to present them neutrally, with equal weight. Whether the rest of the article sways towards one more than the others is a different situation. It’s the first sentence of Reception: "Star Trek Generations earned mixed reviews from critics and fans." It isn't either of them. It’s mixed. That's what mixed means. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vanamonde93

edit

Thanks for bringing this here...I've written some about speculative fiction, less about film; so I don't have much to offer on the film-specific side of things besides checking for readability. Please feel free to revert/discuss any copy-editing that I do. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "one of those saved pleads to be returned to his ship"; whether this is granted is ambiguous.
    • Clarified.
  • "to avoid earlier call times." I assume this would have been for make-up, might be worth specifying; but even otherwise, perhaps a wiktionary link to call time?
    • Adjusted caption.
  • "because as a Star Trek fan he had to get used to performing alongside his idols." this isn't terribly clear to me...
    • Tried to make this clearer.
  • "The ship was a modification of the Excelsior model" The Excelsior hasn't been introduced yet; a non-Trekkie would be confused, I think.
    • The explanation for what the Excelsior is follows that introduction; I've tweaked the wording to hopefully make it clearer that it leads into the explanation.
  • "It was one of the largest sets" "It" is ambiguous here.
    • Tweaked.
  • link/explain "anamorphic"
    • Reworded.
  • "for CG modeler Rob Coleman to iterate from" "iterate" strikes me as jargon in this context; can you link/explain?
    • "Iterate" in this context means you pump out a bunch of mockups or studies to get rapid feedback versus devoting your time to one or a few options. I've tried to reword without using the term.
  • The image of the ribbon is rather small; on a standard computer screen it's hard to see as anything other the the Enterprise against a background of...something. Can you enlarge it?
  • "these figures wore the Blackman-designed Starfleet uniforms" we've already covered this above...can the redundancy be reduced in one place or the other?
    • Removed the first mention.
  • "(albeit three years after the film's release)" the placing of this parenthetical information seems odd; why not swap it with the last sentence in that paragraph, and tweak the wording, so the first example isn't the extremely belated one?
    • Adjusted.
  • "Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade B+" I know the next section is titled "critical response", but it does include mention of fans; and thematically, this sentence fits better there. Is it not typical to title that section simply "reception, and incorporate box office and audience responses?
    • I moved it per feedback above, but I moved it back (I think it makes more sense there.) Film articles generally split up box office and critical responses and accolades.
  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of critical reception feel a little jumbled; some of the content in each feels unrelated to the topic sentence. I wonder if you could attempt to reorganize a little? For the record, organizing reception sections is something I struggle with too.
    • I've tried some shuffling around to hopefully make things a bit clearer.
  • "or suffering from technobabble" should this be "and suffering..."?
  • Like Laser Brain above, I too was struck by the absence of a themes section, or at least an "Analysis", offering what sources had to say about the movie besides "X is good, Y is bad". Even if no sources analyze this in depth, there must be material comparing it to other ST films? The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, for instance, has this to say: "Kirk dies heroically again. The moral, thumped home in the ST manner, is that it is better to face real life rather than escape into worlds of happy delusion." [20] It's brief, certainly, but if an encyclopedia of enormous scope has this much detail, it seems to me other sources ought to have more...I also found this, which is again brief with respect to Generations, but does offer some analysis. A couple more brief sources; [21], [22]. Not sure if these are usable; but perhaps they will facilitate the search for more.
    • Like I said to Laser, I just don't think there's much to actually craft here. I'm not averse to themes sections in these articles, but Generations simply doesn't have the critical and scholarly response that a better film like The Wrath of Khan has, or even a worse film like Star Trek Nemesis does. If you wanted to write about the film's themes of embracing life and the nature of mortality, there's a much better film in the series that has you covered (and that section I could probably expand.) I will take another look, but if all I can gin up is one or two pseudoparagraphs out of passing mentions, I don't think it really merits inclusion.
      • I'm a little unhappy but given my own failure to find more material, I can't really argue with this...I will attempt another sweep for sources, but in the interim it would be unfair to hold this up longer. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would meld "Home Media" into "release", to avoid the short section, but that's largely a matter of preference.
    • The main reason I stick it in its own section is because then it comes temporally after the reception, which I think flows a bit more logically (theatrical release -> how it was received -> later home video releases.)

That's it from me; this is a very detailed article, particularly with respect to the production process; my comment about analysis is my only major one. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded inline, Vanamonde. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, my concerns addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

edit

Support - I made a few tiny edits. You might disagree, but that's ok. Graham Beards (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They look good, thanks Graham. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

edit

The cast section contains many overlinked items. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the alternative is to remove links for characters where they are directly connected to the actor playing them, I opted to leave a few as duplicates from the plot section rather than removing them, as a benefit to the reader per MOS:DL. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Per request. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes here. Please outline why the following are high quality reliable sources:

  • StarTrek.com
  • AsianWeek
  • Trekmovie.com
  • Brandweek
  • 25thframe.co.uk

Thanks. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • StarTrek.com is an official site, and contains a large amount (or used to) of behind-the-scenes information written by Trek experts, for example those who had worked on the shows or written books on the subject. AsianWeek is a historically reliable edited Asian-American-focused publication that was in print for roughly three decades. Trekmovie meets RS criteria for Star Trek specifically; it's cited by other reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and has been an official partner with CBS. While it started as a straight blog, it now has an editorial staff/masthead, and its editor has written articles for other publications, appeared as a guest on news networks, and participated in home video extras and supplemental commentary for the films. Brandweek is a respected advertising publication and part of Adweek, one of the largest trade publications that's been around for 40 years. I don't really have a strong defense for 25thframe; I tried asking on WP:RSN and FILM about it, and didn't get much response. I've just gone ahead and swapped it for a ref to the Guardian which covers some of the same territory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems fine, but struggling a bit with Trekmovie. From the banner at the bottom of their home page: TrekMovie.com is not endorsed, sponsored or affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. Fn 26 was written by "Staff", with no real person in the by-line. It’s supporting this, in the article: As the production crew had already spent weeks removing traces of their shoot from the Valley of Fire, the set had to be rebuilt under a very tight schedule, followed by effects work to remove wires and rigging in time for the footage to be included in the final cut. I don't really see that reflected in the source. It doesn't mention them removing traces of their shoot, or the effects work. The closest it comes is mentioning that there were two weeks of expensive reshoots, I think? I might be missing some obvious here... It’s tangentially related? Plus, it’s just a reprint from an interview with StarTrek.com (a stronger source here).
PS. What about DVD Brands? I've never heard of it before. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the Trekmovie reference to the StarTrek.com one. The ref was supported by that and the Okuda mention, so I've just left it to the text commentary. They have the disclaimer because they aren't actually owned by CBS; it's pretty common for sites that have naming similarities to trademarks to have those disclaimers. As for DVD Brands, do you mean DVD Talk? They've treated as an authoritative source by small-scale and national news orgs like Fox, The Washington Post, ABC, and Wired. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I meant, yeah. Everything's good then. Passes the source check imo. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1c and 2c

edit

I trust that David has not paraphrased too closely and has reflected the sources, but I will do a sample of 10% because the article only has 64 references. An underlined reference number represents an offline source I retrieved myself, or requested from David over Discord. Can provide them to the noms if necessary.

# Analysis Conclusion
17 Source "What I decided to do, because writers are so hard to find, was to get two scripts going simultaneously. I would co-write stories with two different writers, and then they would go to write two screenplays and the better would go first." Straightforward paraphrasing Pass.
Article intending to develop two film scripts simultaneously and prioritize whichever was most promising.
22 Source "Knoll squeezed the Spacedock down by removing its middle row of lights, giving it a more pleasing Panavision shape that fit better into the anamorphic frame [...] The team then set to work refurbishing the true star [...] the six-foot Enterprise-D model." Two pieces of information, distantly apart in the original, but neatly resolved together in the article. Pass.
Article The surrounding spacedock for Enterprise's maiden voyage was a modification of the model created for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), refurbished and modified to better fit the film's anamorphic screen frame.
30 Source "This month STARTREK.COM is proud to celebrate the anniversary of the very first Web site created to promote a major motion picture. [...] In October 1994, the Internet was used primarily to send e-mail, post to message boards, or visit news groups [...] Fewer than a million people in the United States had access to it: mostly university students, high-technology industry workers, and a few hardy "early adopters" of some fledgling on-line services." Straightforward paraphrasing of information; again, distant, but brought together and condensed. Pass.
Article The marketing of Generations included a website, the first to officially publicize a motion picture. The site was a success, being viewed millions of times worldwide in the weeks leading to the film's release, at a time when fewer than a million Americans had internet access.
30 Source "I wish I could say that the high comedy of this section of the movie [...] is sustained. But Kirk and his old comrades soon vanish from the scene and, for the next hour or so, Star Trek Generations becomes a lot like one of the better episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. ...But like the Next Generation series, this section has a tendency to bog down. At its worst, the film can be tedious in exactly the same way that a corporate meeting is." Couldn't access because of a region lock, so Eddie891 provided me with it. Straightforward, again. Pass.
Article The Orlando Sentinel's Jay Boyar agreed, but said the film minimized the television series' tendency to "bog down" by moving to the next scene before boredom could set in.
51 Source "And everybody’s opinion was, “We’ll have to wait until we do a public test viewing.” So we did. We did a test viewing and the film got tremendously good scores… until the ending happened [...] So it seemed that the test audience also agreed that our shooting Kirk in the back was really, totally anticlimactic and not the kind of thing that they wanted at all. [...] So we shot for another two weeks, which cost a huge amount of money, and it was so disruptive of the final process." As above. Condensed, paraphrased. It is, admittedly, weird that the article was retrieved in 2005 (and archived in 2009), which means there could be discrepancy there, but seems fine to me (no actual changes in article glancing back over other archived versions).


Reference isn't attached to punctuation.

Pass.
Article As originally filmed, Kirk was shot in the back and killed by Soran. Test audiences reacted negatively to the death, so the scene was rewritten and reshot over two weeks
25 Source "Although filmed, the original beginning of the film of Kirk conducting a dangerous orbital skydiving stunt as Scotty and Chekov wait for him down below on Earth) was edited out entirely (you can find it on YouTube). [...] Kirk’s costume would later be adapted [...] for the Voyager episode “Extreme Risk.” Yep. Pass.
Article Also created by Blackman was a skydiving outfit worn by Shatner; though the scene was cut from the film, the costume was used in the Voyager episode "Extreme Risk".

One referencing issue in terms of formatting (not attached to punctuation). Have reviewed the article and can't see any other instances.

Okay. So, having looked at all the sources... I'm not seeing any extant issues in either the reference list (or referencing) other than the one instance I noted in the table? Publishers and websites are denoted properly, and italicised (or not) accordingly. No articles are pay-walled without it being disclosed in the references, which is nice. I don't know the rules about ISBNs, but it feels very nitpicky for me to say that there's an issue with some being dashed and others, not dashed... unless there's a guideline I'm unaware of. It’s well-formatted, appropriately cited, and uses a consistent referencing system.

Regarding well-researched, it absolutely is. I can't find a reference that this article doesn't use. The bibliography also reveals a broader reading than would be possible for me—things that are completely out of print (and I had to scour the darkest parts of the internet to find). In every case, I found them judiciously chosen. The spot checks felt less and less necessary as I went on. I conducted a few others, but didn't include them in the table... because it's a lot of work with no benefit. In every instance, the nominator has drawn together information from different sources, or even very far apart in the same source, that it really does live-up to being an actual, encyclopaedic overview in summary style. At first I thought maybe there was a missing Legacy section, but no. Turns out the film doesn't have much of one. Kudos, anyway. Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 January 2021 [23].

Paper Mario: The Origami King

edit
Nominator(s): Le Panini Talk 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth entry of the Paper Mario series. This game was considered one of the best games of the franchise (except Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door because people can't move on) and is on track to be the best-selling game in the series. It's received significant coverage, almost all of the sources being cited using Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Search engine, a video game source that only shows content from reliable sources. The game has been checked over for copy-editing by Spicy, SandyGeorgia, and Atsme during a peer review. Additionally, Gerald Waldo Luis, czar, and PhotoDrake gave their points to take care of the WP:MOS/VG. I had PresN as a FA Mentor, and Twofingered Typist did a copyedit on December 12.

Upon entering world 3, I absolutely fell in love with this game. It has amazing visuals, writing, music, combat, and I know that "It's not TTYD" isn't a valid reason to dislike this game. I like it so much that I'm going out of my way to promote the series to good topic, because why not? That's just how much of an effect the game had on me. I'll be nominating this for TFA after a hopefully successful promotion. Le Panini [🥪] 06:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do a full review, but here are just some quick things I have noticed:

Apologies for not being able to do a full review, but I just wanted to point out some things I noticed during a quick read-through. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Feel free to leave any more. Le Panini Talk 00:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Scrooge200

edit

So, in the plot section, you introduce Bobby by saying that he doesn't have a fuse. In the next paragraph, you say that he lights his fuse and explodes. I've played this game so I know where he got the fuse from, but this should be cleared up. Additionally, it's not technically "his" fuse; it's his best friend's, after his got knocked off in the battle against Gooper Blooper. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of something else for the plot section. It's mentioned that Luigi goes to find the key to Peach's Castle, but isn't brought up again. In the game, this takes the form of a running gag, where he shows up during every streamer area looking for the key, but this seems like a forgotten plot thread in the summary. Scrooge200 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck it in there, but mentioning the repeated attempts seems to be too much detail to me, as it isn't important to the core plot. Le Panini [🥪] 18:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MilkyDefer

edit

I mainly work in Chinese Wikipedia, and I have been planning to translate this article into Chinese. This is a very rare chance that I can connect to Wikipedia without a VPN. I may be forced to use a VPN at any time, making me unable to edit Wikipedia, nor responding to any further comments. I have the IP ban exception user right in Chinese Wikipedia, so if you need further comments from me, please feel free to drop a comment on my talk page on zhwiki.

@Nihonjoe: Sorry for sending an email to you. I will make use of this chance to post the contents of my email here.

  • The reference #38 is the game's review from Famitsu. The translation of the website's title is not correct to me. Paper Mario Origami King is only a small part of the whole sentence.
    • 『ペーパーマリオ　オリガミキング』 == Paper Mario Origami King
    • レビュー == review
    • ペーパークラフトのような世界は == In a world of paper crafts
    • I cannot understand the final part: 冒険心をくすぐる遊びの玉手箱だった, and I am seeking the editor who provided the original translation for help. @Nihonjoe: Could you help me by providing the whole translation of the sentence, thanks.
  • I would also like to point out that the Chinese version of this game has caused a controversy. I think you could include it in the article's Controversy section. The traditional and simplified Chinese version of the game both removed words like "freedom" and "human rights" from the game. After the Hong Kong protests last year, many people believe that Nintendo is kneeling in front of Chinese government. The following sources (in Chinese, mainly Hong Kong and Taiwan) are usually considered reliable by Chinese community: [24] [25] [26]. I am afraid that I cannot find reliable opinions from mainland China, this topic itself may have been censored in China.
    @MilkyDefer: I added a section about the issue. Do you have any additional sources that talk about the reception of this issue? I couldn't find much. I (hopefully) left a message on the Wikiproject Video games on the zhWiki. Le Panini Talk 13:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihonjoe: Additionally, I'm gonna need help with new translated titles and was wondering if you could translate traditional Chinese. I used google translate for now, but I have a slight feeling that " Paper piece Mary Lee Europe " isn't right. Le Panini Talk 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your slight feeling is correct. Paper Mario's traditional Chinese version removed "freedom" and "human rights", making its meaning different from Japanese and English version, that's the correct translation. BTW, I responded to your comment on zhwiki. I think I got a broader view on this controversy. MilkyDefer (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: Yep, I saw. I added "Controversy" as a sub-section in "Reception". How does it look? Le Panini Talk 15:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Panini: Looks fine to me. I suggest expanding the "original poster has received some criticism" part a little bit. Also to mention that both "strange Nobbio" and "Chinobio" refer to Toads (which means that machine translation is wrong), and there is a suspected typo: "as\nd". MilkyDefer (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: Done. I was just gonna do this, but then you did. Le Panini Talk 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: While you're active, do you have any more comments? Le Panini Talk 02:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a great work. Good luck with this FAC! MilkyDefer (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just came to me that I might need to check the references. I have fixed one broken URL and one broken archive. Please double-check all references, as IA-bot can sometimes make mistakes. MilkyDefer (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: Wait a minute, while I was doing my translation job, I spotted that the table of the list of awards got its header wrong. Under the "award" column is the year. MilkyDefer (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: Looks like reference #27 and #29 are the same. You may consider a merge. MilkyDefer (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MilkyDefer: Done. That should take care of it. It also seems that Nihonjoe has been inactive for about three days, and it might take a bit to hear a response from them. While you wait, I'm open to addressing any more concerns (although your suggestions seem to be required technical changes). Le Panini Talk 12:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. I just changed two reference URLs. One of them is an archive URL, you may submit a bug report to the one behind IA-bot because it seems to misinterpret the # symbol in the URL. That's all from my technical view. I will hold my support until the results of The Game Awards come out. A quick notice is that the reference you used for the Golden Joystick Award only supports that the game received a nomination. There is no reference supporting that the game did not win it. MilkyDefer (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: What about you Nihonjoe? Would you mind giving suggestions while you're here? Le Panini Talk 03:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I have time. Beyond the reference above, I haven't ever read this article. I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: No worries, just ping me if you start a review. Le Panini [🥪] 19:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The translated article in Chinese Wikipedia is currently under good article nomination. Someone commented that the "Reception" section was over-cited. Some sentences were supported by four or even six references, and a large number of review scores were not used in the content of the article. I'm currently doing a cleanup in response to this, and maybe it is a good idea for you to do the same thing. MilkyDefer (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The voting has ended and the article is promoted in Chinese Wikipedia. Thank you for your outstanding work! Here are some suggestions from the community (when saying "article" I an mainly referring to the translated article in zhwiki):

  • Per Template:Video game reviews/doc, only include reviews if they are cited within the text. A large number of less-known and not-used reviews were present in the review box, such as VG247 and Jeuxvideo.com. As a result, they have been wiped out from the article.
    Done. But kept some sources and included them in reception.
  • It makes no sense to cite Edge to claim that "Edge gave the game an 8/10, tying with Othercide for the highest-rated title of the week in August 2020." 8/10 is not impressive, Othercide is not well-known, and it is only the highest-rated (not sold, nor some serious game of the week) in a certain week. This sentence immediately follows the Metacritic score sentence, and no one can explain properly why include this Edge sentence. As a result, this sentence, as well as the review score from Edge, has been removed from the article (and VG reviews). I replaced that sentence with a synthesis of all topic sentences of the following paragraphs.
    Done.
  • Could you find some reviews that claim "the story seems pale compared to the dialogs"? A reviewer from a Chinese video game magazine claimed that, and made its way to the article. Maybe some English reviewer has the same idea and you might include that as well. If you could not find any, that is fine to me, too.
    I've read all these sources carefully, and I've seen no mention of the storyline.
  • The Famitsu source to reference its 36/40 score is incorrect. The correct link is this. (Title translation: Paper Mario Origami King's reviews, comments and thoughts. May seek assist from Nihonjoe)
    Done.
  • A picture of Rubik's cube (namely, File:Rubik's cube.svg) has been added into the article.
    We decided against this (by "we", I mean me and ThomasO1989), as it can be explained in text alone.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Awards, noteworthy awards and nominations that contribute to the overall reception should be documented in prose in this section. I have added a quick summary of the nominations right before that table.
    Done.

That's all from Chinese community. Wish you best luck. MilkyDefer (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition from TZubiri

edit
  • Oppose On three bases, First that the subject is not appropriate for front page featuring. Second that the subjects youth and commercial nature would convert the feature into a commercial advertisement, which is a bad precedent. Thirdly, all of the references are web citations, this is not a good standard for an encyclopedic article, in this case it's due to the youth of the subject and its digital nature, but not a good precedent in any case.--TZubiri (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I haven't seen a luddite "non-'serious' subjects not written about in paper books should not be assessed for quality because I can't tell the difference between FAC and the main page" review in years. Please take some time to review the standards of the community you are participating in, both in regards to reviewing and what the FA standards are. This would, if promoted, be the 194th (extant) article on a specific video game to be an FA, and so not a precedent in any measure beyond how little time you spent looking into it. --PresN 05:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I haven't seen the other 194 articles, but I bet not all of them suffer from the exact problems I mentioned, pay close attention to the comment about young age of the subject and commercial interests, notice how all of the sources are close to commercial interests and could constitute as an advertisement themselves. If some of the 194 articles suffer from this problem, I would have opposed them as well, but that's irrelevant now.
I'm not seeing a big difference between an FA and a TFA, as far as I can gather, being FA is a requirement for being TFA and the TFA process is much less stringent. So one could say that the possibility of being featured on the main page is the most important consequence of granting FA status to an article. (P.S: The nominator also explicitly mentioned they plan to nominate for TFA) --TZubiri (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm afraid these aren't actionable objections. Pls read the FA criteria re. sourcing -- the standard is quality, not book vs. web per se. If the subject passes notability guidelines then we can probably be said to have safely moved past the advertising concern. Lastly the type of articles that appear on the front page will tend to reflect their proportion among the pool of FAs -- not what's considered appropriate or inappropriate in anyone's opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: I did glance at the criteria, they are nothing new to any wikipedia editor. Regarding sourcing quality, there is individual source quality and overall quality, an article may be based on several high quality sources, but if they are all of the same nature, web reviews made at release by the videogame journalism industry, then the overall quality of the reference corpus is low, not least because it's weak to biases. It is possible that there are no other sources on the subject to date, and you would be right in saying that this is not actionable, unless you consider waiting to be an action. Give the subject some time to breath, to develop more organic references.
I disagree with the comment regarding the absent relationship between FA and the main page, as I said, the most important consequence of a FA is that it has the possibility of being showcased on the front page, whether you consider the consequences of featuring an article or not, they exist.--TZubiri (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that we have to wait for this game to be sacred texts or something? The FA criteria is very specific of what ways an article can fail. "The article is only six months old" does not take effect. Also, all of these sources are confirmed reliable according to WP:VG/RS. Le Panini [🥪] 18:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the user did the Comments Opposition thing as if there was originally gonna be comments, but there never was. Do you have any suggestions? Le Panini [🥪] 10:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wait a couple of years for other sources to comment on the subject and for commercial interests to die down.--TZubiri (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TZubiri: I don't think that's necessary. Frankly, any mainstream interest of this game has calmed down drastically (as seen on the daily pageviews) and commercial interests hasn't been so "up in your face" as it used to. Everyone has moved on to the whole #freemelee something-or-other. The game has long received significant coverage, all of which confirmed by reliable video game sources. Le Panini [🥪] 17:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can safely ignore this oppose (unactionable). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SatDis

edit

I will leave some comments below;

  • In the last sentence of Gameplay's first paragraph, could you split into two sentences like this; Throughout the game, the player sets out to follow each of the streamers, which occupy wide spaces for exploration. These areas contain puzzles the player will need to complete to proceed.
  • Could you change Nintendo Switch Paper Mario to a Nintendo Switch instalment/version of Paper Mario?
  • Link YouTube.
  • Fix the order of refs [28][27] in Characters section.
  • This quote "[W]e chose the characters that would be the best fit for the events in each stage of the game". sits as its own sentence without any introduction. Was it meant to be included in the prose?
  • The paragraph that begins with Responding to criticism... and leads into the quote, doesn't have a citation until into the next paragraph (visually). I would expect a citation at least right next to the direct quote.
  • Fix order again in Reception [51][52][53][42] and [37][12][43] and [36][12][46]... just check this section!
  • I would change the title of the "Awards" section to "Awards and nominations".
  • Ref #53 and #54 are not archived - was that a problem with the Kotaku site?
  • Apparently so, but I could archive one of them.

Well done with the article, I hope these comments help. SatDis (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: I've addressed all your concerns, but did some rewording for better flow of transition. Le Panini [🥪] 03:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ImaginesTigers

edit

Hi there, Le Panini! I'm about to read over the article and give my overall impressions. Following your response (and if you decide to implement my edits), I'll apply the FA criteria and we'll see where we end up. Overall, my initial impressions are pretty good.

  1. The first sentence in paragraph three of the lead just reads very strangely to me: The Origami King's development emphasized innovation to a greater extent than previous games in the series. Development cannot really emphasise anything, right? So it'd be the team emphasising innovation during development, or something to that effect.
I shoved a little "team" in there.
  1. Does "Scenario" really need to be its own sub-heading? It’s only a paragraph, and it doesn't seem all that significant of a piece to be packaged so discretely. Especially because it begins by talking about design, and so seems suited to just be slotted into the next section as a self-contained paragraph.
I guess you're right, so I combined the sections.
  1. The game's Reception is wonderfully done. I'm really impressed. I do think that your paraphrasing is so excellent elsewhere in the article that there's no need so many large quotations elsewhere in the article, though. Especially the large block quote at the end of the Paper Mario: The Origami King#Design, about it having a puzzle solving element. I definitely think you have your own style as an editor; but that quotation just doesn't need to be there to that extent.
It's more or less not my style of writing; when I set this up for peer review, everyone was all like "too many quotes" (because it was bad before [28]), but a copyediting brought some of these quotations back. There was a reason (to help it read better), so I left it as is.
  1. I see that "role-playing" has been typed out in full several times before it is given its "(RPG)". I also understand why; it doesn't make sense to do it in the prior instances. At that point, though, may it just be better to remove it and stick with the fully written form? For consistency's sake.
That's an error; I've made some changes.
Sourcing is excellent. Not a single besmirch-able source. Kudos, really.
Right back at ya. Le Panini [🥪] 04:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all pretty minor things. You've done a really great job with this article. There are some things I'm not a fan of — lots of quotations instead of paraphrasing — but ultimately that's my own style. You did a really great job. I don't really need to list the criteria to know (though I will, for posterity). I'll come back tomorrow to apply it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: Okie dokie! I've also responded to your initial comments, and I assume the quotations are Twofingered Typist's writing style (who did the copyedit), which brought along some additional quoting. I might not respond to you swiftly, being Christmas Eve and all. Le Panini [🥪] 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looking forward to reading your next nom (feel free to hit me up for proof-reading)! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GamerPro64

edit

Going to stake a claim to review this nomination. Will go over this soon enough. GamerPro64 05:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going to be honest. I came into this article with low expectations. But this is honestly a much more detailed article than I expected. My only gripe I have is noticing that some sources in the Reception section are not in numerical order and should be rearranged correctly. But once that gets done, I would be comfortable supporting this. GamerPro64 03:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GamerPro64: Done. It seems that IGN was moved up to ref 12, and made the organization all wonky. Le Panini [🥪] 04:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: Sorry, I like to add the Comments thing to show that you previously had comments. Change it back if you'd like. Le Panini [🥪] 22:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi Le Panini, I can see some commentary on images and sources (including coverage) but didn't notice a formal image review for licensing or source review for reliability and formatting. This being, as I understand it, your first FAC I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. I'll add requests for these to the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a message to Buidhe but never got a response back. I'll be here to deal with any changes. Le Panini [🥪] 07:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Hi, Ian. I'd be happy to carry out a review of sources tomorrow given that this one seems to have stalled. I'd already looked through a handful of the sources, but I didn't realise I should have logged them. I'm quite familiar with WP:VG/RS because I've done a lot of editing in that area. I can do it tomorrow if you think that's okay, logging them as I go and looking for close paraphrasing. The article has 83 references—if you are okay with letting me do so, what is a reasonable amount for a spot check (percentage-wise)? It'd be good to know what is standard for my future reviews. Hope you're well! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImaginesTigers, thanks for offering to do that, and I realise now I didn't put these requests at the top of WT:FAC as I said I would... :-P There's no hard and fast rule for how much to spotcheck but I'd trying aiming for at least 10 percent to start with, and if there are a few problems coming up then perhaps another 10 percent to get a good feel for how things are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Hi! I was just checking in on this one, and I see that it’s still awaiting a source review (I labelled mine that, but I realise now it was a spot check I did). It might be worth shoving it into the requests on WT:FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

edit

Sorry, Le Panini, I wasn't able to do a review back then, due to some burden on other stuff. Will help with this candidacy.

Lead
  • "...video game for the Nintendo Switch console." I would restructure this to "...video game released exclusively on the Nintendo Switch console".
    Done.
  • "The Origami King features cross-genre gameplay, blending elements of action-adventure, role-playing (RPG), and puzzle games." Supported by ref 1. It has been cited about in the body, so it's encouraged to have as little references in leads as possible.
    Done.
  • "...used enemies uninvolved with the Mario franchise"-- I would suggest changing "with" with "in".
    I believe with is the better use here. It's implying that new characters created for the game cannot leave a mark on the Mario franchise, like in timelines n' stuff.
  • "Anticipating an inability to satisfy every fan"-- "every fan" makes it seem delusional. Perhaps have it "...to satisfy fans".
    It's because everybody wants different things, and the developers couldn't cover all of the grounds. The "every" part is in there to show that different people want different things.
  • "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed, being praised for its innovation and criticized for its difficulty and lack of purpose." There's a double and here, so suggest changing to "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed: being praised for its innovation, and criticized for its difficulty and lack of purpose." I would also refurbish "lack of purpose" to "vagueness", but that's just me.
    I don't see how this would fix the problem, as two and's are still present. I went with "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed; being praised for its innovation, there was also criticism for its difficulty and lack of purpose."
  • "The game had sold three million copies by September 2020"-- I would have this fragment followed with how many months/weeks/days passed by from Sep 2020 since its release, so it'll be "The game had sold three million copies by September 2020, two months after its release". Gerald WL 13:53, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
    Done.
Plot
  • Linking festival seems to be too much of embeds.
    Done.
  • "...into origami enemies called Folded Soldiers." Perhaps "into origami enemies called the Folded Soldiers"?
    Done.
  • "...five multicolored streamers"-- which of the streamers is it referred to? I don't have the game, and am not generally a fan of the Mario franchise, so just asking here.
    Like, those streamers you'd find at birthday parties. Are those going to get an article? I can't really do anything about this, but its been addressed before.
  • Olly is your typical antagonist, eh? Gerald WL 16:13, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
    Yep, but Olivia isn't your typical Navi.
Development
  • Vague ref 14 following "Intelligent Systems,".
    Oops, Done.
  • "The YouTube announcement"-- Link YouTube?
  • Entire third paragraph relies on ref 27 and 28. So, perhaps move ref 27 to below and remove the initial ref 28 to save space?
  • I can't stand that image of Princess Peach. It's fucking cute.
    I removed it.
    No, no, no, that's not what I mean—
  • "...review by Nintendo's intellectual property (IP) team"-- Suggest linking intellectual property. Also, is the term IP used later in the article? If no, it seemed vague.
    Done.
  • "The announcement of Mario having companions throughout the game caught many reviewers by surprise, as it was a feature that had remained absent from the games since Paper Mario: Sticker Star. However, critics were still disappointed that the allies did not seem to have much functionality, and were hoping for partners that would help solve puzzles progress in skill alongside Mario." Suggest removing the initial ref 31, again, to save space. I'll continually refer to this suggestion below as "initial-save-space".
    Done.
  • "...backside of Hole Punch"-- links to the typical hole punch, but with the capitalization, I think it's a character in the video game instead. Mind addressing?
    Done. Did some clarification.
  • "Bowser Jr. "was an exception"; The team"-- decapitalize "The".
    Done.
  • Initial-save-space on last paragraph.
    Done.
  • Initial-save-space on Design para 2 and 3.
    Done.
  • "...as opposed to the "chapter"-based style"-- The term chapter is not uncommon in video games, so I don't see why the quote-endquoting.
    I just changes it to linear.
  • I don't think it needs a block quote; it's not that long anyways. Gerald WL 16:13, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
    It's the biggest quote that doesn't paraphrase, however.
Reception
  • "According to Hong Kong's unwire.hk people"-- Needs clarification on unwire.hk to not make it seem like a typo.
    Done. Added some clarification.
  • "on the GfK chart of digital sales." What is GfK?
    No idea. I removed it, as it didn't serve much to the text anyways.

Hope my comments help. Gerald WL 16:14, January 2, 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns. Le Panini [🥪] 19:22, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis Nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Nudge? Le Panini [🥪] 18:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nudge. GeraldWL 00:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Spot check

edit

Not sure how to format this, but I've learned via the Project's Talk that formatting is a bad thing, so this is going to look completely hideous... I'll try to just use bold to separate.

Ref 2: Although the source is in German, it mentions the paper and cardboard theming repeatedly, and uses the German word for "linear". Neither are a close paraphrase of what the article expresses. Pass.

Ref 8: This citation supports an especially long part of the gameplay, but the wording and expression is sufficiently transformed. Basic words that can't be easily substituted are retained ("limited"), but there's some creative use of language by Panini in other places ("transitions to a battle screen"). Pass.

Ref 9: This one took a minute to realise because it was so creatively transformed. The nominated article says that items can be used to restore HP points; the review says that it will take more consumable items to finish a mission if you take damage. It says "obtainable hearts" earlier in the article, but it’s clear they're consumable items. Pass.

Ref 14 and 15: Two citations, supporting one sentence, properly attached to the respective statements. 14 supports that IS developed the previous games in the series and this instalment; 15 supports both that they developed the game. Counting this as 1 reference. Pass.

Ref 18: The Eurogamer article says that Nintendo "was hoping to lift the lid on its Mario plans at E3 [with the] release timed to celebrated the 35th anniversary of Super Mario Bros. in September". As someone who follows gaming news, I know that E3 was cancelled because of the pandemic (prior to the Eurogamer article's publication). The nominated article says "but had to change plans after the convention as cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic", but Eurogamer doesn't say that. Eurogamer omits it, I expect, because it’s well-known (but is an error on their part imo; they should have mentioned it). This is a philosophical question more than anything. This could be resolved by adding another source says that E3 was cancelled because of the pandemic (and wouldn't be synthesis IMO—it’s just relating two separate facts, and there's no analysis). I think this is a pass, and will count it as one. Ian, as an experienced reviewer I'd appreciate input here!

I've added a source that E3 was cancelled anyways.

Ref 28: Straightforward corroboration; no issues. Pass.

Ref 31, 32, and 33: I don't think this one is straightforward. The nominated article says that critics were surprised by the addition of companions, but I don't see any of them indicating surprise. The three citations are all attached at the end, but all three aren't in total agreement (though they do all agree that they are underused; it’s the prior sentence that's the issue). I think that 'critics' is too vague language here; I recommend breaking this sentence up and properly attributing the critics. "[...] caught many critics by surprise" =/ "to the devastation of many fans". Not passed.

I've removed the beginning sentence, and replaced it with something that makes more sense. The sentence I removed was true (As I also did research on YouTube), but couldn't find any publications talking about the matter.

Ref 2, 42, 49: Paraphrasing is good. Pass.

Because of the problems with Refs 31, 32, 33, I looked back at other grouped references which spanned two or more sentences.

Ref 29 and 36: I wasn't sure if this was synthesis, so I checked with a long-term WP:VG editor and admin, and they have said it isn't. It is just providing an example, and the guide is by a paid staff member of a reputable publication. That said, the sentence is a bit long and clumsy, so I do recommend splitting it up. Pass.

On an unrelated note to sources, while reading I noticed a part in Development about glitches in the game. That feels more related to release than development. I understand why it’s there... but the location—sandwiched between a non-chronological account of development—does seem strange.

Conclusion: A couple of issues. Fifteen total references were checked. The article's strongest point is a creative use of language, preserving ideas and rendering them recognisable (and findable by readers) while sustaining the ideas. Sourcing is judicious and well-researched. One instance of a two long sentences being tethered to three citations, feels a bit muddled. Need Ian's input about the E3 thing. Once these are addressed (in whatever form that takes), you can consider this a passed spot check from me. Happy to do any follow-ups as needed but I anticipate no issues given how straightforward most of it is.

Now, more and more info about the game's release came out as time went on, but I couldn't find a proper spot for it. I could add a sub-header, but I'll need your opinion on it. This is what it would look like. (and don't worry, I was concerned about the FAC nom page, you can view it here. Le Panini [🥪] 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like that! Release is usually a separate section (as you know), but I understand why you're hesitant to do that. It would just look a bit unprofessional. There's no specific WP:VG rules that says it has to be a subheading, and being flexible based on what the article include is really sensible (imo). The section sets its own scope well, and although it’s structurally different from previous VG FAs, it makes more intuitive to me than what was there before. I've seen the below comment (edit conflict, I'm tacking this onto what I had written), and I disagree re: plot (it’s a lot of work with no meaningful benefit to the reader for this sort of game... I can see an argument for games like Chrono Trigger, but Paper Mario: The Origami King is not Chrono Trigger.) I think what they said in bullet point 2 is what we've just discussed you changed. Unless Ian wants more (happy to do it!), I'm happy to support again. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gog. It was just a spot check, unfortunately. I'm still learning how to identify "high quality" reliable sources, so I didn't feel qualified to do that (I didn't even know the difference at the time). Someone else will have to do that one—I left a message about it under the coordinator note, and asking Ian to add it to the template on WT:FAC (he said he would at the end of last month, but these things slip through, especially when your reviewers are new and don't know what they're talking about quite yet). I was literally about to leave a message on Ealdgyth's page to see if she'd be up for it, since it’s been here for so long, but Panini beat me to it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Le Panini [🥪] 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, no worries, it has been on the source review needed list for a while and I guessed that you had only done a spot check, but it seemed worth checking before I poked the usual suspects. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Is a source review one of the only things holding this back from being promoted? Le Panini [🥪] 15:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking broadly, and skipping some caveats, yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Is there something specific you mean by "some caveats"? I'm open for fixing if any. Le Panini [🥪] 01:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Let's get a source review and see where we are. I anticipate that a clean source review will allow a promotion, but I am nor guaranteeing that in advance. If you have any favours you can call in for that, I suggest that you do so, I am conscious of how long this has been open. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sent a message to WT:VG. Le Panini [🥪] 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro

edit

Man, the critical reception of this game sure is a little different from the mixed consumer reception I've seen, if a like/dislike ratio on a Nintendo Youtube video is any indication. But I did see it on Wikipedia's DYK recently, so what the heck, let's talk about it...

  • Just a suggestion if you're a perfectionist: cite the plot section with video game quotes (see also Chrono Trigger)
I've decided against doing this, as there isn't much that needs explaining. It's a Mario game, after all. (EDIT: I did anyways.)
  • The second paragraph in the development section does not belong in a development section; it belongs in a separate "release and promotion" section because it discusses how the game was revealed to the public and what happened shortly after release. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "The Origami King launched at number two in the United Kingdom, behind Ghost of Tsushima in terms of digital sales.[67] It was the second best-selling game during its first week on sale in Japan, with 109,092 copies sold.[68]" To make this sentence a little more concise, do something like this: "The Origami King launched at number two in weekly sales in the United Kingdom and Japan, selling 109,092 copies in the latter nation."
Done. Although, I kept the Ghost of Tsushima part in.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I've addressed your concerns. Le Panini [🥪] 22:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Was doing a lot of work on Conker's Bad Fur Day, so I decided to look around on what else to do as a break. I've more of the article to look at, so I can't make a definite support/oppose comment just yet. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and other comments by David Fuchs

edit
  • Images:
    • File:Paper Mario The Origami King.jpg—bog-standard "for identification" rationale, appropriate resolution, fine.
    • I'm not really sold on the fair use rationales for the remaining non-free media. They're all just the boilerplate, which doesn't really fly, and I think the intrinsic benefit of File:Confetti! Yahoo!.jpg and File:Origami Princess Peach.jpeg is pretty low. They don't have much critical commentary in the reception section, it's tough to see what's going on in the former, and the latter only supports a small paragraph that's not a huge part of the developments section. I think if the fair use rationale is buffed up File:Ring Style Combat.jpg has a much stronger case, as two paragraphs are devoted to it in the gameplay section and it's the focus of a paragraph in the reception section as well, in addition to the developer comments about gameplay.
      Although I removed the origami Peach image (so sad), I disagree with removing File:Confetti! Yahoo!.jpg. It's simply an image of core gameplay; all game articles have an image like this one, with a picture of what core gameplay looks like. This one is standard practice, and the combat has its major purpose of being there as well, which is why two images are present. Originally, there was a second image covering boss battles, but was removed after this comment from TarksusAB: "The boss battle image is not necessary because it's just a variation of the standard boss battle. Rather, use an image of Mario walking around the environment normally. That's oddly missing."
      • With respect to Tarkus, we don't get to include non free images just because they feel essential, and "standard practice" doesn't mean they meet NFCC. Right now the fair use rationale is basically akin to the argument for using the cover art, which implies that one isn't necessary because they're both being justified by "it helps readers know they found the article" and the cover art has a much better claim to that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
    • File:Kensuke Tanabe GDC 2011.jpg is appropriately described and licensed, but it's kind of a terrible picture. I think cropping a two-shot of Tanabe and whoever he's talking with from [29] would be a nicer image; he's still in profile, but at least his mouth isn't hanging open and his skin isn't being blasted by flash.
      Done. Although I used a different image found on the Commons.
  • Other comments:
    • I'm hesitant about the use of block quotes in general, but the one highlighting the Tech Radar review should absolutely go. It's being used for decorative reasons, not because Matthew Forde's opinion is singular or his prose is so affecting it must be included.
      Done.
    • The final paragraph of the reception section (about the localization bit) doesn't seem like it belongs in reception at all versus release. There's no major critical commentary on it.
      Done. I've moved the section to Promotion and Release
    • "By September 2020, the game has sold almost 3 million copies"—is there a reason we're using present tense instead of past tense for a historical fact?
      Done. Probably just a typo.
    • "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed; being praised for its innovation, there was also criticism for its difficulty and lack of purpose." — the use of being strikes me as odd in this construction, versus something like "while praised for its innovation" which ties more directly into the second half of the clause.
      Done.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I've addressed your concerns. Le Panini [🥪] 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • "there was also criticism for its difficulty" - don't see this in the text
  • Done.
  • Some of the details in the infobox are unsourced
The applicable guidance is WP:INFOBOXREF: first if it makes sense to do so include and cite the material in the article text, and then as a second choice cite it directly in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I could source some of the stuff, but for other things, I can't. For example, simply searching Tadao Nakayama comes up with no reliable results. How could I source these people? Is there a way I could source the credits? Is that even a good idea? Panini 🥪 03:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite credits as a primary source in some limited cases, but take a look at that policy first to make sure that every case in which you would want to do so is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Should I cite a YouTube video of the in-game credits? Apart from this, I can't find much else about it except some other fan wikis. Panini 🥪 03:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely - unless the upload is from or authorized by the copyright holder, a YouTube video is likely to fall afoul of WP:LINKVIO. You can just cite the game itself for what is listed in the in-game credits, bearing in mind the caution above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kensuke Tanabe, developer and producer of the franchise since Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door." - source?
  • Done.
  • FN2 is incomplete
  • Done.
  • FN3 should include the original title and language
  • Done.
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher for web sources, and check publisher vs work (eg CNET is listed as both)
  • Done.
  • FN4 is missing date. Ditto FN5, check for others
  • Done!
  • FN12 is missing author. Ditto FN13, check for others
  • Done.
  • What makes VG247 a high-quality reliable source? Shacknews? Destructoid? Unwire? Easy Allies? Nintendo World Report? Siliconera? iMore? RPGamer?
  • If I'm correct, all of these should be replaced now.
  • Don't nest quote marks within quote marks
  • Done.
  • Citations to non-English sources should include indication of language
  • It looks like this is done, with only one source in German needing translation.
  • FN68: other web sources have accessdate, why not here?
  • USgamer or US Gamer?
  • Done.
  • According to the company page, it's USgamer. I've made the changes.
  • FN74 is incomplete
  • FN68 is a dead link, check for others
  • Looks like just two, both fixed.

Quite a few references missing available bibliographic detail here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Hello, and thanks for the review. I'm gonna work to replace the references (like Shacknews and VG247), but what about the reviews in reception? Those are critic opinions, so should those be left in? Panini 🥪 12:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you include a review by anyone as a critic opinion? If no, what's your rationale for why these specific reviews warrant inclusion, if they're not reliable either because of the publication source or because they qualify under WP:RSSELF? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've removed their uses in the Reception. Now, though, what about the instances in other sections, such as development? Sources here, such as references 29, are here to support the primary source interviews with secondary, reliable (WP:VG/RS) sources. Would it make sense to keep these in? Panini 🥪 00:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe they're reliable, can you explain why? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Here's my research. Keep in mind I'm new to FAC; I'm not that keen with high quality sources just yet. I would like to say, these sources I found from what WP:VG considers reliable; do you have some discrepancies with these sources in general yourself?
  • Siliconera: The first two sources are written by Jenni Lada, the editor in chief of the website. She's written for mutiple other publications, according to her about page. The site is owned by Enthusiast Gaming, owner of several reliable sources (well, according to WP:VG/RS). The other source I'll work on replacing.
  • After one more, thorough search, none! I'm working on removing them.
  • Imore: I've removed this source entirely, with one source supported by Tech Radar and Eurogamer.
  • VG247: The first two cases I easily removed, as it was supported by other reliable refs. The third occurrence is about the top selling games on Amazon; would it make sense to replace this with the actual list?
  • I can't link it here, as it is on the Wikipedia blacklist. Instead, go to reference 72 and follow the links to it instead. The VG247 removes the other gaming-related purchases, like headphones.
  • Looking at the original source, I'm actually not convinced it warrants inclusion. The way it's framed in the article sounds like it's much higher on the list than it actually is - really it's #47 on the actual Amazon list, and #unknown-but-past-10 on the condensed list. (Could you check that there's no other examples of this kind of boosting in the article?) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shacknews: One reference, about leaking the game prior to announcement. Removing this would be ignoring facts.
  • True, and funny enough, no. I replaced this with other leaked content.
  • Destructoid: Removed most cases, but this source has been considered reliable by the community; OpenCritic rated it one of the most reliable video game publications. Also owned by Enthusiast Gaming.
  • Here [30]. Easy Allies is ranked number one, but what's done is done. WP:VG is careful to make sure blog posts aren't cited, and in this case, Chris Carter is a staff writer. He only "sprinkles in his thoughts" at the end; everything else is info, which is cited in the text.
  • The blogpost (which is what that is) also includes a yikes statement of: Others on OpenCritic’s most trusted list like PC Gamer still rank high despite them coming out against movements like #GamerGate, claiming that they chose to ignore the corruption in media, despite the fact that one of their own executive editors was dating a Ubisoft employee while promoting their games. Similarly, the list is WP:USERG, not written by OpenCritic. You can find the archived version here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unwire: Considered reliable by the Chinese Wiki (see above), according to MilyDefer.
  • I sent him message. I'll ping you again once I get a response.
  • I'm here. I admit that I used the unwire source just because it is on the first page of Google result. There is no discussion on unwire 's reliability in zhwiki. There is a similar article from zhwiki-community-reconized reliable source Standnews, covering the same contents from unwire and something more. I wrote them on my talk page in response to Panini, and here is the link: zh:User talk:MilkyDefer#Yep, I'm back. Milky·Defer 04:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said "reliable" back then, I meant that 4Gamer and Yahoo are reliable. I thought that since unwire is widely used on zhwiki, that should be reliable. But looks like I'm a little bit too optimistic... Milky·Defer 04:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I just found out that Stand News has its own article, in which it said that "Stand News was ranked highest in credibility among online news media in Hong Kong in two public opinion surveys conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2016 and 2019". I think there is no doubt that this IS a reliable source, and I would do that replacement if I were you. Milky·Defer 16:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Panini!: It's a pure coincidence that I checked my email before going to bed after reading a visual novel overnight. I have changed the article. I noticed that the date format is not consistent because I just carried over the habits from zhwiki. You may archive the new source, and make some wording changes if necessary. Milky·Defer 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being perceived as credible, and being reliable, are unfortunately not always the same thing! Any information on the editorial policy of the site, or the background of that particular author? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stand News is founded by Tony Tsoi, former co-founder of House News. Its editors (and board members) can be found at [32] (Traditional Chinese). On the same page it also documents its policies. That particular article has "立場報道" on it, which means that this article is a news report and is written by the editor team. You may refer to our discussions over its reliability at here (discussed in 2019). Milky·Defer 04:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Sure. Its board members include an ex-lawmaker, a writer, an former red cross secretary, a professor and ex-editor-in-chief of another newspaper. They are non-profit, and accept donations without conditions from general public. They gather materials on an independent basis, and they are not getting affected by sponsors or political powers. Any earnings are solely used in publishing and news reporting, and their stakes and assets are managed by a trust. Their policy also says that they fight for freedom speech and allows different opinions present on their website. Milky·Defer 14:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, this is the first time that I am being questioned about the reliability of a website, and I am not sure whether I am getting the information you want. Milky·Defer 14:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I did some search. According to the 2020 report of Reuters Institute's Digital News Report [33], Stand News has gained significant popularity and trust, which I think can prove that this media is noteworthy. The editors are chosen as the members of Hong Kong's fact check agency, which I think can prove that the editors are reliable. Milky·Defer 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Allies: Only used in reception, removed.
  • Nintendo World Report: Only used in reception, removed.
  • RPGamer: Only used in reception, removed.

If this does not make the slightest of sense to you, I understand. Panini 🥪 01:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Pinging. Panini 🥪 02:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Panini 🥪 02:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT, the infobox part slipped my mind. I'll get to that now. Panini 🥪 02:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Okay, now I'm done there. Panini 🥪 23:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2021 [34].

Chandler's Ford shooting

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly thinner article, on a slightly more recent subject, than I normally bring here but I've had little luck in attracting feedback (though I'm grateful to SchroCat for casting an eye and helping to dig up some more sources). It's part of my back-burner project on British police shootings. This one wasn't especially controversial in that the people shot were pointing a loaded handgun at a security guard, but police shootings in Britain are few and far between so they always attract plenty of attention and they're the subject of some academic study. This one raised some interesting questions about police tactics, being a pre-planned operation with the stated aim of apprehending the robbers. Also of note is that the whole event was caught on video by the police, and (somewhat sensationally) the video of the shooting was later played in court at the trial of the surviving gang members. See what you think! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Could you archive the sources?

~ HAL333 17:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did for them. Le Panini [🥪] 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Le Panini, I wouldn't have known how to do that. I'm not convinced it's necessary, but it certainly doesn't harm anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, neither am I. Le Panini [🥪] 20:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D

edit

I'm coming into this article knowing exactly nothing about the topic, so can provide a fresh set of eyes! It's a very interesting article.

  • "and apprehend the suspects in the commission of the robbery." - could be trimmed and converted to more accessible language (e.g. "and apprehend the suspects as they attempted the robbery" or similar)
    • Sure , that works. Done.
  • "Armed police officers arrived in the early hours of the morning " - arrived where?
    • In Chandler's Ford. Added.
  • The 'Prelude' section would benefit from a description of the rules of engagement or similar which governed when police could fire on armed suspects, and especially those who have been classed as highly dangerous ones like the robbers here.
  • "The Flying Squad received intelligence that the gang intended to rob a G4S cash-in-transit van as it delivered to the HSBC bank branch in Chandler's Ford, Hampshire. " - do we know what the source of this intelligence was, and when it was received (and hence how long the police had to prepare and plan for this operation)
  • Could a map, based on Open Street Map or similar, be added to the 'Robbery' section? I presume that the inquiry reports or similar will provide the geographic details and possibly a map which can be used as the basis for this
  • "the team received word " - do we know from where? (from intelligence sources, or were the robbers being followed by other police officers?)
    • This one we know. The gang were under surveillance at this point.
  • Did the snipers request/receive authorisation or orders to open fire, or were they able to do on their own initiative and/or at a set escalation point under the plan for this operation?
    • There wouldn't have been time to clear it. The officers acted on their own initiative as they apparently felt the guard's life was in danger, though what possessed Markland to pick up the gun is beyond me.
  • The article is largely written from the perspective of the police. Can anything be said about the robbers' planning for the robbery before the day it was attempted or what their plans were - e.g. were they actually intending to have killed the security guard as the police feared if he resisted them, and did they have armour piecing ammunition?
    • History is written by the victors? We don't tend to hear from the criminals involved in notorious crimes (Ronnie Biggs being the obvious exception that comes to mind), especially when they're dead. Probably even more so in this case because it's only really notable for the police actions. Had they succeeded or been arrested without shots fired, it's unlikely the incident would have received much coverage. It would seem that they did have armour-piercing ammunition. Their history of violence is discussed in the prelude section; in my opinion it's unlikely they would have shot him—in most previous robberies they used fists etc and brandished a gun but had never actually fired it. But imagine having to make that judgement in a split second with a gun being held to somebody's head.
  • Has this incident attracted any attention in academic journals? None are listed, but it seems an interesting example for academics with an interest in the use of weapons by police.
    • I drew a blank on Google Scholar when I was researching this, but tow of the books used (Squires & Kennison and Punch) are by academics. Most other academic works on police shootings pre-date this incident or focus on a specific case.
  • I'd suggest adding the Coroner's report and the IPCC report as 'further reading' if they're online - the BBC story says that the IPCC report was published. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All most comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • The lead seems excessively long, at 29% of the wordage of the main article.
    • I always struggle with leads! Especially with all the caveats required for a potentially controversial subject. I've trimmed it a bit.
  • "which concluded that the armed officers had acted properly, though found flaws in the planning of the operation." Is it me, or does this not quite read right? Maybe 'though flaws were found'?
    • I'd rather not switch to passive voice if possible, but I added an "it" after "though", which hopefully makes it clearer.
It does - that was my back-up suggestion.
  • "where their actions were later considered unjustified". Would 'where it was later considered that their actions may have been unjustified' be more accurate?
    • Isn't that just more words for the same meaning? ;)
I assume, possibly incorrectly, that you are saying that officers actions have been held to account in the courts, which may or may not have found them justified. If so, my suggestion seems to capture that better. If, on the other had, you are saying - and they have been found guilty of criminal offences, then fine; but, IMO, the sentence still needs tweaking.
Hmm. I've reworded it a bit. The point is that officers have to have a rock solid justification for opening fire (I can think of at least three incidents where an officer was charged with murder, two where the officer was mistaken about a matter of fact, though all were acquitted).
OK.
  • "was pursuing a criminal gang". "pursuing"? Perhaps 'investigating'; attempting to apprehend'; or similar?
    • "Investigating" works. Done.
  • "The gang had used a handgun in previous robberies and had fired at bank staff and members of the public and were in possession of armour-piercing ammunition"> Does "and" need to be used twice?
    • Re-worded.
  • "along with snipers providing cover from nearby buildings." Optional: explain the purpose of these snipers, as the purpose of the armed officers closer to the bank has just been explained.
    • I've added a little bit. See what you think.
  • "the team received word from overs watching the gang".
    • Oops! Fixed.
  • "the town of Chandler's Ford"; "were spotted in the village".
    • Fixed.
  • "and parked in a space opposite the bank." Is "in a space" necessary?
    • Ah, the benefit of fresh eyes! Gone.
  • "By this time, the armed officers hiding in the toilet block were running towards the bank." 'the armed officers who had been hiding in the toilet block'.
    • Done.
  • "by the second police sniper". If it is known that the number of snipers was two, could that be mentioned earlier?
    • I'm pretty sure there were more than two; possibly four but I can't find the exact number in the sources.
In which case could "the" be changed to 'a', as it is in the lead?
Good point. Done.
  • Second image. I am not sure that the MoS requirement that "Image captions should be succinct" is met here.
    • I feel it's as succinct as it can be; a short caption on a non-free image would invite a challenge that there wasn't sufficient "contextual significance" (NFCC#8).
  • The first link under "See also" seems a little random to me. What is the link.
    • As far as I can tell, it's the only other Flying Squad operation of the decade that has a Wikipedia article (also, I was seriously struggling to find places to link this article from).
  • "several recommendations. Among them was that a separate firearms commander—independent of the investigation—be appointed for similar operations in the future to better balance public safety against the need to gather evidence." I can have a pretty good guess at what is being implied here, but do the sources allow you to be a little more explicit?
    • Sadly not. The implication is that the police let it play out too long and should have arrested the gang before they were holding a security guard at gunpoint but the IPCC were never explicit; in fact they acknowledged that they couldn't be certain that the outcome would have different had there been an independent firearms commander.

Very neat little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Happy new year! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to you Harry. A couple of counter-responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And replies inline Gog. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Lead says 17 robberies, text says at least 18 - which is correct? (Not a sourcing issue but I'd actually suggest rephrasing both sentences, as they're a bit hard to parse)
    • Fixed (and re-cast per your comments)
  • Grohmann has a harvref error
    • Ugh. I'm not sure what the error is, but I think this fixes it.
  • FN19 is confusing me a bit as there is an author credited as "Pa" at the source link - do you know if this is a pseudonym, or is this an error?
  • This source has links to some additional stories on this subject that are not cited, for example concerning issues with the inquest - have you reviewed these?
    • Yes. I didn't include the missing document because it didn't seem to have any effect on the inquest and none of the other sources mentioned it. None of the others contain any details not already mentioned but I added one of them anyway.
  • For FN28, the citation information provided doesn't match that at the link given. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • The gang were responsible for at least 18 robberies, from which they stole around £500,000. In previous robberies, gang members had carried firearms and had violently assaulted security guards who had resisted. Suggest "The gang were responsible for at least 18 robberies, in which gang members had carried firearms and had violently assaulted security guards who had resisted, and had stolen around £500,000."

Support. That's the only nit I can find to pick, and I'm not going to hold up support over it. Concise and readable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I've addressed that sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

coord note @Nikkimaria: How are the image and source reviews looking? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2021 [35].

1st Missouri Field Battery

edit
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Missouri CSA unit, a topic I find fascinating but most of humanity probably finds dry as dirt, so many thanks in advance to all reviewers! This one was an artillery battery formed in 1862. Unlike my recent FAC of Landis's Missouri Battery, this one lasted the rest of the war. Some of its members were executed after the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry in 1864, which is probably the most unusual incident in a generally undistinguished service history. Hog Farm Bacon 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing coordinator duties to have a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As the Confederates had lost control of the state of Missouri after the Battle of Pea Ridge in early 1862, the battery was formed by Captain Westley F. Roberts in Arkansas in September as Roberts' Missouri Battery." This reads oddly. It seems to suggest that losing control of Missouri is why Roberts formed the battery.
    • I've lopped off the first part about Pea Ridge, as not really important for the lead
  • "mobilized pro-secession state militia to encamp near St. Louis" → either 'mobilized pro-secession state militia near St. Louis' or 'mobilized pro-secession state militia, which encamped near St. Louis'.
    • Done
  • IMO the second paragraph of "Background and formation" goes into too much detail.
    • Agree. Heavily trimmed.
  • Could we be told a little about the weapons? Eg, the difference between smoothbore and rifled; what 6lb and 12lb mean in this context; perhaps their ranges, types of ammunition, manoeuvrability both operationally and tactically, number of crew required for each gun, perhaps even what they did; the tactical use and vulnerabilities of cannon on an ACW battlefield?
    • The best book I have about ACW artillery gives range, projectile weight, bore, and some other details. Added.
  • "The retreat continued until the Confederates reached Van Buren." Is it known how far away this was?
    • I found a time duration - two days. That's probably more explanatory that an absolute distance, anyway, given the state of travel in northwestern Arkansas in winter during the 1860s.
  • A push pin map showing the locations of the main places mentioned would be very helpful for non-locals.
    • Added, after drafting it in my sandbox. Used the template.
Possibly put it a bit earlier, either in Background or 1862?
  • Is it known why Roberts resigned? Or what he subsequently did?
    • I haven't been able to find anything. My book sources don't say, and I haven't been able to find anything online. The online searching process is complicated by a character from the movie The Princess Bride having the name Westley Roberts.
  • "the latter point was reached on February 22". "the latter point" → 'which'.
    • Done
  • "moved to a point along the Mississippi River". Is any detail known on where this point was?
    • Source doesn't specify a specific location, so I've rephrased this.
  • "which was armed with four 6-pounders at this point". Is it known when it lost its 12-pounders and/or what happened to them?
    • I haven't seen anything. I'd say the Encyclopedia of Arkansas is an RS. It was written by volunteers, but published by a reliable group and has an extensive oversight and editorial board. The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion don't have anything significant about this action that I can find. McGhee doesn't mention a change of armament. I found something really intriguing on Google books by [[Ed Bearss] at [36]. Which gives Ruffner's battery as having 4 6-pounders at Gaines' Landing as well. It's in snippet view only, but I can get enough to back up Encyclopedia of Arkansas with Bearss, but I can't see anything further that might explain things.
  • "Some of the Confederate artillery remained in reserve until the attack quickly bogged down, after which Ruffner's Battery was called into action." IMO this doesn't really work. Maybe 'The attack quickly bogged down and Ruffner's Battery, which had remained in reserve with other Confederate artillery, was called into action' or similar?
    • Done
  • "after participating in some looting". Maybe "participating" → 'engaging'?
    • Done
  • "two 10-pounder Parrott rifles and two 12-pounder howitzers". See above. What is a Parrot; what is a howitzer; what were their tactical uses, ammunition, crew numbers etc.
Hog Farm I suspect that we need a separate discussion on this. That is a good start re technical specifications, but still throws around terms that can only be understood by reading the Wikilink (smoothbore, case shot) and activities the advantage of which is not clear (rifling, fired with a greater trajectory). I think that you need to go right back to basics. And you have not yet touched on crewing, tactics. manoeuvrability, etc. I feel for you, I have just had to explain how the constraints of German military parachute technology constrained them tactically at the Battle of Heraklion; and am still trying to recover from the lengthy "Opposing forces" section in Battle of Crécy. And let's not even think about having to explain galley tactics! But at the moment you have an article on an artillery battery in which a reader needs to know nothing at all about the cannons, which doesn't seem right to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you have worked through Gog's concerns, and I will do the MilHist for Dummies review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia: - I'll be taking any further commentary on getting the cannons stuff to where it needs to be to the talk page for this FAC, so as not to clog up the page here. Hopefully I can start on that tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 05:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "African American troops who had been massacred at Poison Spring by Confederate cavalry". Any further details on this? "Massacre" covers a fairly broad spectrum.
    • Clarified
  • "The error allowed the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry to capture either two[25] or three of the battery's cannons." Is it known what happened to them. Ie, did they accompany the retreating Union forces?
    • All I can find so far is that they were taken back to the Union lines. Confederate recapture is not mentioned in any source I've seen, so presumably they were taken back, but nothing directly says this. I've added earlier that the 6-pounders would have been considered obsolete by this point, so I doubt they were used by the Union army, which had better guns, but again, nothing says that directly, so it can't be added.
  • "On June 7, 1865, while stationed at Alexandria, Louisiana, the men of the 1st Missouri Field Battery were paroled, ending their combat experiences, as Smith had previously signed surrender terms for the Trans-Mississippi Department on June 2."Rejig into chronological order.
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is looking good.

  • "They were considered to be mostly obsolete by that time." 1. Suggest "mostly obsolete" → 'obsolescent'; 2. By what time?
    • Done
  • "All of the pieces would generally have required between four and six men to fire each one". Is "each one" needed?
    • Not really. Remvoed
  • "cannons that were easy enough to move that they". Swap one "that" for another word.
    • I've removed "that were"
  • "brought on campaigns". Suggest 'taken on campaign'.
    • Done
  • "had 3 inches (7.6 cm) bores"; "a 4.62 inches (11.7 cm) bore" and elsewhere, "inches" → 'inch'.
    • Added a parameter to the template to correct this.
  • I am a little concerned about the flow of both sets of descriptions of the techy stuff. It feels a bit like a lot of facts being thrown out, not totally joined up. Let's see what other reviewers make of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson then occupied Boonville." Is "occupied" the best word?
    • Probably not. Rephrased.
  • "Lyon attacked the combined camp of Price and McCulloch". Is there a Wikilink for this? If not, is it worth a red link?
  • "The battery was armed with cannons in October: two 12-pounder James rifles that had been taken from Union forces at the Battle of Lone Jack and two 6-pounder smoothbores. [Paragraph break] The battery was armed with horse-drawn cannons in October: two 12-pounder James rifles taken from Union forces at the Battle of Lone Jack and two obsolescent 6-pounder smoothbores". Cough.
    • Oopsie. Duplication is gone now.
  • Link trajectory.
    • Done.
  • "engaged the Union at the" → 'engaged the Union force at the'?
    • Done
  • "William D. Blocher's artillery organization". Is this worth a red link?
    • I don't think so.
  • "ending their combat experiences". Optional: delete the terminal s.
    • Done
  • Sources: Bearss 1962 should be before Bearss 1964.
    • Done.
  • Sources: Kennedy needs a publisher location. (New York)
    • Done. I actually have a template to cite that source, so it was as easy as just replacing the long citation with the template.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It reads well. Good work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Ping me once you've addressed Gog's points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will start my review now:

  • I get the intention behind the Armament section, but this is a wiki and I don't think we are going to include all that information in every ACW artillery article when it exists elsewhere (or could if all of this was reflected in an appropriate article), so let's not start now. What I suggest is a see also template targeted on Field artillery in the American Civil War for the section below the main template, and a severely trimmed final single para of the Background and formation section which should consist of a summary of the pertinent info regarding the guns used by this battery. This flows because the last thing in the third para of the current section is the mention of the guns. The totality of what is currently in the Armament section should be included in the Field artillery in the American Civil War article, and readers wanting more information will click on the link. I'd be happy to suggest a draft para with the minimum information required. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the internet seems to have eaten my last comment. Or I am losing it. I initially misread Peacemaker67's comments as an intention. I now understand them to be an offer. PM, I think that the article needs some level of detail on the battery's weaponry. If you were to produce a draft paragraph, the other reviewers could comment on how far away, if at all, it is from their ideal? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through now. I have struck out some words that I consider redundant, and underlined a word I want to add (because grooves was struck out.) If this was inappropriate an editor can revert my edit. What is meant by and two effectively obsolete 6-pounder smoothbores. Can we make that more definitive? Are they obsolete, considered obsolete by this time, or maybe they were considered much less effective by a newer model? I checked ref 3 and verified the inforamtion. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were considered to be generally obsolete, but remained in use to some extent. Not sure the best way to make that more definitive without getting too wordy. Hog Farm Bacon 17:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of better wording either, so let's keep effectively. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the technically correct word is wikt:obsolescent. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to obsolescent. Hog Farm Bacon 18:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that is a great outcome, and will give you a bit of a model for future artillery battery articles. I'll get started with my full review shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest adding the initial and subsequent armament in the lead in the appropriate spots
  • for "Lyon attacked the combined camp" link Battle of Wilson's Creek
    • Done as a piped link
  • can you add where Jackson's govt-in-exile operated from?
    • Done
  • delete "The battery was armed with cannons in October: two 12-pounder James rifles that had been taken from Union forces at the Battle of Lone Jack and two 6-pounder smoothbores" at the end of the third para of the Background and formation section
    • Done. Gog caught that as well.
  • suggest an amendment to the armament sentence beginning "Later in the war, the battery was equipped with howitzers..."→Later in the war, the battery was equipped with two 10-pounder Parrott rifles and two 12-pounder howitzers, both of which could use exploding ammunition such as shells. The Parrot rifles had a similar range to the James rifles, but the howitzers fired at a higher trajectory and only had a range of 1,072 yd (980 m)." with appropriate sourcing and linking, and delinking of later links to the the two later guns
  • what happened to the James rifles?
    • Sources don't indicate.
  • suggest "in the vicinity of Gaines' Landing"
    • Done
  • optional, but IMHO, it is better to red link a full unit name, ie [[8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)|8th]] and [[9th Missouri Infantry Regiment]]s there is at least one other example
    • Done at the two instances I see.
  • move the MG (CSA) link to first mention (Van Dorn)
    • Done.
  • "who had been killed by Confederate cavalry while trying to surrender at Poison Spring."
    • Done

That's my lot. Great job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
I've made a few hands-on edits, feel free to revert any you don't like.
  • What is a "greater trajectory"?
  • I've switched it out to "greater arc", is that clearer?
  • "some of whom were executed by African American soldiers as revenge for African American troops " Would "killed" be appropriate instead of "executed"?
    "executed" is the exact word used in the source. This is a bit of a controversial situation: basically the Confederates conducted a racially-based massacre after Poison Spring, so the Union troops killed some of the captured Confederates as a reprisal. Given the nature of the situation, I think sticking with the exact word used by McGhee, who's fairly neutral, is the best way to go about this.
The prose seemed a bit wordy, and I made some effort to correct that where I could, but I'm not really that versed on military matters. That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - I've replied to the two points made so far above. Thanks for reviewing. I'm about to be on a week-long wikibreak, so it'll probably be awhile before I can address any new concerns. Hog Farm Bacon 02:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I want to see what things look like when the reviewers above get done, though I am leaning support. Enjoy your break.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support On looking again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit
  • See my script adjustments (and install those little critters for your own use ;)
    • Thanks.
  • Not sure this however is warranted-- see the links at the top of my userpage: "However, Clark and Gause were repulsed, exposing the two batteries' positions."
    • Removed
  • The battery was formed by Captain Westley F. Roberts in Arkansas in September ... there is no year anywhere in the first paragraph, but several dates. Could we get a year in there somewhere for context? Some editors (like me) hate infoboxes, and don't go there for basic info, rather prefer to actually ... read the article :) The battery was formed in September 1862 in Arkansas by Captain Westley F. Roberts as Roberts' Missouri Battery.
    • Oops. Added
  • The unit then fought ... the unit could not have fought before it was formed, so then is redundant.
    • Fixed
  • Should there be a redirect at First Missouri Field Battery?
    • There should. Created
  • Should Samuel T. Ruffner be a redirect to this article (or is he independently notable, in which case should he be WP:RED)? Ditto for Westley F. Roberts ?
    • Neither appears to be anywhere near notable. Both redirects created
  • vary wording ... engaged three times in two sentences ... Parsons's infantry was engaged at the Battle of Pleasant Hill on April 9, Ruffner's Battery served in a reserve role and was not engaged. The Union column engaged ...
    • Rephrased out two of the three usages
  • Supply issues forced Steele from a position at Camden, Arkansas, and the Union troops were pursued to the Saline River. --> forced Steele to retreat from the position ???
    • Went with a similar, but not exact, wording
  • Steele escaped across the river that night. ... Steele, or the whole lot of them? This comes across as if he left his troops ...
    • Corrected. Clunky wording.
  • There's an abrupt change here ... A Union counterattack captured several of Ruffner's Battery's cannons. Steele escaped across the river that night. In November 1864, the unit was given the official designation of the 1st Missouri Field Battery. How about something like --> After capturing several of Ruffner's Battery's cannons, Steele and part of his forces escaped across the Saline River. Then a new para where the unit gets renamed in 1864?
    • Done, although with slightly different wording.
  • It spent the remainder of the war in Louisiana and Arkansas before being paroled on June 7, 1865, at Alexandria, Louisiana; General Edmund Kirby Smith had signed surrender terms for the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department on June 2. --->  ?? --> It spent the remainder of the war in Louisiana and Arkansas and was paroled on June 7, 1865, at Alexandria, Louisiana after General Edmund Kirby Smith signed surrender terms for the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department on June 2.
    • Done
  • Just read the entire Armament section and have no clue why it's there (presumably this was the earlier impasse on this article?). I am hoping its relevance is going to become clear in the next section. But at this point, I don't know why all this info is here, and if it is essential to understanding how the Battery functioned, it seems that the relevant portions could be considerably shorter, and then dealt with via a Wikilink to <something> and attached at the end of the paragraph where they acquired these cannons.
  • Next, by the time I get through the long discussion of the armament, I have forgotten which state we are in at this point, so ... On December 7, the battery was engaged during the Battle of Prairie Grove ... give me some idea where we are again :)
    • Done
  • Reading the 1862 section, I find no need for all of my newly acquired knowledge about rifling, boring, etc to make what happened understandable. It looks like the armament stuff is a whole separate topic.
  • At the end of 1863, I find more information about armament whose relevance to this article is unclear. It seems like general information that belongs elsewhere, and I am not understanding why I need to know this for this article.

Done. I suggest removing all of the armament info <somewhere> and linking to it as needed. That's all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

edit

This is not a boring article, as indicated in your nomination. I am not knowledgable in military battalions or weaponry so this review will be from a "non-expert" perspective. I'll start with the prose, which only produced a few problems:

  • For the image in "Background and formation" I was looking at the source information and I think it was published in 1914. Is there a map to represent Missouri in the 1860s? Is this map an accurate representation of the Missouri geography during the Civil War?
    • I'm pretty sure this is a decent map for the 1860s. It's from a book discussing the war, and the context in which the map appears in the book is within a discussion of 1861 and 1862 events in Missouri, so I think its okay.
  • Cannons were long-range weapons. I'm not a military expert, but I assume that cannons are long-range weapons. There might be a history of cannons I'm not knowledgeable about that makes this sentence necessary (like they were short-range when originally built?) If this sentence is kept, I would expand to contextualise the statement with something like "Cannons were long-range weapons during the American Civil War."
  • I have commented on the discussion. I will wait for its result before suggesting changes.
  • The vast majority of the pieces would have been made of either bronze (referred to as brass in period military terminology) or of various forms of iron or steel. I struck out the words that I think you should remove from this sentence.
    • Done
  • while case shot were essentially shells with iron fragments in the middle which acted as shrapnel when the projectile detonated. Remove struck out word. Is case shot plural? Should it be case shots?
    • Case shot is both the singular and plural, removed the struck word
  • Canister ammunition consisted of a number of small metal balls held in a metal container. Delete struck out words
    • Done
  • exploding before the target was reached or even while the projectile was still in the cannon. Delete struck out word
    • Done
  • undergone the rifling process. What is the rifling process? There's no wikipage for this so can it be rephrased?
    • It's actually linked in the preceding paragraph, although I've tweaked the link where it appears to make it clearer this later mention is the same thing
  • They were considered to be obsolescent by that time. Delete struck out words, and maybe change "obsolescent" to "obsolete"?
    • Done
  • but it was ordered from the Confederate left to the right by What does "left to the right" mean?
    • I've clarified and added a link for some military jargon introduced.

That's my first round of the prose. I will do a second read-through and source review after the above are addressed. Please ping me when finished. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review - pass

I'm still new to conducting source reviews so this might be a slow process from my end. I appreciate your patience. I can verify that all the sources exist and I believe they are of high quality. I could access the sources listed below:

  • Ref 11: I can access but since both refs are in Armaments section I will check the refs when the text is finalised.
  • Ref 14: Same as 11
  • Ref 17: Same as 11
  • Ref 28: Accessed and verified
  • Ref 30: Accessed. I could not verify On September 11, Ruffner's Battery was part of the Confederate rear guard from the source. Can you quote what you used to verify this?
    • Actually, this appears to be a misreading of mine of the phrasing On the following morning, [...] the enemy's cavalry pressed our rear guard [...] where this brigade [...] formed, and awaited their coming. So the battery apparently wasn't in the primary rear guard, but a blocking force set up after they were pressed during the retreat. Rephrased. Hog Farm Bacon 02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 32-34: Accessed and verified
  • Ref 48: Accessed and verified

Formatting was checked with no concerns.

I would like to spot-check some scans from offline and paywall sources. Since direct quotes were not used in the article, can @Hog Farm: email me five scans of book pages, with each scan from a different book? Please don't use refs from the Armaments section (because of its ongoing discussion) and please select refs that you feel the least confident in or would want someone else to check. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get you those tomorrow. I don't really have doubts about this, as I've been the primary contributor all the way, so I'll try to hit some of the most used pages. How does McGhee p 2, Shea 187, Johnson 199, Kennedy 233, and Forsyth 162 sound? Hog Farm Bacon 02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fine, no rush. Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 - I've got scans ready for McGhee, Kennedy, and Forsyth. However, the email user thing won't let me attach files, so you'll need to send me a mostly blank wikimail and then I can attach the files on the reply. I don't have a scanner, so it's going to be rather grainy cell phone pictures. I hope to get to Shea and Johnson soon. Hog Farm Bacon 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. Grainy photos are fine if I can read the text I need to verify and see the page number. You can send them in multiple emails if you need. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forsyth 162 (ref 45) and Kennedy 233 (ref 31 a & b) have been verified. The third scan didn't include a page number so I don't know which source it goes to. Can this be clarified in the next email, when you send the other pages? Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third scan was McGhee. I have tomorrow off work, so I should be able to get the last two. Hog Farm Bacon 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about close paraphrasing in McGhee 2, ref 27a. because the order of information and paragraph structure is too similar. I think the prose can be condensed, summarized and sentences rearranged to avoid the close similarity. After this is done I will do a second readthrough. 27 f says Von Puhl's battery was defunct but this is not verified in the source. In 27 g, Ruffner's Battery was assigned four new cannons, all 6-pounder smoothbores is not verified. 27 b, c, d, e and g were checked and verified. I will continue the spot check when I receive the next email. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 - The one about the new cannons was an error where I meant to cite a page range and didn't get both pages down. McGhee p. 3 says The battery received new guns after the battle at Jenkins's Ferry, which consisted of four 6-pounder smoothbores. I've added another cite to another page of McGhee where it says that Von Phul's battery disbanded and gave its cannons to Ruffner's battery. Hog Farm Bacon 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also rewritten the 27a material. The Shea and Johnson scans have also been sent. Hog Farm Bacon 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those following along, ref 27 is now ref 22. I am satisfied with ref 22a. I will AGF that page 3 has that info. Shea 187 and Johnson 199 are verified. I am satisfied with my source review. I will do another prose readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose part 2

Just one concern, listed below.

  • General Edmund Kirby Smith had signed surrender terms Remove struck word.

Since this is minor, I will give this a pass and support this FAN. Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2021 [37].

Haane Manahi

edit
Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haane Manahi was from New Zealand, a Māori soldier of the Second World War and a recipient of the Distinguished Conduct Medal. He had been recommended for the Victoria Cross for an action at Takrouna in Tunisia in 1943 but this was downgraded to the DCM, which has since been the source of some angst. The article was a GA as long ago as 2012, but was revised and expanded in anticipation of the just completed A-Class nomination at the MilHist project. As part of the A-Class assessment process, source and image reviews were done by Gog the Mild and buidhe respectively. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Per ACR. (t · c) buidhe 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • FN1 should include publication date
  • The publication date field doesn't appear to be used by the DNZB template that I used for this. I have switched to the generic webcite format in order to populate the date field that way.

Support by Nick-D

edit

It's great to see this article at FAC. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Give the date of his action at Takrouna in the lead
  • "His training commenced at Trentham Military Camp in January 1940[5] but shortly before he left his home, Manahi married Rangiawatea Te Kiri, the mother of his son, born in 1936." - this is bit clunky. I'd suggest separating it into two sentences (one on the marriage and another on his training)
  • "In May 1940, after Manahi had a brief period of leave,[7] the battalion embarked for the Middle East " - presumably this leave was the routine pre-embarkation leave soldiers were typically granted?
  • Can anything be said about Manahi's time in the UK?
  • "he participated in a swimming competition for the entire 2nd New Zealand Division" - bit clunky
  • "Bennett ordered Manahi" - Bennett hasn't been introduced, so this is unclear.
  • Has there been any discussion by constitutional experts or similar about the communications between the NZ Government and the Queen regarding this issue? It's interesting that the NZ Government seems to have always stopped just shy of formally advising the Queen to award the medal (which as a constitutional monarch she may have been obliged to act on especially regarding the separate VC for New Zealand), but this led to a situation which seems to have been unsatisfactory to everyone.
  • Moon says the NZ Government felt an "official recommendation ...might not elicited the desired response." I suspect that for Buckingham Palace there would be an element of not wanting to set a precedent and open a can of worms for other belated claimes. The King's decision of 1949 probably makes it easier for authorities to take a hardline on this. Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Australian and NZ Victoria Crosses are now separate, has the recent posthumous award of a VC for Australia to Teddy Sheean led to proposals that Manahi be awarded a VC for New Zealand? This 2013 Australian report noted Manahi in the context of proposals that the VC for Australia be granted retrospectively. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I'm aware of. I did do some Googling to see if there was any recent news regarding this and didn't come across anything. I suspect the events of 2006/2007 put an end to it. Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. The decision to award Sheean the VC for Australia was slightly controversial, as an earlier and arguably much better qualified panel had recommended that he not receive the medal. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, thanks for taking a look at this, I have responded to all your points now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit
  • of the Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa iwi (tribe) Isn't iwis or anyother plural form of iwi?
  • the Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa iwi (tribe) on his father's side Same as above.
  • a village near the town of Rotorua in the North Island of New Zealand --> "a village near the town of Rotorua in North Island of New Zealand"? Since North Island sounds odd with an article.
  • Link "secondary school" since some countries don't have that system and call it high school (btw here in Belgium we use also secondary school).
  • and building industries alongside his uncle, Matiu What's his surname if he is from his dad's side then maybe add here "from his father's side" or something similar.
  • Manahi married Rangiawatea Te Kiri, the mother of his son, born in 1936 "Te Kiri" isn't her néé right?
  • Have added.
  • It was hoped that Elizabeth II would reconsider --> "It was hoped that Queen Elizabeth II would reconsider"
  • This involved near constant fighting across Libya --> "This involved near-constant fighting across Libya"
  • the division was forced to breakout from Minqar Qaim on 26 June --> "the division was forced to break out from Minqar Qaim on 26 June"
  • C Company as well as ammunition and stretcher bearers --> "C Company as well as ammunition and stretcher-bearers"?
  • On returning to Rotorua, Manahi entered a wood working course --> "On returning to Rotorua, Manahi entered a woodworking course"?
  • Rotorua and returned to the work force --> "Rotorua and returned to the workforce"?
  • traffic inspector which involved traveling around American "traveling" here.
  • in swimming coaching as well golf and fishing --> "in swimming coaching as well as golf and fishing"
  • way home to Maketu from the RSA club rooms --> "way home to Maketu from the RSA clubrooms"?
  • through former Governor-Generals of New Zealand Isn't it "Governors-General" as plural form?
  • The links of the Maori words like iwi, tangi, marae and patu should have a language template.
  • I'm not familiar enough with the Maori language to pull that off for the words that don't have one already in use. I was able to find the iwi template but when adding it in, it looked quite clumsy with the English-language translation so I'm not a fan of it. Zawed (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox: "Western Desert Campaign" --> "Western Desert campaign"

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Ping me when you've addressed CPA-5's comments, and I'll take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just working on a very complex GAN at present, but this will be first cab off the rank once I'm done there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okazay, sorry about the delay. My comments:

Lead and infobox
  • the first sentence doesn't establish his notability, which I understand to be based on the issue of whether he should have been awarded the VC rather than the DCM. Suggest something like:

    Haane Te Rauawa Manahi, DCM (28 September 1913 – 29 March 1986) was a New Zealand Māori soldier during the Second World War whose gallantry during the Tunisian campaign resulted in a recommendation that he be awarded the Victoria Cross (VC); the subsequent award of the Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) disappointed his fellow soldiers who, after his death, advocated greater recognition of his valour. This eventually resulted in the presentation of several items to his family by Queen Elizabeth II in 2007.

  • the tribal, place and year of birth information really doesn't belong in the lead
  • having dropped Maori Battalion from the first sentence, link it when he joins it
  • "After recovering from his wounds he returned to the Māori Battalionhis unit"
  • "which he was nominatedrecommended for a VC"
  • "Despite the support of four generals, his VC nomination was downgraded to an award of a DCM, possibly by the British Chief of the General Staff, General Alan Brooke."
  • explain why he didn't return to duty
  • describe what the special award included
  • in the infobox, not sure what "public works" he is known for? This could be dropped.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have actioned most of the above and also made a few changes to the following paragraphs of the lead to avoid undue repetition. The place of birth was left in and I felt adding a description of the special award would add undue detail to the lead. Zawed (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • link Fascist Italy (1922–1943) for Italy
  • suggest linking the Battle of Greece#Olympus and Servia passes section for "Olympus Pass"
  • link Platanias
  • link Maleme Airfield
  • gliders don't discharge paratroopers overhead, suggest reworking the sentence
  • El Alamein is duplinked
  • comma after "the commander of the Eighth Army"
  • is there a citation for the DCM available? Given the controversy, this would be a justified addition.
  • Done. The citation itself doesn't seem to have been published in the LG although other sources imply that it was. I found an online version of the citation at the Auckland Museum website. Zawed (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there any information on why the Maori were exempted but others were not?
  • "in August 1946."
  • any details on what caused the car crash?
  • I've added some details but there is nothing to explicitly explain the crash itself. It is not outright stated in the main source (Moon), but as he was coming home from the RSA, I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol was a factor. Zawed (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was attended by former members of the Māori Battalion" as I assume the battalion was disbanded after the war?
  • "not interested in changing the situationpursuing reconsideration of the award."
  • deitalicise "Manahi VC Committee" per MOS:ITALICS

That's all I can find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM, I have responded above, Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, no wonder his mates were a bit miffed about the VC being turned down. The DCM citation is a great add. One last thing, suggest "he received a bullet to the chest"→"he received a gunshot wound to the chest". That's it, the rest looks excellent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This would also benefit from a comprehensibility lookover from a reviewer who is not an aficionado of military history. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, I wanted to review it anyway, but stopped because it already had three ongoing reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, this has four supports (including a couple outside of Milhist) plus source/image reviews. CPA-5 provided some comments, which I have actioned or responded to but hasn't indicated support, despite repeated pings. Will this be barrier to passing? Zawed (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5 is on a Wikibreak, but as you have addressed all of the comments I am counting it as about three-quarters of a MilHist support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • At first glance, there is a bunch of WP:duplinks that can be highlighted with this script:[39] FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Haane Manahi, June 1943" I think this caption could mention where it is taken (Maadi, Egypt), at least that's more interesting than restating his full name.
  • Thanks for taking a look. The dupe links have been dealt with bar one: the link to the DCM is used twice, once as a postnominal and once on first full mention in the lead. I believe that is acceptable in the circumstances. Caption amended as suggested. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Descended from the Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa iwi (tribes) on his father's side, his mother was also of the Te Arawa iwi i" You could mention and link Maori people here. Otherwise you only mention the group in the intro.
  • "around Olympus Pass, and in the days following the beginning of the invasion on 6 April" Now the battle is linked at Olympus Pass, but wouldn't it be better to link it at the word "invasion", and then leave the place to link to its article?
  • That link was in response to a suggestion earlier in this review. You have made me reconsider the links though, because invasion should be linked to the Battle of Greece proper, something I had overlooked. I have moved the original link to "initial contact" since I think that may be a better fit. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was wounded in the chest" By what?
  • " about 150 kilometres (93 mi) west of El Alamein." State this is in Egypt.
  • You link some countries, but not others. Generally, it appears countries don't need to be linked.
  • "and impacted an oncoming vehicle." What happened to the other driver?
  • "Survived by two sons, he was buried at Muruika cemetery." Shouldn't you say earlier that his other child was a son? You only say "and fathered another child with one of them", which seems pretty detached.
  • "to Manahi's sons, Rauawa and Geoffrey" Not sure what the conventions are, but seems odd his sons are only named down here. Shouldn't their names be mentioned when they are each first mentioned?
  • With respect, I disagree. It seems an unnecessary detail to add at the time they are first introduced. In my view, whether a child is named on first mention depends on the context. If one died as a baby/infant/child, then contextually it could be useful to name them on first mention particularly if it then leads on to mention of their death. In the present case, they are named there because that is when they become contextually important for the reader. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it seems a bit strange that the intro begins with a discussion of the awards, and only after that his actions. Wouldn't it be more logical to have his actions come first, then the awards? That might also make the related sentence that comes later "Despite the support of four generals, his VC nomination was downgraded to an award of a DCM, possibly by the British Chief of the General Staff, General Alan Brooke. " less repetitive.
  • "These efforts were ultimately unsuccessful due to the period of time that had elapsed since the end of the Second World War." This also seems an odd note to end the intro on, which would be resolved if you put the first paraapgh last.
  • Dealing with these two bullet points collectively, the lead has been revised a bit as a result of this FA review (see PM's comments above). The first paragraph is to establish notability while the second and third provide more of a summary without excessively repeating the first paragraph. I am still awaiting PM's feedback on my changes; Peacemaker67, a courtesy ping here. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll wait and see what the outcome is, looks good so far. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a compromise could be to mention the medal he did get in the first paragraph (establishing his notability), and then describe the controversy about the other medal in the last paragraph? That could eliminate the odd jump and repetition in the narrative currently there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that approach is that getting a DCM isn't notable. It is the downgrading of the VC to DCM and the process of revisiting it that makes him notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This provoked the committee to collect more evidence in support of its case, including rebuttal evidence regarding the treatment of the Italians." Any details on this evidence?
  • That citation for the DCM is a wall of text that is difficult to parse and read, is the original also like that, or broken into paragraphs?
  • There is a photograph in Moon (2010) of an earlier version of the original citation. Apart from an extra sentence at the end it is identical to what is in the wall of text. I have broken the text into paragraphs to match those in the citation. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Le Panini

edit

This has been up for quite a while. That's always quote annoying. I'm here from Wikiproject video games, so bear with if there's some MoS I'm unaware of.

Lead
  • This first sentence is pretty long, in my opinion. I would rather replace the semicolon and make these two sentences.
  • "After recovering from his wounds he returned to his unit and fought through the Western Desert and Tunisian campaigns during which he was recommended for a VC for his actions at Takrouna over the period 19–21 April 1943." This sentence seems to be a run-on too, maybe -> After recovering from his wounds, he returned to his unit and fought through the Western Desert and Tunisian campaigns, during which he was recommended for a VC for his actions at Takrouna over the period 19–21 April 1943."
  • These first two paragraphs repeat content. These two pieces state the exact same thing, as if the first paragraph is a summary for a summary.

"...whose gallantry during the Tunisian campaign resulted in a recommendation that he be awarded the Victoria Cross (VC); the subsequent award of the Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) disappointed his fellow soldiers who, after his death, advocated greater recognition of his valour."

"...during which he was recommended for a VC for his actions at Takrouna over the period 19–21 April 1943. Despite the support of four generals, his VC nomination was downgraded to an award of a DCM, possibly by the British Chief of the General Staff, General Alan Brooke."

Does this need to be mentioned twice? This paragraph could cover the wars in more detail.

  • The first para establishes notability, then the next two are a brief summary. The lead has been extensively reworked as a result of the feedback of previous reviewers so I am reluctant to make further structural changes changes (although the two minor changes you suggest above have been implemented). Zawed (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his discharge from the New Zealand Military Forces in 1946, he was employed as a traffic inspector. He was killed in a car crash in 1986." This short "then he died" sentence comes out of nowhere. Maybe a semicolon? "After his discharge from the New Zealand Military Forces in 1946, he was employed as a traffic inspector; he was killed in a car crash in 1986."
Early Life
  • This section starts off with his full name. Is this really necessary?
Second World War
  • "Shortly before he departed his home for Trentham, Manahi married Rangiawatea née Te Kiri, the mother of his son, born in 1936." This reads odd to me. Of course if he has a child she be "the mother of his son". I would replace this part with something such as "later having a son, born in 1936."
  • Sorry, I disagree with this. I don't think that it is a given that she would be the mother of the son, the son could have been to another woman. The phrasing is also intended to help readers appreciate that the son was born out of wedlock. Zawed (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Takrouna
  • "The battalion's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Bennett, ordered Manahi, who had just received a promotion to lance sergeant, to take a party of 12 men to make a feint attack..." This combines a lot of pieces together and becomes pretty lengthy. I'd use an em dash somewhere, maybe -> "The battalion's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Bennett, ordered Manahi—who had just received a promotion to lance sergeant—to take a party of 12 men to make a feint attack..."
  • I'm not a fan of em dashes, hence the use of commas. I appreciate your point though, there is a lot going on in that sentence. I have moved the mention of the promotion to the following sentence, how does it read now? Zawed (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I read through this whole article, and found no glaring problems. Good work! Le Panini [🥪] 11:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Le Panini, thanks for the feedback, I have responded to your points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due to fair counterpoints to which I agree, and changes above, I support this nomination. There wasn't much to say about this, really. It's really well written! Le Panini [🥪] 11:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, much appreciated! Zawed (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2021 [40].

Riegelmann Boardwalk

edit
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wooden boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn, NYC. First proposed in the 1890s, the boardwalk opened in 1923, and has been renovated and expanded several times since then. Its namesake is a borough president who didn't want the boardwalk to be named after him. There are several attractions and landmarks on this boardwalk, which became a New York City designated landmark in 2016.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man (who incidentally also reviewed Parachute Jump, another Coney Island-related FAC). After a much-appreciated copy edit by Tdslk, I think it's up to FA quality now. I previously nominated the page in September, but it stalled due to lack of reviews. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit
All of my concerns have been addressed, leaning support pending review of sources, etc. Putting this note at the top to avoid collapsing per the template limit problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this source: it appears to be a book (?), but no publisher is listed. If it's a journal, it seems to need an article title. American Lumberman. American Lumberman. 1922. p. 22. Archived from the original on September 21, 2020.
  • Similar here ... this seems to be a bound collection of journals, but the article title and volume are missing ... American Lumberman. American Lumberman. 1922. p. 22. Archived from the original on September 21, 2020.
  • Some of the publishers are a bit informal example: "Steeplechase Park Highlights". Parachute Jump : NYC Parks. June 26, 1939. Archived from the original on July 11, 2019. The publisher is the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation.

Stopping there on looking at the citations, but please give another pass with an eye towards issues like this. Some may need to switch to cite journal ?? At first glance, the sourcing is reliable but some minor cleanup might be needed. On MOS-y things, no image caption issues, no hyphen/dash issues, no MOS:SANDWICH, good use of NBSPs and converts.

  • Please doublecheck use of MOS:LQ with the sources.

Prose:

  • I question most of the uses of the word also, which is almost always redundant (see User:Tony1 writing exercises). Samples: The boardwalk is also used as a bike lane between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. each day, ... It has also become an icon of Coney Island,
  • Do we need the first Brighton? to Brighton 15th Street in Brighton Beach.
  • MOS:LQ, should this be adjusted? to "give ample clear space under the boardwalk both longitudinally and laterally."
    • Done.
  • to the beach at intervals of every ​1 1⁄2 blocks --> to the beach at intervals of ​1 1⁄2 blocks
    • Done.
  • As part of the construction of the boardwalk, 16 rock jetties spaced at intervals of 600 feet (180 m) were built to prevent violent waves from crashing against the boardwalk. --> To prevent violent waves from crashing against the boardwalk, 16 rock jetties were built at intervals of 600 feet (180 m).
    • Done.
  • The current beaches are not a natural feature; the sand that would naturally replenish Coney Island is cut off by the jetty at Breezy Point, Queens. Current is redundant.
    • Done.
  • The preceding paragraph tells us how much concrete and sand was used, so this sentence seems misplaced ... The boardwalk has a steel and concrete foundation supporting wood planking for the walkway, though much of this is no longer visible due to the beach having been raised after the boardwalk was constructed. ... Would it be better placed at the beginning of the previous para?
    • Done.
  • This is another MOS:LQ instance: The diagonal pattern was to "facilitate the ease of walking," ... pls check throughout.
  • Hyphenation issue here: a 150-foot (46 m)-tall eccentric Ferris wheel that is also a recognized city landmark. --> an eccentric Ferris wheel that is 150 feet (46 m) tall and recognized as a city landmark. (Is Ferris supposed to be uppercase?)
  • Wikilink zygote.
    • Done.
  • It would be less cumbersome to re-cast this sentence: a 332-foot-long (101 m), 10-foot-tall (3.0 m) wall relief created by Japanese artist Toshio Sasaki --> a wall relief created by Japanese artist Toshio Sasaki that is 332 feet (101 m) long and 10 feet (3.0 m) tall
    • Done.
  • Ugh: Steeplechase Pier is a 1,040-foot (320 m) pier located at the intersection of the boardwalk and West 17th Street, near the site of Steeplechase Park, of which the pier was originally part. Steeplechase Pier, at the intersection of the boardwalk and West 17th Street and 1,040 feet (320 m) long, was originally part of Steeplechase Park. Look for opportunities to re-cast sentences to avoid the hyphens, and "located at" is almost always redundant.

Stopping there for now, will resume at "History" section once you have processed this. Please look for similar in the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please go through the remainder of the article looking for similar before I re-visit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. It may take me a day or so since I am busy with finals. Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, pls ping me when I should continue. Good luck with finals! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I've had a few minutes to look this over briefly. I've gone through the MOS:LQ issues in the prose, the overuse of "located", and the use of adjectival form in the conversion templates. However, I haven't looked over other issues yet, and will do so after my finals are over. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been addressed; continuing from History (prose is already much improved!):

  • Personal pet peeve ... the word major is overused and adds nothing: Coney Island contained three competing major amusement parks ... unless it can be replaced with something more descriptive, it could be ditched.
    • Done.
  • Could this just say presented (past tense)? Other organizations in the 1900s would present numerous proposals ...
    • Done.
  • The "almost everyone" here is ill-defined ... is that referring to the public, to governmental boards or commissions, what? This time, almost everyone supported the proposed boardwalk,
  • Should the lead say which borough it is in?
  • "Measured" is unnecessary ... The extension measured about 3,000 to 4,000 feet (910 to 1,220 m) long, ... the extension was ... don't use a big word when a small word suffices :)
    • Done.
  • Ugh ...
  • The $1 million extension was originally supposed to have been paid for through taxes that were levied on Coney Island property owners via tax assessments. Although some property owners objected to the assessments,[103] they were ultimately forced to pay for the project. .... How about -->
  • The $1 million extension was to be paid for via tax assessments levied on Coney Island property owners. Although some property owners objected to the assessments, they were ultimately forced to pay for the project.
  • Fixed.
  • Here's a redundant "addition" (similar to "also"): In addition, in October 1938, the city acquired 18 acres (7.3 ha) from developer Joseph P. Day for the proposed eastward extension. --> The city acquired another 18 acres (7.3 ha) in October 1938 from developer Joseph P. Day for the proposed eastward extension.
    • Removed.
  • See User:Tony1 writing exercises: but these plans were modified in 1939 in order to preserve the amusement area there ...
  • covering of sand was placed along the entirety of the beachfront. This was accomplished using sand from the Rockaways and New Jersey. --> covering of sand from the Rockaways and New Jersey was placed along the entirety of the beachfront.
    • Done.
  • Since there is a separate section for the 21st century, it is odd to see it mentioned in the 20th century section ... Further work was undertaken on the boardwalk in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
    • Fixed.
  • The most commonly WP:OVERLINKed article on Wikipedia ... World War II does not need to be linked here. Everyone knows what it is, no one is going to click it from this article.
    • Removed.
  • The boardwalk's maintenance was in active decline by the 1970s.[133] As such, repairs on two sections of boardwalk between Brighton 1st and Brighton 15th Streets were underway by 1975.[139] Local officials, such as then-assemblyman Chuck Schumer, and residents of the surrounding communities petitioned for the city's board of estimate to release $650,000 in funding for repairs to the boardwalk.[140]
  • Board of Estimate is uppercase in the rest of the article? Also, ... The boardwalk's maintenance was in active decline by the 1970s, but repairs on two sections of boardwalk between Brighton 1st and Brighton 15th Streets were underway by 1975.
  • Considering the surrounding context, would it not be better to switch "In 1983, it was estimated that three-quarters of the planks were in good shape" to "In 1983, it was estimated that one-quarter of the planks were not in good shape"? The switch in context is odd.
  • However, the addition of the concrete sections was controversial. ... See the top of my user page, this however is not needed.
    • Removed.
  • Though concrete was cheaper and did not require wood sourced from the Amazon rainforest, many local residents and officials felt that the boardwalk would only be authentic if made of wood. --> Though concrete was cheaper and did not require wood sourced from the Amazon rainforest, many local residents and officials felt that wood would be more authentic.
    • Done.
  • Additionally, there was no logistical difficulty in securing wood: ... additionally is like also, redundant and not needed.
    • Removed.
  • The construction of the boardwalk opened up the beach ...
    • Done.

Very nice work, and what a complete history ! Leaning support, pending further review by others and sourcing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I've addressed all these comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go study for your finals!! I will weigh in again once source review is done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Spicy

edit

Interesting read. A well-written article overall. Comments below:

  • "and an "infrastructure accomplishment" comparable to the Catskill Watershed and Central Park." - The quote marks beg the question of who you are quoting... it would probably be too much detail to attribute the quote in the lead, so paraphrasing it might be better
  • Maybe link cantilever
    • Done.
  • ""Comfort stations" or restrooms, also no longer extant," the way this is phrased makes it sound like restrooms are no longer extant - I hope not!
  • " which is both a city landmark and a National Register of Historic Places listing." - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the "listing" the designation itself, not the building so designated?
  • "Steeplechase Pier was originally used by anglers and it was also used by ferry lines to Coney Island until 1932." - this is a bit clunky, maybe "Steeplechase Pier was used by anglers and, until 1932, by ferry lines to Coney Island"?
    • Done.
  • "The original Steeplechase Pier was erected by builder F. J. Kelly at an unknown date, but construction had been completed within 30 days" - I don't think "but" is appropriate here; these two facts don't contradict each other. What about "The original Steeplechase Pier was erected by builder F. J. Kelly at an unknown date and construction was completed within 30 days".
  • "Several improvements, such as a proposed widening and an auditorium,[11][37] were never built" I think it might sound slightly better to move "proposed" before "improvements".
    • Done.
  • "Steeplechase Pier was damaged multiple times in the following years due to hurricanes, fires..." - "by" would sound more natural than "due to" here
    • Done.
  • "and its simultaneous relative distance from the city of Brooklyn to provide the illusion of a proper vacation" - this is an awkward read. I get what you are going for but I'm sure how to rephrase it myself.
    • I've reworded the sentence. It wasn't geographically distant from the city of Brooklyn, but only gave the appearance of such (I think because of the undeveloped land and the lack of road transport). Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of fires in the resorts in the 1880s and 1890s opened up large tracts of land" - this piques my curiosity. Did they all burn to the ground? or were the resorts just shut down?
    • Not a FAC issue but I'm surprised how often things catch on fire here.
  • " By the first decade of the 20th century, it contained three competing major amusement parks " what is "it" referring to? Coney Island, presumably, but it's not mentioned in the preceding sentence
  • " since it was actually the private property of beachfront lots." I think you could remove "actually" here; not the most encyclopedic term
    • Done.
  • "Starting in 1882, various lots" don't think "various" is necessary either
    • Done.
  • "in 1904, it was estimated that there would be 1.4 square inches (9.0 cm2) of public beachfront" - any reason why this is "would be" and not "were"?
    • Fixed.
  • "the formerly seedy waterfront" - "seedy" is a bit informal, should be in quotes if you're quoting Patten, otherwise I think a different word should be used
    • Reworded.
  • "Riegelmann and his assistant commissioner of public works opposed naming the boardwalk after him" - any reason why?
    • Added.
  • "who contended that it would bring unwanted social degradation to their community." - as opposed to wanted social degradation?
    • Removed.
  • "wood sourced from trees in the Amazon rainforest," - you could remove "trees"... readers know that wood comes from trees
    • Done.
  • "Additionally, there was no logicistical difficulty in securing wood:" - typo ("logistical"). Were there logistical issues with concrete? It's not clear from the article
    • Fixed.
  • "at the time, the Rockaway Boardwalk was simultaneously" - "at the time" is redundant to "simultaneously"
    • Removed.
  • [41] is a WP:NEWSBLOG; is this RS? There's an obvious typo in the second paragraph, which makes me question their editorial practices
  • "In 2014, amid the push to rebuild the boardwalk using concrete"..."later in 2014, NYC Parks commenced a project to repair the boardwalk using concrete" - a bit repetitive
  • The final paragraph of the 21st century section leaves the reader hanging. Is the reconstruction still ongoing? Does its designation as a city landmark affect the reconstruction efforts?
  • "As a stand-in for Coney Island" - it is part of Coney Island, so it's not really a "stand-in". Would "symbol" be a better word to use?
    • Done.
  • The final paragraph of the cultural significance section gets a bit repetitive as it's just listing off various TV shows, movies, etc. Maybe you could give more information about some of the more notable appearances - e.g. what role the boardwalk played in a given film?
    • This is the only section of the article I really had difficulty with. The sources mention that the boardwalk was used as a backdrop or setting for these works of media, but they don't elaborate much. I considered removing this paragraph altogether and replacing it with a summary. The paragraph was only included because the sources mentioned these appearances. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd think you could use sources about the films/tv shows/etc, as opposed to ones specifically about Coney Island, to provide more detail. But this is not a major issue IMO. Spicy (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this up for FAC. Spicy (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Thank you for your comments. I've responded to all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - happy to support this well-written and well-researched article. I haven't looked at the sources, but I did not see any obvious red flags on a skim of the reference section. Spicy (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

edit

I am not familiar with New York geography or the boardwalk, so this will be from a "non-expert" perspective. I will begin with the prose. Overall, I only have small quibbles:

  • Optional: was installed along the boardwalk in 1993, outside the New York Aquarium I would put the year at the end of the sentence. This keeps the location information together and then describes the time period. Plus, it gets rid of the comma. Suggested rewording: "was installed along the boardwalk outside the New York Aquarium in 1993."
    • Done.
  • Steeplechase Pier was damaged multiple times because of hurricanes, fires, and boat accidents. Replace "because of" with "by"
    • Done.
  • the first of which was Sea Lion Park in 1895. The next sentence mentions three competing amusement parts, but Sea Lion Park is not one of them. What happened to this park? A half-sentence or sentence explaining this would be appropriate.
  • resorts at both Coney Island[41] and Rockaway Beach.[60] Remove "both".
    • Done.
  • in 1901 would have had property owners pay half of the boardwalk's $350,000 construction cost. Replace "have had" with "require" or something similar. "Have had" is awkward phrasing.
    • Done.
  • became the city's eleventh "scenic landmark", and as such, could not be removed. Remove "as such"
    • Done.

I will continue with a second readthrough and source review after the above are addressed, so please ping me when that is complete. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed them now. Epicgenius (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Check - pass

edit

I am checking the sources for accuracy and quality. This is my first in-depth source review, so I welcome feedback on my comments if I can improve. Unless mentioned below, I was able to determine that every source exists and links where it should. I also carried out some spot checks.

  • Ref 3: Concerning: and, according to designer Philip Farley, to "give ample clear space under the boardwalk both longitudinally and laterally". I think the newspaper clip is a speech by T. I. Jones to the Rotary Club of Brooklyn (see page 29 of the source) and I can't find Farley being mentioned in the article. I don't think it's proper to accredit Farley to this quote.
  • Ref 7: Concerning: and is held in place by around two dozen groynes. I could not find this in the reference. Can you quote the info on the page that is used to verify this?
  • Ref 10: Concerning "arched entrances, rows of Tuscan columns, corner piers, and red tile roofs". and "comfort stations". My pdf reader says this information is on page 15, but the reference says it's on page 14.
    • Fixed.

I got to the end of "Description". I will continue this at a later date. Feel free to comment on these concerns in the meantime. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing below. I finished the History section. I checked all the links and performed various spot checks (especially for quotes.) Here are some thoughts:

  • Ref 47: The source does not state that this was the first bridge. Also, delete the ref after the comma as you already cite this at the end of the sentence.
  • Ref 48: I couldn't verify Coney Island House in the transcript. What did you use to verify this information?
  • rather than constructing a beach or clearing the waterfront.[71][70] I think ref 70 is supposed to go first.
    • Done.
  • Ref 87: The ref cites p 1087 but the book has less than 500 pages.
  • with four modular units being delivered to West 8th, West 2nd, Brighton 2nd, and New Brighton Streets.[160][44] I think refs should be flipped.
    • Done.

I will continue this at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished my source review. I reviewed Cultural significance and Accolades and found no issues. I rechecked ref 87 (now ref 86) and verified the info. I looked at the formatting in References and found no issues. All my source review concerns have been addressed so I will pass the source review. I will conduct another prose readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Part 2

Some minor prose stuff:

  • Steeplechase Pier was originally used by anglers and, until 1932, was also used by ferry lines to Coney Island. Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • Riegelmann and his assistant commissioner of public works opposed the name, preferring that the project instead be known as the "Coney Island Boardwalk". Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • At the time of its opening, the boardwalk was said to be wider and more expensive than the comparable boardwalks at Atlantic City, the Rockaways, and Long Beach on Long Island. Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • Brooklyn public officials believed that these changes would revitalize Coney Island's Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • The boardwalk extension was slated to have connected to a steamship pier Replace with "The boardwalk extension was slated to connect to a steamship pier" (change underlined)
  • Parks commissioner Robert Moses had previously criticized the condition Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • This included the replacement of the original street lights with replicas in the 1960s, as well as the replacement of benches, drinking fountains, pavilions, and comfort stations. Replace with "This included the replacement of the original street lights with replicas in the 1960s and the replacement of benches, drinking fountains, pavilions, and comfort stations."
    • Done.
  • recent project to repair the boardwalk and that the Brooklyn borough president's office had budgeted $20 million since 1981 to repair the boardwalk. Replace with "recent project to repair the boardwalk and that the Brooklyn borough president's office had budgeted $20 million since 1981 for repairs."
    • Done.
  • In addition, the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission Remove struck out text
    • Done.

Please ping me when complete. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed them now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns. I support this FAC. Great job on this article. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

edit

Source check forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • References generally look to be high-quality reliable sources for NY history; formatted and archived where appropriate (man, they didn't give a lot of writers bylines in the old days, did they?) Article heavily relies on a few sources, but I think they're appropriate given the focus.
    • The only refs that give me pause are the newer, hyperlocal ones like The Brooklyn Home Reporter and BKLYNER. I think there's a decent argument that they meet reliable source thresholds, but aren't to the quality level we'd expect for FA.
      • When looking through sources for the boardwalk, I tried to use more established sources like the NY Times and TV stations. However, there are a few statements that probably can only be referenced to these newer sites. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking broadly, I note that there's a lot of unattributed quotes throughout the article that I think should either be attributed, or ideally just axed altogether. It's either important to know that Matt Postal characterized the pergolas as having tuscan columns and red roofs in exactly the way he said it (and hey, the guy does great descriptions, but we can leave some for the report) or it can be rephrased. Right now it's just kind of weird when we're jumping out of Wikipedia's voice for these unknown interludes.
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to revision refs 1, 3, 4, 13, 17, 21, 32, 34, 35, 47, 48, 54, 61, 80, 88, 92, 94, 118, 126, 132, 134, 138, 151, 160, 165, 170, 171, 173, and 175.
    • Ref 3 is used to cite "It is raised 14 feet (4.3 m) above sea level to protect against storm surges, and, according to a speech given in 1923 to the Rotary Club of Brooklyn, to "give ample clear space under the boardwalk both longitudinally and laterally"."—the cited ref actually gives a height of 13 feet.
    • I may be missing it, but I don't see the quote in Ref 4 about the pattern for ease of walking, at least on page 47.
    • Ref 13 discusses the use of concrete instead of tropical hardwoods for the boardwalk, but doesn't discuss the previous rebuilds of the boardwalk
      • I clarified that this was the case as of the early 2010s (the news article was published in 2011). Previous rebuilds are mentioned in the history section, but they're too numerous to individually source in this sentence, so I've removed that part. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you go beyond the stated source with "Coney Island could be reached easily from Manhattan, while appearing to be relatively far away, providing residents the illusion of a proper vacation. As a result, Coney Island began attracting vacationers in the 1830s and 1840s, and numerous resorts were built."—the ref provided covers its proximity to Manhattan making it an attractive spot, but doesn't really editorialize (at least on that page) about an "illusion" of vacation.
    • Ref 54 is used to cite the fact that most of the beach was taken up by private interests and resorts, but it mostly only hints at that; it seems like you'd need to cite the opening pages as well (801 covers it much more directly.)
    • Ref 126 is used to cite "The Board of Estimate approved the modified plan in December 1939" but the Daily Eagle story points out while it seems a certainty, the actual vote was delayed a week. Is there a better source from the actual vote that can be used here?
    • Ref 160 only mentions Treyger, not Deutsch.
    • Ref 165 doesn't mention the Landmarks commission previously rejected landmark status for the boardwalk.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Thanks for the source review. I've addressed all the points above. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done a quick second spot-check and didn't spot further issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

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

As I supported the first time around, I'm sure it'll be fine, just going to give it another read as things have changed since my first review.

Lede
Prose

Overall, there's very little to critique here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the comments. I've made these changes now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good for now. Change to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: The source and image reviews have been conducted, and this nomination has four prose supports, with no opposes. Is anything else needed for this nomination? Thanks in advance. Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2021 [42].

Islanders (video game)

edit
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back with my second FA nomination, a much shorter article on a wildly different topic - Islanders, a charming little indie game I fell in love with last year. There's just something hypnotic about the simple gameplay loop of planning, placement, and points that keeps me coming back to it this long after release. I should mention that concerns were raised at peer review about the reliability of some of the more obscure review sources. I believe these are reliable enough to cite as reviews for a smaller indie game, and their inclusion is necessary to provide a more balanced perspective to the reader. In particular, the larger gaming sites like Kotaku were almost uniformly positive about Islanders, so the inclusion of indie review sites helps to balance that with some reasonably-deserved criticism. In any case, I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I enjoyed writing it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

edit

Will review, unencumbered by any background knowledge. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strikes me as odd that the specific release date (April 4, 2019) is only mentioned in the infobox
  • Fixed
  • "The goal of the game is to obtain the highest score possible in a single session, which can span multiple islands" unclear at this point what 'islands' mean in the context of the game. Could you rephrase to get the explanation before the bit about a session spanning multiple islands somehow?
  • Moved that sentence to the end of the paragraph, that should help.
  • "and a pack of basic buildings to place" do we know how many? What defines a 'basic' building?
  • None of the sources mention that detail, although anecdotally I think starter packs usually have three. There's not really a defined "basic" building per se. There's a kind of progression in that you generally start off with packs of industrial-ish stuff, then residential-ish places, then commercial buildings and finally the late-game stuff like balloons and monuments. Once you've picked every named pack, the game gives you random assortments until you run out of space/buildings. Unfortunately, none of the sources get into more detail about the order of the packs than what's already in the article, so I can't expand on that without getting into OR.
  • "There are several types of islands" do we know how many?
  • It's unfortunately not in any of the sources, so while I could load up the game and do some counting, I can't put it in the article.
  • "other buildings within its scoring radius" I think the basic concept of 'scoring radius' and its relevance to the game should be briefly glossed at the first use of the term, not in subsequent sentences.
  • I rewrote that paragraph a little, hopefully that's more clear now?
  • Is there a difference between 'earning points' and 'scoring points'? If not, no action needed.
  • No
  • "planning are important to maximize the score" perhaps "the score reached" or "the score obtained" or something else? just 'the score' kinda strikes me as odd, but it may just be me
  • I think it may be you, in a gaming context "the score" makes sense
  • So does the inventory of buildings deplete as the game goes on? If so, how does that work? this is implied when the article talks about refilling it, but not really explicitly laid out
  • Should be more explicit now
  • Is Grizzly Games really notable?
  • No, I think someone else redlinked it and I just left it in there. I'll pull it.
  • "Rather than struggling against the limits of working with a small team" I'm not convinced that this bit of the sentence actually adds any encyclopedic value to the article
  • Mm, I think it speaks to their design choices - rather than trying to "overcome" the handicap of a small team and still produce something at the AAA-level of photorealism or depth, they just went whole-hog into minimalism.
  • "aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic." what does that score indicate? Is it average for games of the type? High?
  • Hard to say. Islanders is quite stripped-down compared to most city-builders and there's not much else out there in the same vein. Comparing it to something like Sim City or Anno 1602 would be a bit like comparing a haiku to a novel. As far as average for the game industry as a whole, gaming tends to have a problem with artificially high scores (the TvTropes page on the so-called Four Point Scale sums it up fairly well), so 82 is probably right about average.
  • I think that this article is long enough to have items linked again in the body that are linked in the lede, but am not sure
  • I'm happy either way so if you want links, only say the word and I shall make links :)
  • Reception slips into "A of B said C. A of B said C" cycles at times-- can you try and mix it up a bit more? WP:RECEPTION may be helpful if you haven't read it already.

A very nice article overall. I think that's it from me, but may come back with more later. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Eddie891, thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of them and the only thing left to work on is the reception section. Should be finished overhauling it sometime tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Fixed both and added alt text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

edit
  • The article is looking good. Just a comment about the references, in my experience of Feature Articles, it is encouraged to have all URLs archived. I would also ensure you have all the aspects of a citation: consistently italicise Islanders, link the work and publisher on first mention and write out the entire date; like this example [1]
  • I'd say this would be a quick way immediately improve the article. SatDis (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to see the references have been archived, however, dates and publishers need further formatting.
  • Gameplay section looks good and is well referenced. I would link sandbox though - I think that would be the correct page but double check. SatDis (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SatDis, I linked sandbox as above and am working on references. Most are not linked because they are not independently notable (and thus would be redlinks), and most appear to be published "by themselves" in the same way that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Co, so I've omitted the publisher field there are recommended by {{Cite web}}. I also didn't italicise Islanders in ref titles as I notice that other FAs for games (such as Dishonored) don't italicize the game name in the ref titles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response. That sounds fine with the independent works, and the italicising is all good. The references are looking better, I will check in again once complete. SatDis (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone through and just expanded on the dates for the archive-date and access-date; writing it out in full is usually the way to go. Another suggestion; for the Italian, French and German references, you can use trans-title= in the citation to write out what the translation is. SatDis (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Plunkett, Luke (March 12, 2019). "Islanders Looks Like The Cutest Lil' City-Building Game". Kotaku. G/O Media. Archived from the original on December 22, 2020. Retrieved August 2, 2019.

Support from ImaginesTigers

edit

Hi! Tagging now to let you know I'll be reviewing in the next 24 hours. ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's jump right in. I have one question about citations, and a few about the prose. I've made a few changes to the prose already for concision, but you are free to revert them.

Prose:
Generally communicates gameplay very plainly and clearly with a minimal use of jargon. Similarly, attention has clearly been paid to ensuring that sections flow naturally from one section to the next. That said, I have some questions! The last paragraph of Gameplay details some post-launch updates, but it’s unclear if those were free or paid DLC. At the same time, it glosses over the times of those release and their distribution on the various platforms — did these all go live at once to every version of the game? The section on criticism begins with a sentence that indicates the remainder of the paragraph will discuss only the criticism of the low poly style (it is not; it serves as a very abridged negative criticism section, compared to the several positive paragraphs). As a result, the critical reception component of the lead feels a little underdeveloped.
a) Free, which is why I called them updates rather than DLC; in my gaming experience, update tends to imply changes made at no cost to the player, while DLC implies paid content. b) Mac and Linux support were added after the other updates, and the June 2019 update was the last big one save for a bugfix and a language update. To solve this, I consolidated the sentences about the updates into a paragraph sub-heading called "Release and updates" under Development, so now all the wording about the June 2019 update is together and (should) be more cohesive. c) I don't think it implies that at all. "The game's studied minimalism" refers to the whole game, not just the visuals. The article as a whole discusses the game's minimalist schtick throughout - the gameplay, the lack of "bells n whistles" like tech trees or achievements, the graphics, etc. I don't think it would surprise someone who's read the whole to see the whole game referred to as minimalist in that way. As for the size of the criticism section, I could try to expand it, but I'd be reaching/fluffing a little - most criticism really boiled down to "but I wanted it to be more of itself" in some way, and it's hard to expand on that more than I have without repeating myself or over-relying on pull quotes just to expand the word count. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations:
I notice that one of the sources for the game's development is the developer's blog. I understand why this might be necessary, but I do have some concerns about using it here because the rest of it is advertising-related -- it’s a pitch. On another note on citations (note that this is only a recommendation based on experience), using a French-language source, it would be really helpful to put the French language original in the "quote" section of the citation. This just makes it easier for others to find, given the language can't just be Ctrl+F'd.
I also don't super love using the primary sources (the Steam news release is another), but in this case it's in there mostly to cite the detail that it was made in their 3rd year of a game design BA, which I think is interesting enough to be worth keeping in even at the price of citing a primary source. (I also use the dev's blog to cite for the infobox that the game is built on the Unity engine, so given that it's kind of in there anyway I figured I could throw it in again). Regarding quotes in the citation, why specifically only the French source? There are German and Italian ones also. In any case, I'm not partial to that given that those sources are used elsewhere in the article, so the quote wouldn't apply to those other citations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, these are my only real observations. I think this is a very small article, reasonable in scope, with a survey of the relevant literature. One issue is, of course, that very few non-games outlets are quoted. But the criteria asks for the "relevant" literature, and this is simply what exists, and isn't a reflection on you. I've conducted a few searches and cannot see any glaring omissions. Pending your responses, I am leaning support. I don't ask that you make changes based on what I've said; only that you explain your choices as best as you can. It was an engaging article; well done! ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate you taking the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm fairly new to this process, so those explanations also help me. I'm going to Support this nomination. Great work! ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

edit

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs sorry to hassle you, just wondering if you're still looking at commenting here? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • Since the release date is included in the lead and article, I do not see the need for a citation for this in the infobox.
  • I was just being completionist but I'll pull it
  • Currently, the game engine is only mentioned in the infobox. Is there a reason to not include this in the lead and the article as well?
  • The reason is that I am dumb :) But I have fixed it now.
  • For this part, German independent game studio, I would extend the link out to independent game just to make the link clear to the reader.
  • Done
  • Would a link to inventory be helpful to readers who have not played a video game?
  • Done
  • For this sentence, The game intentionally omits many features common to city-builders, I would link city-builders since this is the first time it is mentioned in the article and a link would stay consistent with what is linked in the lead.
  • You link procedurally generated, but not in the article. I would recommend linking the first instance in the article for consistency. Also, I notice an instance where you use this with hyphens and another without so please be consistent with either way.
  • Done for this and the above, and inventory since it's mentioned in the lead and the body.
  • Done
  • Is there any further information on why Shahrabi left Grizzly Games?
  • No, I assume he graduated, but can't confirm.
  • This is more of a nitpick, but in the second paragraph, I noticed you used "found that the process of" in two back-to-back sentences, and it may be beneficial to change on these instances to avoid being repetitive.
  • Oh, nice find. I fixed that.
  • I have a question about the Michael Moore review. I have not looked at the cited review, but it reads more like a negative perception of the game. Is that a fair assessment? I was curious about this because this sentence is put between more positive reviews so I was struck by it when I first read it, and I was wondering if it could be placed differently.
  • The Moore article isn't really a review, it's a column that compares Islanders with another miniature city-builder, 20 Minute Metropolis. I see what you mean though; I reworded the sentence to tie it more clearly to the aesthetic theme of the paragraph.

Wonderful work with the article. A majority of my comments are very minor nitpicks as I believe the above reviewers have already done a great job with reviewing this. I have seen this game on Steam a lot so it was fun to finally read and learn more about it, and I appreciate that you chose to do a FAC on such a wildly different topic than your previous one. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I never like to strike the same place twice :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

edit

Comments Support from Le Panini

edit

I see I said I was gonna review this, but withdrew... a month ago. Sorry about that. That was probably annoying to see. Comments soon. Le Panini [🥪] 02:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh s'all good I understand.
Lead
  • "It was built using the Unity 3D engine." I think this sentence belongs in the third paragraph, about development.
  • Honestly I hated it in the third para so I just yanked it out of the lead entirely. I noticed that other gaming FAs didn't include the engine in the lead, so I don't think it's that great of a loss especially since it's in the infobox.
Gameplay
  • "so careful placement and forward planning are important to maximize the score." This sounds two game guide-like to me, and I think it'd be better if this was removed.
  • Hm, I dunno. I think it tells you about the style of game that's being played. It's not a sandbox game where you can succeed while placing stuff willy-nilly. Strategizing and planning ahead with limited resources is the crux of the game - if you place something badly, you can't remove it later, you just have to deal with it. (Compare, say, Dishonored, which discusses the gameplay ramifications of stealth vs violence in its gameplay section - the contrast goes to the heart of the game).
Release and updates
  • "The game, which uses the Unity 3D engine, was initially released on Steam for Microsoft Windows on 4 April 2019." There's four references for these simple statements. If two of these sources are to cite the Unity 3D engine claim, I'd move them up, like this: "The game, which uses the Unity 3D engine,[1][1] was initially released on Steam for Microsoft Windows on 4 April 2019."[1][1]
  • I hate putting references mid-sentence. I yanked the two Kotaku references instead so we're down to two.
Reception
  • "Critical reception to Islanders was largely positive, and it received an aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic," I'd change this to "Critical reception to Islanders was largely positive, receiving an aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic,"
  • Wording it that way is grammatically a bit wonky; it implies that the critical reception is the object receiving the aggregate score. I semi-colon'd it instead, does that work?
  • Sure.

This article is good. A simple article for a simple game. Le Panini [🥪] 03:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've made some changes as above (not always as suggested, but hopefully acceptable). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, forgot to mention I wasn't watching this page, so sorry about the delayed response. I'll lend my support. Le Panini [🥪] 12:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 January 2021 [43].

Ba Congress

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the final roll of the dice for Draža Mihailović's Chetnik guerilla movement in occupied Yugoslavia during WWII. Conducted at a point when large parts of the Chetnik movement had been drawn into collaboration with the Germans and their puppets, it may have been conducted with the tacit approval of the Germans. Its main outcome was the creation of a single political party and political platform for the Chetniks, something that came far too late in proceedings to have any impact on the eventual Allied decision to abandon the Chetniks and throw their full weight behind Josip Broz Tito's Partisans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews

edit
  • File:August Meyszner.jpg I think the copyright claim on this one is wrong. The amount of works that are PD-exempt under German law is quite narrow, and this doesn't seem to be "a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". According to Commons:Template:PD-Germany-§134 the image would have been copyrighted for 70 years after publication, until after URAA date. (Also, it is not adding very much to the article.)
s5 (2) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights states that "official works" include "other official works, which have been published in the official interest for general knowledge" [Das gleiche gilt für andere amtliche Werke, die im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht worden sind] as long as the source is credited, and a government directory about the members of the Reichstag is clearly published in the public interest for general knowledge. I think depiction of the senior SS and police official in the occupied territory, who was apprised of the outcomes of the conference, is quite relevant to the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even accepting that argument, "as long as the source is credited" is not public domain, as claimed—so the licensing is wrong. And I'm not sure how official it is given that it appears to have been printed by a private publisher (de:Rudolf Ludwig Decker). (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the issue is here, the German law says (if it is an official work) it is PD-exempt, not PD, they are two different things. So how is the licensing wrong? And if you look at Worldcat for other entries for this same book, it clearly says that it is a "National government publication"[44] or Government publication"[45]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official work (de:Amtliches Werk) is not synonymous with public domain in German law. The dewiki article cites Wolfgang Maaßen: Bildzitate in Gerichtsentscheidungen und juristischen Publikationen, in: ZUM 2003, S. 830–842. as stating that the reuse of images included in court proceedings and so forth outside their original context is prohibited. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not "and so forth", Maaßen's work clearly is about images from court decisions and legal publications. This is a governmental publication, not a legal one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be at an impasse here, I wonder if Nikkimaria would mind having a look at this one? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak German so not sure how much help I'll be in interpreting the nuances of the statute. However, commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Official_works indicates that the GermanGov tag should not be used for works claimed under s5(2)? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the German licence with PD-because, and explained what I've detailed above. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you don't need to spell out Draža Mihailović in the second caption you mention him ()just use last name?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Funk, sorry about the delay, I was peacemaking another Balkan drama, and got distracted. I will advertise this with the Milhist, Hist and Yugo projects to see if I can drum up some more reviewers. In the meantime, if you would like to do a full review, that would be greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I also see a new review may begin below, so there'll be less chance of archival. A few more comments below for now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "creation of the Ustasha puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH)" This wording is a bit esoteric, how about something like "a puppet state controlled by the fascist Utasha organization" or similar for context? If so, a link to fascist further below should be removed.
Fixed, I hope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of the pre-war Banovina Croatia" You could add "province" for context?
have used current states for clarity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the Italian capitulation" Can it be linked? Seems like there is a link further below which should then be removed.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reaffirmation of the Yugoslav idea" Anything to link?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the extremist Greater Serbia elements" A bit esoteric, maybe "for the extremist elements that had Greater Serbia as their goal" or similar?
Reworded slightly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Views on the character of the congress have varied between" The present tense "have" made it seem like these are later views, perhaps remove it it only applies to contemporary figures?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this was opposed by Vasić and Moljević." Why?
Probably because of the large Serb population within Bosnia which they wanted to tack directly onto Greater Serbia, but I seem to have misplaced the scan of the relevant page which might confirm that, so have requested it from RSX. Will update when I get it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source that explains, and added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You suddenly mention ""Ravna Gora" without introduction. What is it?
An alternative name for the Chetniks. Added explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "national minorities who were enemies of Yugoslavia" Any specification of who these were?
Redžić doesn't say, but the Germans of Yugoslavia would definitely be on top of the list, possibly also the Bosnian Muslims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Claims by Chetnik adherents that this aspect of the Ba Congress demonstrated "overwhelming popular support" for Mihailović are seriously flawed,[44] as they fail to recognise that the pre-war Yugoslav political parties were not mass-membership organisations, and support from the leaders in no way assured support from those that voted for the various parties in the most recent election in 1938." This reads distinctly as someone's opinion and is sourced to a single citation, so I think in-text attribution would be appropriate here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He forcefully refused to join the drift into collaboration affecting much of the Chetnik movement at the time" I assume this refers to collaboration with the Germans, but I think it could be stated outright for clarity then.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These reports mentioned the frequent anti-German outbursts that had occurred" This doesn't really seem to be mentioned in the Discussions section, could we get some examples of this there?
Good point, added a sentence to the discussion section, but there isn't any further detail about what was said. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it would be too much, but could the end of the article mention how the Chetniks fared later in the war? Did they end up allied with the Germans, or did they stay ambiguous?
Added a para. Too much? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The principal outcome of the congress was the creation of the JDNZ, a political party formed to unite all elements of the Chetnik movement." and "At the congress, a new political party was formed, the Yugoslav Democratic National Union (Serbo-Croatian: Jugoslavenska demokratska narodna zajednica, JDNZ)" seems repetitive. Why not merge the two sentences?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it has been argued that the congress was held with the tacit approval of the Germans" It seems odd that you give the in-text attribution for this in the intro rather than the article body. I'd assume the intro is where you'd want to save space.
Now fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Funk, all done except I am waiting for access to a source for why Vasić and Moljević opposed a Bosnian federal unit. It may not say, but best to check. Please check if I've addressed your other comments satisfactorily. Thanks for the review, and again, apologies for the delay in addressing them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit
I was waiting for some responses to my comments above while I was reviewing elsewhere, but was going to continue soon. Unless this will be archived soon whether I continue or not? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll try and take a look sometime later this week. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm away for a few days, but will try to address a few comments when I have internet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Parsecboy

edit
  • the lead in these negotiations was the leader" - lead and leader seems a little repetitive to me
Good point, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lines "On 8 December 1943, in the wake of the Tehran Conference decision...attacks were never carried out." and then "British Prime Minister Winston Churchill used... dismissed as a minister in the government-in-exile." seem out of place to me. I can see the connection between the refusal to carry out the sabotage and Britain boycotting the congress and shifting support to the Partisans, but it seems much more suited to the Prelude section to me. I'd think it would make more sense to move that material up, and then simply state that the British refused to attend because of it, but that Musulin attended at his own initiative.
Excellent idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through that section again, I think it might fit best if you split off the bit beginning with "The second threat was..." and integrate it there. It seems like it would fit nicely with the line about the Brits deciding by December that the Chetniks were more interested in fighting the Partisans than the Axis. Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, thanks Nate. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moljević and the long-term Chetnik supporters clashed with Topalović and the politicians" - it's a little unclear what actually happened here - arguments? A physical confrontation of some sort?
Verbal as far as I can tell, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it curious that the anti-communist Chetniks sent a message of solidarity to Stalin - any idea what that was about?
There was a bit of pan-Slavism going on among the Serbs, but have added a bit from Roberts that explains the background. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "national minorities who were enemies of Yugoslavia" - do we have any indication which groups were to be targeted?
FunkMonk asked the same question, probably the Volksdeutsche and Bosnian Muslims for starters, but the sources don't specify. The resolution was quite vague, and this was probably intentional. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow

edit

An excellent and detailed article that does well to cover a complicated subject. From my read through I had only a small number of comments - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says: In December, the major Allied powers met at Tehran and decided to provide their exclusive support to the Partisans and withdraw support from the Chetniks. but the main text states at the Tehran Conference of 28 November to 1 December, the Allies had agreed to throw their support behind the Partisans. Was the decision made on the last day of the conference?
Good pickup, fixed lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principal outcome of the congress was the creation of the JDNZ, a political party formed to unite all elements of the Chetnik movement. We've already established that the JDNZ was a political party earlier in the lead so it seemed a little repetitive to me. Perhaps "...the creation of the JDNZ which was intended to unite..." but happy if you want to keep it as is
This was also picked up by an earlier reviewer, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topalović proposed that Bosnia should be a fourth federal unit, but this was opposed by Vasić and Moljević. was a little confusing for me. The only prior mention of possible federal constituents was the communist proposal of "six constituent republics with equal rights, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia". The three units of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia proposed by the congress are not introduced until the Ba Resolution is outlined in the next section.
Moved this bit down to after the outline of the Ba Resolution, it doesn't need to be where it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done I reckon, Dumelow! Thanks for taking a look. See what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good Peacemaker67 - Dumelow (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, PM! Congratulations for weaving together this readable article on such a convoluted subject. Pendright (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The Ba Congress, also known as the Saint Sava Congress or Great People's Congress, was a meeting of representatives of Draža Mihailović's Chetnik movement between 25 and 28 January 1944 in the village of Ba in the German-occupied territory of Serbia during World War II
Consider these changes: was a meeting of representatives of [the] Draža Mihailović's Chetnik movement [held] between 25 and 28 January 1944
I don't think the definite article is right, but added "held". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the Partisans and the Ustashas had united to exterminate [the] Serbs.
Add [the] definite article
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backgrund:

  • In different parts of the country the Chetnik movement was progressively drawn into collaboration agreements: [.] f [F]irst[,] with the forces of the puppet Government of National Salvationin the German-occupied territory of Serbia, then with the Italians in occupied Dalmatia and Montenegro, [next] with some of the Ustasha forces in the northern Bosnia region of the NDH, and, after the Italian capitulation in September 1943, with the Germans directly.
Consider the above changes
Done, thanks, much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude:

Reverses in Montenegro and Herzegovina had shown that the Chetnik political program was producing unsatisfactory results,
Was it the execution of the program or an ideology failure?
principally the ideology, although their political organisation was also poor, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Pribićević and Stanojević were only the nominal leaders of their respective parties, as the real decision-makers in their parties were with the government-in-exile in London.
The word only would seem to fit better after the?
I don't think so. "only the nominal" is standard phrasing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, the Chetnik leader accepted them, with the proviso that the politicians firmly commit to the agreement.
  • Remove the comma after nevertheless, it's optional with a short introductory phrase and the clause seems to read better?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the word but before with
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next step was the calling of a congress to ratify the new political structure and announce the new program.
At this point, isn't it still a proposal?
Yes, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chetniks took advantage of this delay, which, combined with the relative protection afforded by armistice agreements they had made with the Germans in November, allowed them to convoke the Ba Congress as a striking political gesture aimed at addressing the resolutions of AVNOJ and providing an alternative political vision for post-war Yugoslavia.
Broke this long sentence ino two: See what you think?
The Chetniks took advantage of this delay, by using the relative protection afforded by the armistice agreements they had made with the Germans. It allowed them to convoke the Ba Congress as a striking political gesture aimed at addressing the resolutions of AVNOJ, and providing an alternative political vision for the post-war Yugoslavia.
Good idea, went with something very similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participants:

  • The delegates included principal Chetnik commanders, politicians who had joined the Chetnik cause at the beginning, such as Vasić and Moljević, representatives of old Serb political parties who had decided to join with the Chetniks later on, and others.
Consider adding the word "attendinrg" between "The & delegates", and delete the comma betweem "on & and"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conference was unique during the war in that it was the only gathering which included the main Chetnik commanders and closely aligned politicians as well as Chetnik supporters among the pre-war political parties.
  • As you know, the words conference and congress differ in meaning - does it matter here?
Changed for consistency. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a 34 word sentence without a punctuated pause?
Added a comma. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 8 December 1943, in the wake of the Tehran Conference decision,[9] the British Commander-in-Chief of the Middle East, General Henry Maitland Wilson had sent a message to Mihailović asking him to attack two specific bridges on the Belgrade to Salonika railway line.
Add a comma after Wilson.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tito exclusively, and that Mihailović might have to be dismissed as a minister in the government-in-exile.[9]
Unclear?
In what respect? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<> I misread, my apology! Pendright (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dicussions:

  • Mihailović was not overtly involved in the following discussions.
  • In common with political practice under the period of royal dictatorship from 1929, the congress formed a new political party, the Yugoslav Democratic National Union (Serbo-Croatian: Jugoslavenska demokratska narodna zajednica, JDNZ), and Topalović was appointed as its chairman. Despite the very small size of the Socialist Party before the war, Topalović was apparently chosen due to his links with two Labour Party members of the Churchill war ministry, Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin.
The transition between these two paragraphs do not seem to connect smoothly.
I have actually inserted an additional sentence at the end of the first para of the section, so that may affect how you see this but the paras have distinct purposes, the first to explain Mihailović's stance, the second to explain the formation of the JDNZ, and the last to explain the different takes on the congress by the participants. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolutions:

  • and called upon the Partisans to follow democratic process.
Need an article between follow & democractic
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Pendright. Thanks for your excellent review. Just one query above I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Responded to query, all good! Supporting - Pendright (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this seems to be progressing well, three supports (including one non-Milhist) and image and source reviews, with another support anticipated. Can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2021 [46].

Acamptonectes

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC), --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the first "official" WP:WikiProject Palaeontology collaboration, and the first FAC about an ichthyosaur, a group of prehistoric marine reptiles which were convergently similar to dolphins. Having been named relatively recently, not much has been published on it (not even a size estimate), so most info available about it is summarised here. To fill in some blanks not covered by the scientific sources, we have also used some news sources and blog posts with non-controversial statements from the scientists involved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • What makes Mr Wood's Fossils a high-quality reliable source? Geosciences?
As noted in the blurb, we have used some blogs and news sources to fill in blanks not covered by the scientific articles. This one is a guest post by one of the describers of Acamptonectes, and is only used to provide non-controversial information about how the team and article that described the animal came together. This kind of circumstantial info is interesting here, but not the kind of info included in scientific papers. And since it is evidently written by an expert in the field, it should pass per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. As for Geosciences, it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geosciences is published by MDPI, which has received mixed reviews at RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems both those discussions conclude that it depends on the content. In this case, it is the following sentence "In 2012, palaeontologist Maria Zammit suggested the slender, shallow snout and tooth morphology of Acamptonectes indicate it had a different diet and lifestyle from other known Cretaceous ichthyosaurs. She suggested its slender tooth crowns with longitudinal ridges may have been used to impale rather than grasp prey, and its diet may thus have consisted of fleshy prey that did not have a hard exterior." This is in line with what some of the other sources say and not controversial. And the author, Maria Zammit, has published ichthyosaur papers in various journals[47], so there aren't really any red flags in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: in the first instance of this citation, do you mean to cite the correction or the actual article?
It is cited as a reference for the actual specimen number. I have moved the citation to a better location. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean refs 20 and 21, the sources are actually in English, just with a Russian title. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are others that appear to be non-English, eg FN5. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now marked two sources as German. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthy

edit

As promised over at the Sennacherib FAC I'll take a look through this article soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the description of Platypterygius speetoni considered invalid because Appleby died before publishing his monograph? It has to have been published somehow (or we wouldn't know about it?) so I think it could be made more clear why the present species name is not the earlier named speetoni or why P. speetoni is not considered a synonym of some sort.
It's a nomen nudum (though the sources don't state this specifically), the article currently says "in a monograph that remained unpublished at the time of his death in 2003" and "Appleby's widow Valerie asked him to help finish Appleby's unpublished monograph." Should it be explained further? So the describers evidently read the unpublished monograph since they mention this name, but why they didn't use it in the published version I can't say... FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to miss the bit about Valerie. So it seems that they got a look at the monograph but then did their own thing with the description. A bit strange but yeah, I don't think more needs to be said, then (and seems there isn't more that can be said). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "basioccipitals, stapes, and a basisphenoid" - what these are could be explained under "history of discovery" (as is done for other bones in this section). Looks like they are explained under the later "skull" section instead. Basioccipital, which is first mentioned here, is also unlinked here but linked at its second mention under "skull". Might be good to look through both these sections so that stuff is linked and explained at its earliest mention.
I'm not entirely sure how or why some of the glossing was moved down from first mention, perhaps because they were thought more relevant under description (or maybe because description was written first). But I'll try to move them up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved up and glossed some more. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! One thing; looks like "basioccipital" is now not linked at all in the text (and seems to go unexplained). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the stuff under "postcranial skeleton" is unexplained as well, for instance "coracoid" and "acromial process".
Should be fixed, per above. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis were the clades Opthalmosaurinae and Platypterygiinae strongly suspected, and named by Arkhangelsky, if they had no support in previous analyses?
The point that Naish is making, I believe, specifically pertains to a lack of robust support from phylogenies. I think this sentence is worded poorly so I'll rewrite it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baptanodon is linked twice under "skull"; this is the only real duplink as far as I can see (not counting the links in the cladogram for instance).
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it almost seems like each analysis got at least somewhat different results, would it be worthwile to include more than one cladogram (as in Mosasaurus) or is the 2020 analysis definitive in some way?
I've tried to make this clear through the organization (without straying into SYNTH) but I think there is a quasi-consensus in the literature for a clade of Acamptonectes, Baptanodon, Mollesaurus, and Ophthalmosaurus. I don't think it'd be particularly helpful to show any of the numerous other configurations, especially since a number have low resolution or support. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, works fine with just one, then, especially if many of the others don't have much resolution or support. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Photic zone", linked under "Speeton Clay", could also be explained in the text IMO.
Done, though is this too clunky? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this everyone; I didn't find much to complain about and most of this is just nitpicks. After these have been addressed I'll take a second pass through before supporting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All above points should now be addressed, thanks for commenting! FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it was an interesting read :) I've read through the entire thing a second time and didn't find anything else to bring up; will support once the last little thing above is taken care of. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, think I got that last one! FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yep, that does it. The article looks good and covers, as far as I can tell, everything known about Acamptonectes. Marine reptiles receiving some much-needed attention is also a good thing, hope the rest of the process goes smoothly :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if all goes well, there will be more marine reptiles at FAC in the not so far future! FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia

edit
Linked the ones you suggested. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there's a rule out there somewhere about not repeating links too much, but the sections here are long and full of unfamiliar terminology, I'd consider linking at least once per top level section for some things (especially for people reading on mobile who only expanded the section they were interested in) - eg Ophthalmosaurus and stapes are unlinked anywhere in the description section; Arthropterygius is unlinked in the classification section even though the contrast to this genus is an important point; several specialized terms like trochanter and occipital condyle are linked in description but not classification.
I agree, but I think there's a precedent for not having duplicate links in FAs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:duplinks 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", but I assume we could have duplinks for technical terms that are linked far below first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my personal preference, but eh. From the page stats it looks like most readers of this article are using desktop view, so it's not so much a problem that the collapsed sections on mobile mean you miss the links. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of individuals named but not linked, especially in the classification section when reporting on individual studies; are they notable and worth linking?
As the one who wrote the Classification section—in my opinion none of those names were of sufficiently wide general significance to warrant redlinks. Aubrey Roberts, Lene Delsett, Nikolay Zverkov, and Maxim Arkhangelsky are borderline cases I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valentin Fischer is redlinked in the history section, but not in the lead; is that intentional? He seems notable from a quick google.
Redlinked in lead. Don't know if there's a policy against that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the large eyes of Acamptonectes would have made it better adapted than platypterygiines to depth diving, it was probably a generalist predator." - I don't quite understand this. First, since platypterygiines are also ophthalmosaurids, don't they also have large eyes? (Much later in the article it turns out they're smaller, I think?) Second, I don't see how the second part of this sentence follows from the first - is depth diving considered specialized? There's another reference to this below in the paleobiogeography section - "successful and widespread notwithstanding their hyper-specialisation" - which I also don't quite follow. Feels like there's some background information here on ichthyosaur predation that maybe everyone who's read the sources knows, but isn't obvious if you're not familiar with the subject. There's a brief reference to the generalist/specialist question in ichthyosaur, but I think that only makes me more confused - there the distinction is between generalists and 'soft-prey specialists', but here Acamptonectes is described as a generalist that fed on soft prey.
You're right about "large"; I changed it to "larger". But ophthalmosaurines do have a body shape more specialized for deep diving, being more thunniform (tuna-like) in form than platypterygiines, and of course with larger eyes too. I believe FunkMonk wrote the text about it being a "generalist predator"? I assume there's different senses of the word "generalist" in play here that we need to disambiguate, but I'm not sure off the top of my head. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, "generalist" refers to predation, so I'm also guessing that hyper-specialized refers to anatomy. Zammit (2012) does place Acamptonectes in the 'pierce II/generalist' guild. Perhaps "generalist" should be changed to "generalist predator" in palaeobiology? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I only rearranged the text, but the source says "Ophthalmosaurines are considered as opportunistic generalists, because their tooth shape and wear closely resembles those in Aegirosaurus and adult O. icenicus, considered generalists." And if Zammit states it too, there must be reason to mention it. But yeah, perhaps it can be solved with "generalist predator", and adding the Zammit source there too? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this part a bit, with some explanation of the feeding guilds concept. But now the section is a bit jarring, because it starts off saying it fed the same way as every other of its relatives, and then goes on to say it was different. But those other sources are not mainly about this genus, but very general, so I wonder if some of them should be removed or if this can otherwise be reconciled? What do my co-nominators think? FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped the text around so that we lead with the pierce II/generalist guild rather than the unusual features. Having just re-read the relevant paper I think the latter conclusion is treated with less certainty in the text, and indeed Acamptonectes is grouped with several other ichthyosaurs by feeding guild. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good solution. it should be noted that neither in Massare's 1987 paper or the 1997 follow up are the "pierce II/generalist" guilds correlated with icthyosaurs, so it would appear that it is in this way some ophthalmosaurids may be different from other ichthyosaurs, but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On re-read I think I misunderstood the "hyper-specialisation" point further down as being a continuation of the predation question rather than about anatomy. I think these changes make the predation part clearer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "basipterygoids (also bones of the braincase)" - there weren't any previous bones of the braincase in this paragraph, maybe the level of simplification in the parentheticals is inconsistent? Or just get rid of "also"?
In writing that, I intended the "also" to refer to the Description, since the basipterygoid is not one of the previously-mentioned braincase bones. I reworded this to remove the "also" and clarify the bone's position. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bremer support/decay index seems like a good redlink.
Maximum parsimony (phylogenetics) discusses it, so I linked it there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cladogenesis rate was lower in the Cretaceous" - having just read a lot of discussion of reclassifications and reinterpretations and multiple conflicting phylogenetic analyses, I wondered how well justified that statement was in the source. The paper does include a paragraph on potential taxonomic and preservation biases that I think deserves an extra sentence in the article - or even just a softening like "appeared to be lower".
Reworded to clarify that it is a computation. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ichthyosaurs were better adapted to their aquatic environment than any other group of marine reptiles" - at the time, or ever?
The source says "like no other reptile", which I assume encompasses contemporary reptiles. Indeed, I don't think there has been another reptilian lineage that developed a thunniform body shape. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly nitpicks, the only issue of significance IMO is the need for an explanation or clarification of generalist/specialist predation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading I don't see anything else that jumps out at me. Support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hog Farm

edit

I've got some stuff of mine own to get caught back up on after coming off of Wikibreak, but I hope to get to this really soon. Hog Farm Bacon 02:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review is likely to be submitted to the WikiCup. I have a little knowledge of extinct reptiles, but it is mostly self-taught through reading and does not extend to this species, so this is a lay perspective on the article.

Hopefully you'll know more after reading this! FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occiput is overlinked in the history of discovery section
Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1991, it was transferred to the Hunterian Museum of the University of Glasgow (GLAHM), when the geology department of Hull University—where it was catalogued under the specimen number GLAHM 132855[2] (but was also known as the "Speeton Clay ichthyosaur")—was closed." - This is a very long and complex sentence. Maybe break the part about the cataloging stuff into another sentence?
I've done this. Does this still maintain the original intended meaning (I did very little with the history section, so I want to be sure)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that includes a fragmentary skull roof, a mandible, vertebrae, ribs" - How many vertebrae and ribs?
The source doesn't say, unfortunately. FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a good recommendation on how to fix this, but the change in topics from Fischer naming the holotype to the 1909 specimen is very abrupt. Is there a way to transition or reorder this? The topic change was very jarring to me as a reader.
Would it help if the part about the 1909 specimen came last in the history section, so that the part about the assigned fossils from 2012 is more connected with the rest of the 2012 info? FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tried it out for now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be implied (but never directly stated) that the last two paragraphs of the history of development section also refer to 2012 events. Can the chronology be made a little clearer?~
Perhaps clearer now with the rejigging of the text mentioned above? FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within the Ophthalmosaurinae, various positions have been recovered for Acamptonectes due to the same issues" - This might be some technical phrasing that I'm not familiar with, but is recovered the best word to indicate the intended meaning?
This is a common phrase in the literature [48]. I use both "found" and "recovered" for variety, I'm not sure there's a good third option. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. It's like a self-help book: Expanding Your Vocabulary through FAC Reviewing. Never knew recover could be used in that context. Hog Farm Bacon 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me, not a whole lot to complain about here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "The second-found specimen" This is clumsy and unnecessary. Why not "this specimen"?
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liston and Fischer recognised the specimens belonged to a new species and genus." Maybe worth saying why two independent assignments to Platypterygius were wrong?
This somewhat goes into SYNTH territory but the autapomorphies (distinguishing characteristics) allow this conclusion to be established. One comment we could add—not sure if this is helpful—is that Platypterygius has historically been treated as a catch-all wastebasket taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, expanded on the reasons slightly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After determining the Speeton Clay specimen is much larger than the Cremlingen specimen and thus likely more mature because juvenile specimens often have characteristics absent in adults" This seems a non-sequitur. Speeton specimen larger and thus more mature because juveniles often have different characteristics?
I have no clue on this one. FunkMonk? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late here, but this is what the source says which was paraphrased (could perhaps be done better): "With a ruthlessness that I am not entirely proud of, I asked him what he estimated the size of each animal to be – and he made clear that the German specimen was much smaller than the Speeton animal. I smiled sweetly at him (it’s possible) and said “Well, it is clear that the German animal cannot be the type specimen, as it might be a juvenile.” (The rationale is that characters that are juvenile might not be present in the adult form, so are not the safest for defining a taxon.)" FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the "characteristics absent in adults" bit to the end of the sentence since that seems more pertinent to the designation of a holotype. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution! FunkMonk (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berriasian - I think it would be helpful to give the dates of this stage.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014, Fischer and colleagues recognised this identification was disputable because they identified a basoccipital and humerus from Berriasian-aged rocks near Nettleton, Lincolnshire, as belonging to Ophthalmosaurus." I lose you here. Why should the discovery of Ophthalmosaurus bones affect the identification of the Greensand specimens? Is the Ophthalmosaurus article wrong in assigning it to the middle Jurassic?
The identification was based on the notion that the only Cretaceous ophthalmosaurine was Acamptonectes, as noted in the following sentence. These new specimens, I believe, are only tentatively Ophthalmosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clearly explained. I think you need to spell out in the first sentence of the paragraph that the identification was based on the assumption that Acamptonectes was the only Eurasian Cretaceous genus of the subfamily. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1909, German palaeontologist Ferdinand Broili named the species Ichthyosaurus brunsvicensis" What species? This appears to be about an earlier possible discovery of Acamptonectes but if so you should start by saying so.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that point of the article, it has already been stated that the paratype is from Germany, so it would seem the new sentence "Acamptonectes remains are also known from Germany" is redundant? And I'm not sure we can say for sure this specimen is Acamptonectes, they only considered it probable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The holotype and specimen NHMUK R11185 are large among the wider family Ophthalmosauridae" Larger than other Ophthalmosauridae?
Followed your suggestion but with modifications. The source only calls it "large" and not "largest". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The snout was also only 0.044 times as deep as it was long" Why not say how deep and how long?
This is the figure that is cited in the paper to show that the snout was slender. No information is given about how it was calculated (though premaxilla height / mandible length gives the same figure up to rounding). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, but are holotype and type specimen synonyms?
In this case, yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • The article on Ophthalmosaurus appears to wrongly describe it as Jurassic. Can someone competent check this and change it if it is wrong.
Ophthalmosaurus is most certainly a Jurassic taxon ([49], [50], [51], etc.). It may be worth mentioning that there are possible remains from the Cretaceous, though (although I'm not sure how valid these assignments are). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've mentioned the Cretaceous Nettleton material in the article, as I couldn't find anything disputing it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the lead and taxobox to match. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since these terms are quite similar, would that not count as duplinking? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Fixing shortly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that more could be added (this paper could potentially be useful), but since there is already data on temperature and sea level patterns under the Speeton Clay section, I'm not really sure if this is necessary? I could see if I can throw together some rough information regarding the global conditions in the Hauterivian, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note @Nikkimaria: How are you feeling on the source reveiw? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2021 [52].

William Feiner

edit
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 02:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short, little (but comprehensive) article about the life of a quaint but interesting man. Ergo Sum 02:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Armadillopteryx

edit
  • For this reason, he was sometimes erroneously identified as being Polish, rather than German.
→ Delete the comma after "Polish".
Done. Ergo Sum 20:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was sent to the United States in 1822, in order to assist ...
→ Delete the comma after "1822".
While I personally agree with your syntactic analysis, MOS:YEAR says there has to be a comma after a year. Ergo Sum 20:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:YEAR indicates that a comma should follow the year in a full MDY date, as the year serves the grammatical function of a parenthetical or interrupter. This is not the case when a year is mentioned by itself; unless I have missed something, MOS:YEAR does not treat the case of a year mentioned in isolation. Armadillopteryx 22:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. I've removed the comma. Ergo Sum 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his move, he anglicized his name as William Feiner.
→ Since this is not a general statement about the English equivalent of his name (rather, it's about the act of him changing his name), I believe this should read "he anglicized his name to William Feiner".
That strikes my ear as a bit unusual; I've never heard of the verb "anglicize" taking a direct object. I don't really see an issue with "anglicize as" but I might alternatively propose "anglicized his name to become..." Ergo Sum 20:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to leave it as "anglicized as". Armadillopteryx 22:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was likely due to his fluency in the German language and the large German-speaking population in Conewago.
→ This is fine as is, but perhaps the causal link would be clearer with wording like: This was likely due to his fluency in the German language and the fact that there was a large German-speaking population in Conewago.
I've clarified the sentence. Ergo Sum 20:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I like the solution you chose. Armadillopteryx 22:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to his pastoral work, Feiner also taught theology in Conewago in 1824.
→ "In addition to" and "also" are redundant; I recommend choosing one or the other.
Removed the latter. Ergo Sum 20:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter Kenney, the Jesuit visitor to the United States, returned to Europe, and appointed Feiner to the position in his stead
→ Delete the comma after "Europe".
Done. Ergo Sum 20:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was made the prefect of studies at Georgetown College from 1825 to 1826, as well as a professor of theology and German.
→ There shouldn't be a comma before "as well as", but I see that the sentence feels cluttered without it; maybe try something like: He was made the prefect of studies at Georgetown College from 1825 to 1826, when he also served as a professor of theology and German.
De-cluttered. Ergo Sum 20:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • James A. Neill took over as prefect of studies at the end of his term.
→ Since the previous sentence already identifies the position as "prefect of studies", the term could be shortened to simply "prefect" here.
Done. Ergo Sum 20:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1825, he became the second official librarian ...
→ Unless this is meant to refer to the subject of the previous sentence (Neill), Feiner's name should be restated in place of "he".
Done. Ergo Sum 20:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1825, he became the second official librarian of the Georgetown University Library, after Thomas C. Levins, who had filled the position since 1824, was dismissed ...
→ I think this would read more clearly if reworded to something like: In 1825, he became the second official librarian of the Georgetown University Library when Thomas C. Levins, who had filled the position since 1824, was dismissed ...
Done. Ergo Sum 20:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the president of Georgetown College, Stephen Larigaudelle Dubuisson, was permitted to resign the office, he eagerly set sail for Europe, and Feiner was appointed president May 4, 1826, by the Jesuit provincial superior, Francis Dzierozynski.
→ I would break this into two sentences (ending the first after "set sail for Europe", deleting "and", and beginning the next sentence with "Feiner was appointed").
Done. Ergo Sum 20:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
→ Insert "on" before "May 4, 1826".
Done. Ergo Sum 20:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
→ Question: Is there only one Jesuit provincial superior at a time (i.e. was Dzierozynski the only one at the time described)?
Yes, just one at a time in each province. Ergo Sum 20:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... declaring that he was neither competent to hold the office nor desired it.
→ This neither/nor construction should have the same part of speech as the headword of each phrase; perhaps restructure as something like: ... declaring that he was not competent to hold the office and did not desire it.
An alternative is "nor desirous of it." Do you think that would sound a bit too wordy? Ergo Sum 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this suggestion is fine; it only adds a single word. Armadillopteryx 22:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ergo Sum 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While president, Feiner was also a professor of moral theology in 1828 and of dogmatic theology as well in 1829.
→ "As well" is unneeded.
Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, his administration of the college was deemed lackluster.
→ Since the previous sentence mentions both Feiner and Beschter, replace "his" with "Feiner's" for clarity.
Done. Ergo Sum 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillopteryx 05:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Armadillopteryx. Ergo Sum 20:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you anticipate noting any more comments, Armadillopteryx? Ergo Sum 17:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: I read through the article again. A couple things:
  • I notice that Feiner's birth name does not appear to be sourced at all anymore; the Buckley ref at the end of the the first sentence in Personal life does not refer to him as "Wilhelm".
  • The citation that was supporting Wilhelm is now at the end of first sentence of the first paragraph of American missionary. It supports the statement about him anglicizing his name. In response to Ceoil's comment below, I figured it made more sense to put it there than to have it right next to his name at the start of a sentence. Ergo Sum 05:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where the motivation for that change came from, but strictly speaking, one would expect the fact to be sourced by the first citation that follows it; that is no longer the case where the name is first mentioned. Why not leave the citation in both places, as it sources both the name and its change (which happen to be here mentioned separately)? Armadillopteryx 03:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was made the prefect of studies at Georgetown College in the District of Columbia from 1825 to 1826, where he also served as a professor of theology and German.
→ Since the comma is immediately preceded by a date range rather than a place, the following word should technically be "when", not "where". Perhaps the sentence could be restructured? Here's one example, though I'm sure you can come up with something better: From 1825 to 1826, he was the prefect of studies at Georgetown College, where he also served as a professor of theology and German.
Rephrased the sentence so that it should be grammatically correct now. Ergo Sum 05:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last section, there are two sentences in a row that begin with "While president" (the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph). I recommend rephrasing one (or perhaps they can be combined). Either way, I think the paragraph break should go after the latter sentence, not before it. That way, the whole first paragraph is about Feiner's work at the university, while the second is about his failing health, resignation and death.
Armadillopteryx 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the paragraph split and removed the redundant phrasing. Ergo Sum 05:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Other than my one additional comment above, I'm satisfied with this nomination. Armadillopteryx 03:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillopteryx Would you like to register an oppose or support vote if you're all done with your review? Ergo Sum 14:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—I support promoting this candidate to FA. Armadillopteryx 19:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment by Nick-D

edit

I was a bit surprised to see the statement that this person taught in "Jesuit schools in the Holy Roman Empire". The HRE was formally abolished in 1806, and had been near defunct for a long time before that, and it looks like Feiner didn't start his teaching career until 1808. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching this. I've gone back and looked at the source. It turns out that I misunderstood the term "empire" as referring to the Holy Roman Empire, when it in fact referred to the Russian Empire. I've corrected the error. Ergo Sum 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hog Farm

edit

Will take a look at this. Not sure what the shortest FA is, but I think I've seen a 800 word statistic thrown around somewhere, and this is at 600-some. Hog Farm Bacon 17:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The shortest I'm aware of is 712 words (How Brown Saw the Baseball Game). Armadillopteryx 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There may have been a slight change in the word count after the above edits. Still, it's a short article. I hope this doesn't prove problematic for FAC purposes, since it's as comprehensive as I can get it, given the extant records. Ergo Sum 20:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that if an article is truly comprehensive and notable, it can be an FA. From a quick glance, I don't think the length is a problem here. Hog Farm Bacon 23:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how specific your source is, but is Galicia (Eastern Europe) or Austrian Galicia the better link? The latter is slightly more specific for the exact time frame than the other.
    • The source doesn't make this clear. However, because he was working in the Russian Empire, I think it would be more likely he would be also working in the Galicia in present-day Ukraine (which was part of the empire) than in present-day Austria. Ergo Sum 17:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then emigrated to the United States following the restoration of the Society" - At least to me, this sounds almost like it happened rather quickly after the restoration, rather than the 8 years it actually was.
  • "He was sent to the United States in 1822 in order to assist the American Jesuits re-establish their work following the worldwide restoration of the Society of Jesus in 1814" - Is there a specific known reason as to why he was chosen
  • " In addition to his pastoral work, Feiner taught theology in Conewago in 1824" - Do we know of a specific institution this was associated with, or was it just kinda freelance?
    • It was almost certainly at Conewago Chapel, since that is the only Catholic institution I can find that existed in Conewago at that time. However, this is not explicitly stated by the source. Ergo Sum 17:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by this time, Feiner was already in very poor health" - If it's known that he had TB at this point, it's probably worth mentioning.
  • "He was made the prefect of studies at Georgetown College from 1825 to 1826" - Maybe introduce that Georgetown is in DC?
  • I'm unsure about the section title for Georgetown College. It's meant to be focused on his presidency, but the heading is vague enough that topically the last paragraph of the preceeding section would belong there. Maybe make the section title a little more specific
  • "Given Feiner's failing health, John W. Beschter left for the college in anticipation of having to succeed Feiner as president" - Can we get a brief gloss of who Beschter was?
    • I'm generally a bit hesitant to describe predecessors and successors for positions beyond linking to their article, since Beschter didn't really have a whole lot to do with Feiner beyond succeeding him. I tend to think the casual reader would probably be fine with just the link. Ergo Sum 17:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall, Feiner's administration of the college was deemed lackluster" - By whom?
  • There's some MOS:SANDWICH issues appearing when I view this on my laptop. Do they appear on your device as well?

That's it from me, I think. Good work, a short but worthy candidate. Hog Farm Bacon 05:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hog Farm. Ergo Sum 17:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into things, I think there's maybe a bit that can be said about his legacy. Curren has his brief statement. I tracked down Shea 1891, which says he was never able to give the institution the life and impulse which it acquires from an active and far-seeing president, the source later goes on to say that Feiner didn't influence the students much. I've got another comment above about another detail that can be wrung from Buckely. Can only get snippet view of this, but the preview suggests it has relevant additional information. I do feel like there is some small bits that can be attributed to sources about his legacy. Hog Farm Bacon 03:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned below in the discussion with Ceoil, I've been somewhat on the fence about including the legacy evaluation. Because you pointed out that Shea also makes a statement about it, I've re-added a sentence about the two historians' evaluation of his administration, with a brief word of context.
Regarding the Daley source, I can't access that. However, from the looks of the snippets, I don't see it alluding to anything not already mentioned by the other sources. Also, given its date, I imagine it would rely substantially on the Shea source (which the later sources seem to do), rather than introduce something new that wasn't brought up by one of the others. Ergo Sum 06:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to support on this one. Hog Farm Bacon 21:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit
  • Why is the basic fact Wilhelm Feiner[2] was born referenced.
    • That was just to reference the fact that his birth name was Wilhelm. In hindsight, I don't think that's necessary, and I've moved the reference to a more suitable spot. Ergo Sum 17:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an issue with short articles.
  • Reading through Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like that the assessment of his tenure is descrbed as "overall...lackluster" and cited to an unnamed, undated (in the article text) single "historian". Not being told more, I'm left to believe there is more than likely than not an axe to grind behind that description. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's a pretty big step down on your written summary of the man's career, and doesn't give much confidence as to the articles overall integrity. Maybe a further audit of other primary sources is needed. I think I'm an oppose for now. My feeling is that the sources are so thin and sparse, you are padding out with whatever you can find. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I'm just saying that one historian's evaluation of his performance as president, which was really just a passing mention when one goes and looks at the source, doesn't really add much to the article. In what way does that impair the other sources, much less the rest of the article? Quite frankly, I think that's altogether an unreasonable conclusion; in all my time at FAC, I've never seen that kind of logical leap done before. Ergo Sum 20:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its a pretty fundamental error. "effective" vs "not effective. Who cares? Its only the internet. Which begs the question, if you have no opinion on the man, and don't care if his wiki page is given a positive or negative spin, why are were here, reviewing a 651 word summary whose accuracy you seem to care less about? Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 1.c - well researched. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Ceoil; I really just am not following you at all. I disagree thoroughly with your assessment, since I have yet to see your explanation of where exactly it lacks research. If you can identify anything notable about his life that is not contained in the article, I invite you to bring it to my attention. Though I disagree, I nonetheless thank you for the review. Ergo Sum 21:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have been pretty clear above, but to spell it it out again, if the main author at FAC of a bio can switch from the man was an ineffective college president, to "oh, you know what, that source was dodgy, maybe he was ok after all", during an FAC, without blinking an eye, and then argue that they had not actually done that, or whatever your point now is, then I have to question the integrity of the use of sources overall. Especially as the page is only 650 odd words long, and it does seem you are scraping to get the article as long as possible, by uncritically shoveling in everything in you can find. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may help if we take a step back and start at the drawing board on this point. Just to be clear, I shovel nothing; I wrote this article in good faith and I'm certainly not making any claims about whether he was or was not a good president. I'm only concerned with whether that fact in the source is important enough to warrant inclusion.
I initially added it because I thought it was an interesting tidbit and later removed it because I didn't think it was all that important, given that the author only made the evaluation of his presidency in passing and it wasn't about Feiner exclusively. To be precise, the 1993 Curran source states on p. 101: Admittedly, the foreign presidents of Georgetown in that decade–Kohlmann, Dubuisson, Feiner, Beschter–left a rather sorry administrative record.
If you would like to discuss whether that line is important enough to warrant inclusion, I'm perfectly happy to do that. I tend to think it's not all that important, but I'm open to including it if some context if given, such as stating that the presidencies of that decade were not that successful, his included. Ergo Sum 22:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are now rolling back from how the article was first presented - as an authoritative bio of the man. But now, in fact their there are clarifiers. There is not much that I want to add at this stage that have not said three times already. If my concerns are over-written by later reviewers, fine. No longer care. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sriking, prefer, and think its fairer to do an audit of comprehensiveness myself. A day or two. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to bring to your attention the discussion above with Hog Farm re his legacy. Ergo Sum 06:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the president of Georgetown College, Stephen Larigaudelle Dubuisson, was permitted to resign the office, he eagerly set sail for Europe.[20] - "was permitted", "eagerly", "set sail"...You may be using the language of very old sources. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be more accurate that my own diction is old fashioned. "Was permitted" is accurate because he wasn't allowed to just quit; he needed the approval of some superior. I've changed "set sail" to "sailed." I thought "eagerly" was just a concise way to put it. I wanted to get across that he was anxious to resign and get to Europe. Ergo Sum 05:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than this last point am leaning support on prose; still need to revisit on comprehensiveness. I accept Ergo's explanation above re "overall...lackluster"; and note that the article is sourced to 16 high quality sources. Ceoil (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
Two of the three still repeat the caption and I don't see how the third would assist a visually impaired reader. Much as I dislike holding up my poor efforts as good practice, have a look at some of the alt text here to see if it gets the gist across. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the alt text for the Conewago Chapel image. For the Georgetown campus image, I'm not sure what other detail can be added about what the image depicts. Ergo Sum 03:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a quick, rough and ready, stab at alt text. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Ergo Sum 23:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
Spotchecks; cites - pass
  • 1: check.
  • 27: check.
  • 30: "and died at Georgetown College on June 9 of that year. He is buried in the college's Jesuit Community Cemetery". I am unable to find information on his place of death or of burial on the page given.
    • Buckley p. 130 says he died at Georgetown. The burial place was initially cited to Find a Grave, which has since been moved down into the External links section. It's quite clear from the grave photo on Find a Grave that Feiner is buried in the Jesuit Community Cemetery at Georgetown, however, after searching, I'm unable to find any other source that verifies this. So, unfortunately, I've removed it. Ergo Sum 16:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having to find a high quality RS for things you know to be the case can be a pain.
Just to say that I have no problem with the word as such, I simply don't see how it can be inferred from the source: "resigning ... he set out for Europe". One could as easily infer 'reluctantly'.
I found a page in the Buckley ref that supports Dubuisson's desire to sail for Europe, and so restored the word "eagerly." Ergo Sum 03:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13: does not support "This was likely due to his fluency in the German language".
  • 8: "where the Jesuits were permitted to operate despite being suppressed by the pope and expelled from Western Europe". Could this not be supported by a source a little more current than 1875?
    • I'm sure there are, and at one point in the past, I looked for a more contemporary source describing the timeline of the Jesuits suppression. I didn't come up with anything then (I found plenty of sources where I'd have to cite to whole chapters to capture the entire event, which isn't helpful to a reader). This older one quite nicely describes it in a succinct way. Ergo Sum 16:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Considering a 150-year-old source high quality seems pretty marginal, but I shall let it pass.
Other notes
  • "who had filled the position since 1824, was dismissed from the Society of Jesus and left for New York City. When Feiner relinquished the office the following year". This gives the impression that "the following year" was 1825, when you mean 1826.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note @Gog the Mild: - how are you feeling about the spot checks? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I am feeling fine about them. Apologies, if I do spot checks I see them as part of a source review, so my "pass" for that was intended to include the spot checks. Now clarified. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2021 [54].

Blindfold Me

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is about the second single from Kelis' fourth studio album Kelis Was Here (2006). Sean Garrett and Polow da Don wrote and produced the song. It was supported by a remix, which features American rapper Nas, and a music video. As implied in the title, the lyrics are about bondage; this would make the song a seemingly surprising choice for a single if Kelis and Nas had not already collaborated on a track about public sex ("In Public") in 2005.

I had originally worked on this article in 2018, and I was inspired to rewrite and expand it following my FAC on a different Kelis song ("Candy"). I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback, and I will do my best to further improve the article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ

edit
  • I don't think a dash in "hip-hop" is needed
  • It was written and produced by Sean Garrett and Polow da Don Is this the remix or the original?
  • criticized its placement on the album Interesting. Does this mean that the critics wanted it to be a non-album song? Or any specific reason?
  • Garrett and Polow da Don were one of several new producers I don't think this is grammatically correct?
  • I think it should be Kelis's instead of Kelis' (MOS:POSS)
  • Shouldn't They have collaborated be They had collaborated?
  • Kelis uploaded the music video to her YouTube channel on July 27, 2015.[26] I doubt whether this is correct, as the video could have been uploaded and then removed some time in the past. I'd consider removing this.

More to come.. HĐ (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think futuristic hip hop should be in quote
  • I am dubious about IGN's reliability as a music source as it is a video game-centric site. I'll leave this to the source reviewer though
  • Hope and Stylus Magazine's Mallory O'Donnell disliked the remix for feeling uncomfortably voyeuristic into Kelis's sex life with Nas.[9][10] I think you can bundle these two refs into one single ref to make it consistent throughout the article

Other than the issues I raised, the article is ready for FA. A decent article, as expected from an experienced editor like you! HĐ (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the kind words and the review. I know that you are very busy right now with all of the work on the 1989 articles so I am very appreciative of the time and energy you have put here. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article, please let me know. Happy holidays to you! Aoba47 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support from Homeostasis07

edit

Made a couple of minor fixes as I went along, hope you don't mind @Aoba47: Feel free to peruse my two edits and revert anything you don't like.

Production and release

I'm not sure, but since the Neptunes are a duo, shouldn't this be collaborators?
  • In a 2020 interview, Kelis attributed the dissolution of their professional relationship to when they disagreed with her collaborating with other producers for her third studio album Tasty (2003).
Could be rephrased. How about: "In a 2020 interview, Kelis attributed the dissolution of their professional relationship to a disagreement brought about as a result of her collaborating with other producers for her third studio album Tasty (2003)."
  • The second paragraph here has artists', while everywhere else uses s's. Suggest making this consistent.
  • "Working with the man who made Illmatic and my career like a dream come true. Being able to meet these people and interact with them and have them respect your craft has been great."
  • Suggest somehow rephrasing the first sentence here. I know you're quoting the source text exactly, but "and my career like a dream come true" doesn't make sense. So... "and my career [was] like a dream [coming] true."? Or maybe rephrasing to something like: Garrett said he enjoyed working with his idol Nas, saying it was "like a dream come true. Being able to meet these people and interact with them and have them respect your craft has been great."
Suggest either removing the "an", or adding another one before "a cappella" and de-pluralizing "versions". Random thought spurred on by this point: I personally believe "Acapella (Kelis song)" to be one of the finest pop songs released this century. Look forward to you nominating that here in the future, Aoba. ;)

Music and lyrics

  • This sexually explicit content received attention for this sexually explicit content,
Please rewrite.

Critical reception

"if they kept a similar beat." is a bit vague. You probably want to avoid a direct quote here, so how about "jokingly writing that Kelis and Nas singing about erotic asphyxiation and mummification would be enjoyable if those lyrics were coupled with a beat as good as "Blindfold Me".

Otherwise, I thought this was a brilliantly written and informative article. Will support once (most of) my points above have been addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Homeostasis07: Thank you for the kind words and your help. You have helped to improve the article immensely. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article, I would be more than happy to do so. I hope you are having a great week and happy holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. I'm satisfied with the changes you've made, so am happy to support this nomination now. Good luck with the rest of the nomination, and happy holidays to you too! Hope 2021 is a better year for you & all your loved ones. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again! I hope 2021 is a better year for us all for sure. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

edit

I previously reviewed Candy (Foxy Brown song), featuring Kelis, and I have found this article to match the FA quality of the previous nomination. I find this a very interesting style of music - definitely something I'm not familiar with and a little bit before my "prime"!

  • Lead
  • Although Kelis was the Neptunes's long-time collaborator - Does this mean she was their only collaborator? Could you say Although the Neptunes were long-time collaborators of Kelis
  • enjoyed Kelis's personality - could you add an adjective before "personality" to add context for first readers? i.e. is it lively? sexual?
  • Also, I haven't reached the reception section yet, but as of the lead, reviewers criticised its placement on the album... does that mean the number track it was on the album, or its actual presence on the album? Could that be expanded in the lead too?
  • The critics are talking about how the order the songs are put in the album. This song is placed between two ballads, which is an odd choice given its very sexual concept. I have revised this part to hopefully to be clearer, but let me know if it needs to be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading Reception, could you reword lead to its placement on the album's track listing due to a jarring tonal shift or something similar?
  • While I appreciate the mention of exclusion from "The Hits" in the prose, I just see this as one critic's view, and I don't think it should be included in the lead. It feels like trivia to me.
  • Production and release
  • Just a note that I find the split from her previous collaborators interesting and I'm glad it was included and updated with a 2020 source. :)
  • Reception
  • Again, showcasing Kelis's personality - add an adjective just to introduce the paragraph clearly?
  • credited Kelis's personality to easing these tonal change - it makes sense, but perhaps something like "artistic versatility" would work better?
  • Charts
  • I think there's a mistake, as it should say "2006" rather than "2001".

Great job with the article. It's jarring to read the context of the song after writing about kids' TV, haha! SatDis (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the citation. I would love to use it because it would be very useful to have another negative review to help bring more balance to the article, but since The Michigan Daily is a student newspaper, I do not believe it would be allowed in a featured article (even if it is published by a very good university). At least, that is my understanding of it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)>[reply]
  • Ah, that's a shame! I wouldn't have realised that was a student journal. Thanks for addressing those comments, I believe the changes made have been done excellently. Well done with the article and I will support. SatDis (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

edit
  • I don't think clippings need to be given as url-access=subscription; you don't need one to access it
  • listicle is linked twice

Source review – Pass

edit

Will get to this later today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non ref related but you link Associated Press twice in the body text of the article
  • A minute thing, but you have AllMusic A & B but also Kellman a & b, would think they should either both be capital or lowercased
  • thank you for the consistent retrieval dates for non-archived links
  • I would think the National Post should be included somewhere in the Dunlevy ref; likewise with The Sentinel in the Johnson ref; and Daily Record in Gennet news;
  • seems to be a stray "]" in the Johnson ref

Image and audio review - pass

edit

Images and audio are appropriately licensed or have appropriate non-free use rationales. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid

edit

I've made a few minor change; revert me if you disagree with them. The other comments I have now:

  • "In a 2020 interview, Kelis attributed the dissolution of their professional relationship to a disagreement brought about as a result of her collaborating with other producers for her third studio album." - not sure it's very relevant here honestly; maybe better shortened anyway - "Kelis later said her collaboration with other producers for her third studio album caused a rift in their professional relationship."
  • "saying it was: "like a dream come true. Being able to meet these people and interact with them and have them respect your craft has been great." - I think the first part is enough and it just says it all, making the second sentence redundant (it just adds nothing new). At best you could write, "...saying it was 'like a dream come true' and sharing his excitement at the collaboration".
  • I respectfully disagree because I think the second sentence clarifies what he is talking about (i.e. getting respect for his work from people that he has always admired). I actually find the "a dream come true" to be very vague and somewhat meaningless on its own. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... was excluded from Kelis's 2008 compilation album" - was it about to be included and then taken out? Because that's what's implied here. If it was just not included in advance, then it should be clarified (just change to "not included").
  • I don't think chemistry needs to be linked.
  • You say "While writing for" twice in the same section - I do not understand the use of "while" anyway, but the repetition is definitely not good.
  • I used while writing because both writers are notable (at least enough for their own Wikipedia articles) and have worked for other publications other than the ones cited in the prose. I have changed the second instance to avoid the repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have hopefully clarified this in the prose. The critics did not like how Kelis had a song explicitly about BDSM sex with her partner because they felt like it was too personal/uncomfortable to be thinking of them really doing this kind of thing while listening to the song. Let me know if further revisions to this part are needed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the nomination. I think it meets the criteria and I congratulate Aoba47 for another appreciable effort. Shahid • Talk2me 10:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

edit
Hi Aoba47, no need to apologise. I recused in order to review, but Shshshsh's support of 6 hours ago gives you five supports and source, image and audio review passes so I am sure that one of my fellow coordinators will be along shortly to suggest what should happen next.
If part of the reason you were querying was because you wish to make a second nomination, feel free to do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message and for your help with the review. I was actually planning on retiring after this FAC is completed so that is probably why I'm a little restless about it. Thank you again for the update, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the worst news I have had today. Shame. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry >< Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2021 [55].

Women's poll tax repeal movement

edit
Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little known movement of feminists which occurred between the 1920s and 1960s. Because poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in the US is often viewed as a racist disenfranchisement method, scholarship on women and their activities to abolish the tax has only emerged since the late 1990s. When I began the article, I contacted Gog the Mild to assist me in organizing the material, as it covers a broad area of the Southern US. I sought his help because he is neither from the US (and thus would be likely to catch historic things about context that needed development) nor is he a women's scholar (and thus would be able to evaluate it from a broad perspective). I have also sought input from Ipigott both because he is a trusted collaborator and is experienced in FA. I sought reviews as well from Alanna the Brave and other editors because of their expertise in women's history and assistance from GRuban for many of the photographic images. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I am recusing from coordinator duties anyway as, as the nominator notes, I did a little copy editing, I shall now have a more formal look at it.

  • "eligible to vote prior to their registration." I think that non-Americans may struggle with this. Maybe 'to their registering to vote' or similar?
Voting eligibility varies, i.e. one could move into the state from another state; one could turn 21 years old; in some states prisoners could not vote, but were eligible after release. They had to pay from the time they were able to vote to present, so if someone was 40 years old and had resided in a state since they were 21, they would owe 19 years of tax plus interest and penalties. Perhaps for each year someone was eligible to vote but had not paid works? SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. Maybe put the example in the previous sentence in a ffotnote as well?
Well that was off the top of my head, so I don't have a citation for that example, but I can give one for Breedlove and one from Alabama. Done. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Payment of the tax was difficult for blacks, Hispanics, and women, primarily because their incomes were much lower than those of white men; as for women, coverture prevented them from controlling their own assets." Optional: consider two sentences - For women coverture ...'
done SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the 1950s, recognition of the intersection of women's and racial impediments in fighting the poll tax created cross-overs between activists involved in the poll tax movement and those active in the broader civil rights movement." I think that this sentence is over long and trying do too much. Consider breaking it up. Like, what is does "impediments in fighting the poll tax" mean?
Changed it to read By the 1950s, the intersection of sexist and racist customs and law was apparent to those fighting the poll tax. This created cross-overs between activists involved in the poll tax movement and those active in the broader civil rights movement. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After passage of the Constitution of the United States in 1789". Delete "of the United States".
done SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the same period"> You are not referring to a period, but to two, seperate, individual years. Suggest 'For example, white men's median income in the US in 1949 was $2,255 and in 1959 was $3,734; while the median income of non-white males was $1,221 in 1949 and $1,906 in 1959, while white women earned $1,171 and $1,499 and non-white women earned $530 and $737.'
Just changed "During the same period" to In those years SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The national organization worked to organize Democratic women at the state level to fight for repeal with the aim of achieving an equal representation of women on all party committees." I don't see the connection between fighting to repeal (I assume, you don't state) the poll tax laws and the aim you give of achieving some internal party changes.
Wilkerson-Freeman says that the overall goal was in increase political power so changed it to read the aim of increasing their political power and ultimately achieving an equal representation.... Better?
  • "The reports compiled were distributed by the American Association of University Women to gain support against the poll tax." Optional: "to gain support against" jars a little. Could it be rephrased?
Changed to gain support in abolishing the poll tax. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked it. Revert if you don't like it.
  • "worked to organize registrations of black and Latina women, who did not fall under the restrictions of the Thomason Law, which targeted illiterate and non-English-speaking voters by preventing voter assistance such as translation." This only makes sense to me if the first comma is removed.
done SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and lost their ability to vote". "ability" → "entitlement"?
done SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)" at first mention, but then go on to mix the full name and the abbreviation, on one occasion in the same sentence.
I put the abbreviation in because that is how the organization is currently known, but its formal name is the longer. I only see one instance where I used the abbreviation and I did that because not doing so seemed particularly redundant, i.e. Lulu B. White, president of the Houston chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the 1930s and state director of the NAACP in the 1940s. Perhaps I just replace the abbreviation with organization. If that works, done.
  • "Leaders from the Diocesan Council of Catholic Women, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Virginia League of Women's Voters, the Virginia Teacher's Association, the Virginia Voters League, and the YWCA were among those who spoke on behalf of repealing poll taxes. Proponents included Adele Clark from the Virginia Council of Catholic Women; Naomi Cohn, representing the YWCA; Florence Lewis, a Miami, Florida activist and board member of the National Council of Jewish Women; and Lois Van Valkenburgh, director of the League's poll tax committee". There seems to be duplication here. Could these two sentences not be run together?
done SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A significantly large proportion of cases". I am not sure that "significantly" adds anything. (I assume that the actual proportion is not known?)
No, the actual number I was unable to ascertain, but in every source women's cases outnumbered those filed by men. Removed significantly. SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among them were:" and you then only list one in the paragraph. Suggest 'An early case was' or similar.
That's a programming thingy I have no idea how to deal with. "Among them were" is the end of a paragraph. The cases that follow are all part of the list. How does one make the paragraph break? SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I figured it out. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowed the state to evade a federal hearing" Genuine question, would 'avoid' work better than "evade"?
Well it was a sneaky way for them to get around it, but avoid is fine. Changed. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and could not be conditional". But it is! On lots of things.
Well according to Ellis, the ruling "concluded by reiterating that the right to vote was a fundamental right. "Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned". So perhaps could not be conditional upon paying a tax? If that works, then done. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of particular note was the dramatic rise from 1.6% to 7.2% in Mexican-American registrations. In Mississippi black registrations to vote rose from 6.9% in 1964 to 59.8% in 1967" Are both of these referring to the same thing? Ie, that groups proportion of the total of registered voters?
I'm not sure what you are asking me to correct/change? Nimmo/Mcclesky says "There was, however, a very spectacular increase in Mexican-American registration from 1.6 percent of total paid registrants to 7.2 percent of the free registrants". So clearly of total registrants. Terchek on the other hand is far less clear "Indeed, Mississippi, the state with the lowest median income, education, and previous registration of blacks, and with the highest proportion of blacks in its population, jumped from a registration of 6.9% of blacks in 1964 to 59.8 percent three years later". But, looking at footnote 12, which it is tied to, it is discussing a rise in total registrations, not the percentage of the population that was registered. Can you be a bit more specific about what you want me to do? SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted you to tell me what you just have. That's fine.
Okay, I tweaked the text to show proportion of total registrations. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the court refused to grant an injunction, but six days later ruled on a case" The same court? (Just checking.)
Yes, the same court. All 3 newspaper clippings show federal district court in Jackson; however, with different 3-judge panels. 1st hearing was made up of J. P. Coleman, Harold Cox and Dan M. Russell, while 2nd hearing was made up of Walter P. Gewin, Claude Clayton, and Harold Cox. Added "but six days later the same court ruled". Unless you think I need to confirm the panels were different? SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO yes, but feel free not to if you feel that that is an unnecessary detail.
Okay, added "with a different 3-judge panel" SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increasing the number of male voters by 25% and of women voters by nearly 100%." Regisered to vote, or actual voters?
Podolofskey says "When the poll tax was abolished in Louisiana [in 1934,] the number of men voting increased from 260,00 to 335,000, an increase of 25 per cent. However, the women's vote jumped from 135,000 to 260,000, an increase of almost 100 percent". The footnote says "Jennings Perry reported that the "number of women on the voter's lists increased seventy-seven percent". Taken together, it seems to me that it is actual voters, as otherwise wouldn't it have said on the voter's lists like the footnote? Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So what you currently have in the article is fine, although 'increasing the number of men who voted by 25% and of women by nearly 100%' would IMHO remove any lingering ambiguity.
Done. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does much of the first paragraph of "Impact of repeal" repeat information given earlier in the article?
No. The only place which appeared to be duplicated was Florida, so I moved that out of the state section. I also moved a sentence from Georgia that had different statistics than those in "Impact". I think that it is easier to see how much of a difference it made to see them all under impact rather than dispersed through the state sections, where one cannot make easy comparisons. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Arkansas, 80% of the adult population in the state had been prevented from voting by the poll tax prerequisite." This says nothing about the "impact of repeal". Perhaps move it to Background or State efforts?
Added however, when it was overturned, registrations for the 1970 general election increased by 23.18%. per Ledbetter SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a voter participation rate four times lower". What does that mean. I am guessing a quarter, but it ia a guess. Possibly the phrase is US English.
The source says "In 1952 there was a 21-percentage-point gender gap in southern registration and an 8-percentage-point gender gap in southern voting among registrants. However, the gender gaps in nonsouthern registration and voting were only 5 and 2 percentage points, respectively". 4 times lower seems perfectly plain to me, but if you want I can say "voter participation rate in the south among women was a quarter of women's participation elsewhere", but that seems less clear to me and somewhat redundant. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your revision seems crystal clear to me, while after reading the current version three times all I had was a good guess. But if the revision seems confusing to you, then we have a US/UK language thing, and as the article is about the US, leave it.
Kinda like Brits don't speak American English, Southerners don't either. So maybe what is clearer to you is clearer? I changed it. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grandfather clauses". This has not been previously mentioned. Perhaps an in line explanation, or at least a footnote. Actually, the same for "literacy tests".
Okay, put in footnotes for both. You may want to read through and advise if I need to tweak. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the literacy test one.
  • "rising participation of women working outside the home" I am not sure that is grammatical. Perhaps 'increasing proportion of women working outside the home' or similar?
Done SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contrary to early academic beliefs". Specify when "early" was.
Done SusunW (talk)
  • "A deeper look at the period confirms that" Optional: Should "confirms" → 'confirmed'?
I don't think so, but can be persuaded. Since scholarship is still on-going, more is still being learned about the period. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Societal concerns over the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War pushed women's issues into the background and left women in a situation where though they continued to function in an organizational structure, they were often doing so in a hostile environment and were perceived as threatening to the traditional way of life of Americans" I found this a little complex. Optional: split the sentence.
Split done. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "V. O. Key, a political scientist and historian of US elections, who was a recognized expert of the era, and other academics, minimized the role of women and African Americans in the poll tax reform movement." Could we be given an idea of when this was happening?
Changed it to read during the mid-century period. If that is sufficient, then done. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abolishing the poll tax became the first step marking significant changes to voting rights which were enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965." Not grammatical.
Abolishing the poll tax became the first step in the significant changes to voting rights, which would be enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Better? SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would delete the comma, but that's fine.
done. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: "over an extended period of decades". Optional: clumsy phraseology.
through several decades. Better? SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amendments to the Cable Act continued until 1940". What does that mean?
Very complicated and off-topic for this article, IMO. Amendments after 1922 addressed women who lost their citizenship because they married an alien who could not be naturalized; residency as a condition of citizenship; how women got their citizenship back if they had lost it due to marriage; etc. The amendment in 1940, finally provided that all women who had lost citizenship by marriage could repatriate. Advise if you think I need to explain, but I think people can go to the Cable Act article if they want specifics. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh! Leave it.
  • " "disfranchising devices, especially literacy tests"  MOS:QUOTE requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion", emphasis in original. IMO there is no harm in simply removing the quote marks.
changed text slightly and removed quote marks. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, neither of those articles mentions anything at all about how married women were excluded from having their own nationality/citizenship. (I know, I know, I need to write the article, but it will be an international affair and probably will take years since it happened everywhere.) Nor anything about the difference in legal requirements for a woman to bestow citizenship upon her child pre-1985. I'd rather not link them unless you think it particularly pertinent.

And, I think, that's it from me. A great addition to Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I could not stand the fact that the birthright citizenship article did not discuss the precarious nature of women's citizenship, so I am updating it and now have linked it to this article. SusunW (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Gog the Mild. I really appreciate your help in improving the article. I am not sure I have answered all of your questions, so please advise after you check the responses above, what remains to be done. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great responses. My replies are above. If I haven't replied to a comment it means that I am content with your change and/or reasoning. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I think that I have adequately addressed what was left. Thank you again for your help. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

edit

Hi Susun, I am very sorry that I didn't get to this in time to review it before the nomination. I still won't have time for a full review, but I was going to do a light copy edit, then I encountered a problem. This isn't clear:

For example North and South Carolina exempted women from payment of the tax while Georgia did not require women to pay poll taxes, unless they wanted to register to vote. In other Southern states, poll taxes were due cumulatively for each year someone was eligible to vote but had not paid, prior to their registration.
  • "Unless they wanted to register": signalling an intention in some way triggered the requirement? Or actually registering?
  • "poll taxes were due cumulatively for each year someone was eligible to vote but had not paid, prior to their registration." I tried to copy edit this and found I didn't understand it.

SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are opposite sides of the same coin. In Georgia, one did not have to pay the tax unless they attempted to register. If they wanted to vote, they had to pay. In other states, they were obligated to pay whether or not they voted, from the time they were eligible as a voter, i.e. moved into the state, turned age 21, etc. (For an example, the first is like property tax, if you don't own property, you don't have to pay; the second is like school taxes, regardless of whether you are in school or have children who attend school, you pay the tax if you live in the district.) SusunW (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So "unless they wanted to register" means "unless they tried to register" or perhaps better: "unless they registered". And the second sentence means: "In other Southern states, poll taxes were due cumulatively for each year someone was eligible to vote." Is that correct? SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. :) SusunW (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks! SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, another question. Sometimes you say poll tax, sometimes poll taxes. Do you mean poll tax throughout or is a distinction being drawn? SarahSV (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No distinction, simply singular vs. plural. SusunW (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should qualify that. It wasn't a federal statute, so there was not a singular poll tax. Each individual state had its own state statute, so there were plural tax schemes. SusunW (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Susun, just a note to say that I'll return to this. SarahSV (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SarahSV. Not to worry, I am working on other things. I appreciate very much your taking the time to evaluate the article. SusunW (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment on prose. I haven't looked at any other aspect, but there are lots of nitpicky prose issues and paragraphs not written as clearly as they could be. Every time I glance at it, I see something. Some examples at the end of the page. Another one: "Unlike the single-focus": why the hyphen? Please don't fix only the examples I point out. The whole article needs a final run through. SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC) (21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • Example: "Though the amount of tax was typically $1 to $2 per year[23] (equivalent to $30 to $60 in 2020[24]), increased in some areas by cumulative tax,[Notes 3] interest, and penalties for each year a voter had not paid but was eligible to vote, it disproportionately impacted women voters.[25][28] Coverture[Notes 4] prevented women from legally accessing money without their husband's consent and in some cases wages from wives belonged to their spouse.[40] As men controlled the funds available to pay poll taxes, they could withhold payment for their wives.[41] In cases where women had access to funds, they were disadvantaged as the proportion of their income required to pay the tax was greater as women earned far less than men."
      • Although, not though, and how does the rest—Although it was typically X amount, it disproportionately etc.—follow? Also "and in some cases", what does that mean? This sentence needs to be rewritten: "In cases where women had access to funds, they were disadvantaged as the proportion of their income required to pay the tax was greater as women earned far less than men." SarahSV (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I am happy to make changes or have someone else copyedit it. Obviously, the goal is for it to be as good as we can make it. As you are aware, in the review process many things often change, warranting a final text review. Thank you very much for you input. SusunW (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MOS:PERCENT: "In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used: 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 per cent." SarahSV (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You added "in" to "uninterested in and indifferent to", so technically it's fine, but what's the difference in this context between uninterested and indifferent? Make the writing tighter by choosing one (uninterested in). SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, I've struck my oppose, because realistically I'm not going to have the time or energy to follow up, and I don't want to hold up an excellent piece of work. So instead I'll just say that in my opinion the article would benefit from a final copy edit, and leave it there. Thank you for all the work you've put into it. SarahSV (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SarahSV, I have just completed a copy edit of the article. I do not hold myself up as an especially good copy editor nor as having much of a grip on the MoS. Although, having pushed 31 recent FACs through the system and formally copy edited over 200,000 words for GoCE I am assuming that I haven't actually made things worse. I did most of the copy edit before reading your comments, and interestingly disagree with you on one. I do agree that the prose could do with tightening and with hindsight wish that I had done that a little more. That said, quite a bit got changed, see [56]. I am sure that regardless of your support, neutral or oppose SusunW would welcome any further suggestions for improvement. As I seem to have been given, or patriarchally seized, a free hand re copy editing I will either make any changes you suggest - including vague hand wavey ones if lack of time restricts you to that - or explain why I think they aren't needed. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I'm having health issues at the moment, and I won't be able to read through the article, but I did look at several of the edits you made, and they were good. You definitely fixed several issues, so I'm happy to trust that you've improved it overall. Thank you for doing it. SarahSV (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
Resolved issues

I'm copyediting a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

Thanks for taking a look at it Mike Christie. When my anesthesia from the dentist wears off, I'll try to provide some feedback. Right now, I'm a bit too loopy. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Background" section, at the end of the first paragraph we say that one of the reasons for the adoption of poll tax laws was the rise of the Populist Party. The start of the next paragraph gives different reasons. I can see these might not be in conflict, but as written the two sentences seem to ignore each other; can we pull this together, perhaps by moving the sentence about the Populist Party to the next paragraph and adding some linking text?
Done. But you may want to tweak it. Feel free. I don't really want to go into the off-topic discussion of the ideological switch between the parties which occurred post-Civil War, but perhaps we should change the piped link for the Democratic Party to Southern Democrats? SusunW (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you've done is fine -- just enough to make the reader aware that the apparent contradiction is not one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites, in order to maintain supportive constituencies for business and political interests: I'm mildly surprised that you're not citing post-Reconstruction racism as a motivation here, but I'm not familiar with the sources. So just checking: the sources don't deal with the disenfranchisement of blacks separately from poor whites?
Actually, they make the opposite argument, racism was a factor, but not the main factor. Black voting (typically Republican) was on the decline after abandonment of Reconstruction and 25 years had passed from the end of it to when poll taxes were introduced widely. Democratic power was on the rise. The threat to the Democrats was what pushed adopting poll taxes. Numerous sources, but Strong (693-694) makes the point most emphatically. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting article. I've struck the point; I was interested to see per Strong I'm clearly not the only one to make that assumption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see (still reading through) the article never explicitly lists the states in which women had to pay a poll tax for at least some time. Perhaps this could be added at the top of the "State efforts" section, where it would give you an paragraph you could use to introduce the state-by-state information.
Okay done. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, I see now that you never say how South Carolina's poll tax was repealed; the article says it was still in effect in 1938 but it apparently had been repealed by 1964.
Good catch. While it did not involve a women's movement to repeal, I should have treated it like Louisiana and at least mentioned when it was abandoned. Added a note. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several court cases in the early 1920s resulted in a legal consensus that the Nineteenth Amendment allowed the enforcement of the national law without actually amending state law. In other words, the amendment automatically struck out the word "male" from any state law defining a voter by gender. This language doesn't seem quite right, or else there's some technical sense of "amend" which I'm not aware of. If the amendment strikes "male" from some state laws, it is effectively amending those laws, isn't it?
The key here is that federal law supersedes state law. When the federal law changes, it is not required for states to change their laws, they are simply "overridden" by federal law. The state law can and does still contain unconstitutional language until it is rewritten or overturned at the state level. The best example is that Mississippi did not formally abolish slavery in their own state laws until 2013. I've tweaked it a bit to make it clearer, i.e. "without actually amending state legal codes. In other words, the federal amendment..." SusunW (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it a bit more; see if that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same paragraph, the third sentence seems to start over by saying The new entitlement for women generated several legal cases involving poll taxes. If these are the same cases mentioned in the first sentence that should be clearer.
Removed redundant sentence. SusunW (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source may not say but do we know why Eubank wouldn't accept Graves' payment? Nothing that's been mentioned so far implies that tax collectors had any latitude in this way.
I am positive tax collectors had the ability to refuse: 1948 Congressional Hearings,1965 Congressional Hearings, Koy refusal. As for Graves, Podolofsky 843 says only "He [Eubank] refused to accept payment and refused to give her the sought after receipt". The problem in documenting this, other than broadly, would be trying to discover what statutes in each state defined the roles and responsibilities of tax collectors. Open to suggestions. SusunW (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, since what you have is accurate. I did find this -- see the summary section. I don't think anything from that needs to be added; I just mention it in case you haven't seen it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't seen it and found it fascinating. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1922, some women had begun to form anti-poll tax groups: seems out of sync with the earlier statement that women in North Carolina had already succeeded by 1920 in their agitation for a repeal of the tax.
Podolofsky 839 states "Evidence shows that women were actively fighting the effects of the poll tax by 1922". (North Carolina's action in 1920 was seen as tied to the women's suffrage movement. In essence, if men and women were to equally have the franchise, and since the attorney general had ruled that women were exempt from paying, then men shouldn't pay it either.) SusunW (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think if that's a distinction that is enough worth drawing to separate the North Carolina response from the statement that "by 1922, some women had begun to form anti-poll tax groups", we should make it clear in the article when we mention the North Carolina case, qualifying it as you do here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just make it easier By the early 1920s SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Richmond, Virginia, The News Leader carried a story: I think the year, or at a minimum the decade, should be given. The story would have carried a very different weight in, say, 1962 than it would in 1931.
According to the footnote, it appeared 17 September 1920. Added year. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, but I'm not sure what you mean by "the footnote"; I only see the cite to Schuyler. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear, Schuyler does not give a date in the article body p 25, but does in the footnote p 245 for the information. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph that starts "The motivations of women in the movement differed" we first say that there was a good deal of overlap between the women in the poll tax repeal movement and some earlier rights movements, but then we say that these women were unlike the elite white women of those movements. Why isn't this a contradiction?
It isn't that the women were different, it is that the singular focus was different. Suffragists ignored the drive for universal suffrage and refused to be involved in issues which might divert activists from securing the vote for women. Anti-poll tax activists knew there was no way to avoid dealing with the racial component. I've tweaked it. Better? SusunW (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "negrophobia" the right word in that paragraph? It's not exactly the same as "racism"; do we need something from "negrophobia" that we don't get from "racism"?
IMO, absolutely. Racism is a byproduct of negrophobia, i.e. the development of systems and beliefs to counter the fear. Racism isn't about individual racial prejudice or discrimination, but rather the power and authority embedded in control mechanisms. Wilkerson-Freeman p 343 states "When southern opponents of woman suffrage argued that enfranchising women would threaten white supremacy, white suffragists responded that woman suffrage would actually ensure white supremacy because white women outnumbered black women. Similarly, vehement opponents of poll tax reform used negrophobia and white supremacist arguments to defend the requirement". Clearly she is making the point that women used men's fear to gain support for their cause, not that women used control systems. Women didn't have socio-politico-civil power, but they could and did strategically use fear to motivate action. SusunW (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many activists, like Virginia Foster Durr, came into the movement from other women's interest groups. We've already mentioned that women in the movement often came from other women's interest groups, so perhaps "Virginia Foster Durr was one of the many activists who came into the movement from other women's interest groups."
done SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durr first became aware of the poll tax issue after going to work at the Women's Division of the Democratic National Committee in Alabama in the 1930s and later moved to Virginia. I had to read this twice to understand what was intended; at first I thought there was a tense conflict here between "going to work at" and "moved to", but I think it's just hard to parse. If we need to know she moved to Virginia, can we move that to later in the article, where it might be more relevant?
I moved it. I think it is critical, as her description of how one had to go about registering is all about Virginia and it would seem odd without mentioning she moved. SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the source describing Durr's difficulties in registering to vote say whether these barriers were specific to women in any way? Or would men have been met with the same obstacles?
They were typical of anyone attempting to register who wasn't "in the loop" so to speak. Durr says, "I hadn't paid the interest because the people at the courthouse hadn't asked for any. They simply didn't want me to vote. If I had been a member of the courthouse ring, or somebody they knew, then they might have told me about the interest, but I was an outsider, a stranger. Now, I went to Wellesley for two years, and I had been working on the anti-poll tax legislation for five or six years. I was keenly interested in events and did my best to inform myself. But I still had a terribly hard time figuring out how to get registered to vote in Virginia". (Podolofsky 861) I've added "encountered by all prospective voters who were unfamiliar with courthouse processes". Better? SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tactics used to attain the repeal of poll taxes included: I think "attain" is not the ideal word to use; it implies we're only talking about successful tactics. How about "Tactics used by these groups included" -- there's no ambiguity about what the goal was, and "these groups" connects us to the list in the previous paragraph.
Done SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1939, the League, led by women like Hazel Schaeffer and Violet Bray Lindsey: this is in the Tennessee section, just after a sentence about the Tennessee chapter of the LWV. Were Schaeffer and Lindsey leaders of the chapter or the national organization?
State. Added clarifier. SusunW (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking or glossing "tabled" since the US meaning is the opposite of the meaning in British English.
linked SusunW (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of things I don't follow in the first few sentences in the section about Texas. What amendment did the state Supreme court validate in 1920? This can't have been the federal 19th amendment; the state courts would have had no jurisdiction, surely? And just prior to that we talk about legislation for women's suffrage -- I think of legislation as not including constitutional amendments, so I assume this is something different from whatever the state Supreme Court examined, but if so the sentence about the state Supreme Court seems like a non sequitur.
The State of Texas gave women limited suffrage in 1918 before the 19th Amendment passed. That law was challenged and the Texas Supreme Court upheld its validity. I've added local and state to try to make it clearer, but am open to suggestions. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the discussion of the Koy decision to here, which perhaps makes it clearer since the state Supreme Court ruling was on 28 January and the 19th Amendment was not ratified until 18 August 1920. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thomason Law sounds like an extraordinarily bloody-minded piece of legislation. Is it worth a red link?
I've added the bill number, which might help someone find it. The footnote references "General Laws of Texas, Acts 1918, 35th Legislature, Fourth Called Session, Ch 30, 54-55." Perhaps it is the same law as referred to in this as the "Act of Mar. 23, 1918, ch. 30, § 1, 1918 Tex. Gen. Laws 54, but other than that I could find nothing on it. Web searches for me in Mexico are different from those of people in other places. (I had an army of folks help me create articles on the redlinks in the article for anything we could find sufficient sources to meet notability.) If you think we should redlink it, I am not opposed. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a suggestion; sounds like it's not guaranteed to have enough sources so let's let it go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Men could vote if they filed an affidavit that they had an intention of acquiring US citizenship: perhaps not an issue for this article but I find this astonishing. So non-citizens could vote? When did that change?
Gunter p 81-82 says "Boss rule relied on Mexican immigrant men to file their intention to become citizens in order to vote, but did not actually encourage or support them going through the naturalization process. ... In March 1918, the legislature actually passed two primary suffrage bills. The primary woman suffrage bill enfranchised women in primary elections and nominating conventions; the primary alien suffrage law disfranchised legal resident alien immigrants in primary elections and nominating conventions. The legislature could not disfranchise immigrant aliens in general and special elections without amending the state constitution, which required a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature and a public referendum in a special election. They likely knew that they did not have the votes for a constitutional amendment, especially since alien immigrants would be able to vote in the referendum." It's actually in the article a couple of lines down...After World War I, legislation such as the Thomason Law[141] and the alien suffrage law of 1918, which restricted voting to citizens... SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, since there's no change needed to the article. Very interesting; thanks for the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • creating separate public facilities for other non-white groups: I don't know what "facilities" means here.
Everything? Water fountains, toilets, schools, transportation, restaurants. Even housing was redlined. If it could not be separated, things like movie houses or courtrooms were sectioned, whites on the main floor and people of color in the balcony. In Texas and most of the Southwest that meant Hispanics too, in California and the West that meant Asians as well. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was just me being thick, I think; your description brought back memories of reading Black Like Me a long time ago and I think it won't confuse other readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activists argued that areas where there were not large Mexican-American populations would have to redouble their efforts to keep voting predominantly Anglo. I don't follow this. Areas with small Mexican-American populations would be majority Anglo, so why would that require effort to keep the voting Anglo? And what does "Activists" refer to here? If it refers to activists working for more equal access to voting then I'm doubly confused.
Activists from the League of Women Voters who were registering voters. Sorry, it's not confusing to me... if places where there were not large numbers of Latinos registered lots of voters, that would offset the places where the voter pool was largely Hispanic. Perhaps you can suggest something? SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intention now, but I initially read this as "Activists argued that in areas where there were not large Mexican-American populations, they would have to redouble their efforts to keep voting predominantly Anglo in those areas". How about "Activists registering voters argued that they would have to redouble their efforts in areas that were predominantly Anglo in order to prevent voter registration in areas with large Mexican-American populations from overwhelming the Anglo vote", or something along those lines? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Changed SusunW (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the state legislature passed a resolution that year to abolish payment of poll taxes in order to vote, the amendment was not formally approved until 2009, when reintroduced by Congresswoman Alma Allen. I'm not clear about this either. If the federal decision struck down the poll tax, what did the legislature abolish? Did they just resolve to abolish it but not actually abolish it? So it remained on the books until 2009?
See above explanation about Mississippi and slavery. Federal law does not change state statutes, it simply overrides state law so yes, the law remained on the books unchanged until 2009. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A word or two would help a reader unfamiliar with this. Could we do "... a federal three-judge panel declared that it violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Though the state law requiring payment of poll taxes in order to vote was rendered void by the decision, the legislature passed a resolution that year to abolish it, but the amendment was not formally approved until 2009, when it was reintroduced by Congresswoman Alma Allen."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Changed to your text. SusunW (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the late 1930s, individual white women working on abolishing poll taxes in Alabama recognized the benefit of black and white activists joining forces: just checking that the source here is specific that this is something that individual women recognized but that was not acknowledged by the organizations working for poll tax repeal?
Yes, it is very clear. Wilkerson-Freeman p 353: "During the late 1930s, with the introduction of federal anti-poll tax legislation and the first meeting of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare in Birmingham, the Alabama movement to abolish the poll tax became closely linked to even more controversial issues: racial equality and states' rights. The Birmingham AAUW refused to attend the SCHW as a group because the conference was racially integrated, but individual members, such as Dorah Sterne, attended".
OK; struck, but you might consider making this clear in the article -- it seems an interesting point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, changed it to read "individual white women working on abolishing poll taxes in Alabama, but not the organizations to which they belonged, recognized the benefit of black and white activists joining forces to increase their political agency". Better? SusunW (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an inability to pay poll taxes as the reason for women failing to participate in elections: suggest "an inability to pay poll taxes as the reason women failed to participate in elections" or, perhaps better, "the reason many women failed to participate".
done SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the section on Alabama I think it should be clearer that the 1964 decision only nullified the Alabama law for federal elections. Or were there two poll tax laws in Alabama -- one for federal elections and one for state elections?
Only one law, modified it to read "it was partially nullified by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which barred a poll tax in federal elections, in 1964" SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Cases brought by women" section, the introductory sentence makes the list of cases feel like a bullet list rather than prose. Could we make the initial paragraph a sentence or two summarizing the kinds of cases that were brought, and then introduce at least the first case with a phrase that provides some continuity with that.
done SusunW (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the SCOTUS decision on Koy's case, declaring that women could vote, tie in with the 19th Amendment, which came later?
Good catch, this was a state law and a state supreme court action. It is confusing here with the federal cases. Moved to Texas section.SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The district court ruled against her because the women's suffrage act was in violation of the state constitution: what does "women's suffrage act" refer to here? This precedes the 19th Amendment so surely there was no suffrage for women at the time Koy brought her case?
Moved to Texas section, and there was suffrage in Texas under state law. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ruling reaffirmed that the right to vote was fundamental and could not be conditional upon paying a tax. Why "reaffirmed" instead of just "affirmed"? Was there a prior ruling that voting could not be conditional on paying a tax?
Ellis p 1049 "The Court concluded by reiterating that the right to vote was a fundamental right. 'Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned'". To my mind reiterating says there was a prior determination (at least on voting), but I see no conflict with the source if we simply say affirmed. done SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but it works with "affirmed" too, so striking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which more directly exposed inequality in sociopolitical systems: I don't know what this means.
Members of these groups were seen as radicals, out and out feminists, willing to rock the boat, call out inequalities, demand change. Fullerton & Stern, p 162 "newer organizations, such as the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus, had a "sharper edge." These groups drew directly on the power of exposing the historical inequities of the sociopolitical system to politically activate women". I can link to Women's liberation movement if you think that helps? SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase is opaque. The previous sentence mentions "increased political engagement by Southern women"; could we just make it "In part, greater political involvement had to do with the efforts of new groups like the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus"? Does a reader of this article need to understand how NOW and NWPC differed ideologically from the earlier organizations? If you want to include it I think it should be phrased more plainly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did warn you that I analyze everything ;) and so little is generally known of women's history that it is hard for me to evaluate what is over-explaining and sufficient to explain. Used your phrasing. SusunW (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using that power, in 1966, the federal courts nullified the remaining state statutes which used poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting: Mississippi is mentioned as a case of this happening, but you say "statutes", plural; were there other states where Harper did not eliminate the poll tax and the VRA was needed?
Richomme says "...some Southern states continued to implement the poll tax until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1966. To cope with their noncompliance, Section 10 of the VRA enabled the Attorney General to 'institute', or challenge, the use of poll taxes, thus effectively restricting its use". We know from other documentation that Texas (9 February) and Alabama (3 March) were overturned by 3-judge panels assembled under federal oversight of the VRA. Harper decision was 24 March 1966, Virginia law was nullified by it on 25 March and Mississippi ruling by a 3-judge panel assembled with the authority of the VRA on 8 April. By the time Harper happened, only 2 states still had a valid poll tax statute, but provisions of the VRA overturned 3 state laws. I've added Texas, Alabama and Mississippi. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • spanning from the 1850s to 1920s: "span" needs a direct object. I'd suggest either "spanning eight decades from the 1850s to the 1920s" or "lasting from the 1850s to the 1920s".
done SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deeper look at the period confirms: I don't think this should be in Wikipedia's voice. Similarly for n 1987, historians Joan M. Jensen and Lois Scharf noted that feminist activists between 1920 and 1940 lived complex lives full of hidden barriers: "note" implies a statement of fact rather than opinion, so perhaps "argued" or "asserted".
Changed noted to asserted, and a deeper look to "Scholarship on the period" SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dating of the change in attitude to the significance of women's rights activism starts with "contrary to pre-1970s academic beliefs", but then cites a 1987 source as an indication of the change. Can anything be said about scholarship closer to 1970 than 1987?
I'm not sure why the dating of the source has any bearing on it's assertion, especially when they specifically list earlier attitudes and works? Podolefsky p 840 "... this movement evidenced women working together across racial lines, contradicting another widespread assumption about the women's movement. The women's rights movement didn't end after suffrage. Instead, it survived, shaped by the relative friendliness and hostility of the political, social, and economic environment of the mid-twentieth century". Her note goes on to say "Authors Leila Rupp and Verta Taylor [1987] challenged the assumption that the women's movement died in 1920 after passage of woman suffrage and that it was not resurrected until the mid 1960s". Benson p 119 says "It is therefore not surprising that those who first turned to the interwar decades tended to see them as an afterthought. J. Stanley Lemons (The Woman Citizen, 1973), Anne Firor Scott (The Southern Lady, 1970), and others looked at this period through the prism of progressivism, seeing women carrying the tattered banner of reform through the indifferent 1920s and passing it on to the New Deal". and continues on p 124: "Women's historians have fallen rather easily into using the Nineteenth Amendment as a point of demarcation, but these books [Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen, eds. Decades of Discontent: The Women's Movement, 1920-1940. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983. viii + 313 pp. Illustrations, tables, reading list, and index. $35.00; Judith Sealander. As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the Work Force, 1920-1963. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983. xiii + 201 pp. Appendixes, essay on sources, and index. $27.95.] should encourage us to see a more gradual and comprehensive transformation later in the decade rather than a dramatic denouement after 1920". I made a minor change to the sourcing, but if you think something else needs to be done, just tell me ;). SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On re-reading I think it's OK as it stands; I was taking the sentence about Jensen and Scharf as the primary evidence for the change in academic views post-1970, but it isn't; it's simply later scholarship on the point. I'll strike, but first I just noticed that you cite the sentence about Jensen and Scharf's opinions in 1987 to a 1984 source, so surely there's some mistake here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! If you look at the review by Benson quoted above, she is reviewing the first edition, published in 1983. I didn't have access to that volume, only the 1987 edition, thus the confusion on the dates. Changed year. SusunW (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in part because their focus was on school segregation: for or against? Perhaps it doesn't really matter for this article but it would give their reluctance to take up poll tax repeal quite a different flavour if they're distracted by a different progressive cause instead of a racist one.
Well now the article doesn't say, Ogden 215: "However, due to the re-agitation of the race issue as a result of the school segregation controversy and due to lack of congressional interest in an anti-poll tax measure, there is little possibility of poll tax repeal in Virginia in the immediate future.", but I can assure you they were for segregation and against desegregation. Perhaps linking to Massive resistance instead of school segregation helps? Ive changed the link. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like it might be enough to make it "prevention of school desegregation", which would make it clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Changed. SusunW (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maternal birthright for women born abroad was not confirmed until 1989. I'm not sure what "maternal birthright" means; can we get a link?
Changed to "Birthright citizenship derived from the mother". There is no article on disparity in citizenship, and until Gog pointed me to the birthright citizenship article and I started making changes to it, it did not indicate that married women were ever treated any differently from men with regards to their citizenship. I am working on adding various laws that explain the legal history of women's citizenship, but have only managed to get to 1924 so far, then had to rewrite the Cable Act, so there is more to do. This article is linked to that page already. (Sigh, some day, if I have the energy and loads of time, I am going to write an article on married women's citizenship, as it was unequal almost everywhere in the world until after 1957. The handful of places where women had individual nationality I am aware of were Guatemala 1851, US 1922 (limited) 1940 (unlimited), Ireland 1935, Canada 1945, UK 1948, Norway 1950). SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Maybe a list article, listing for each country on what date women gained individual nationality, would be a good way to accumulate that data for a future article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abolishing the poll tax became the first step in the significant changes to voting rights which would be enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965: "first step" doesn't seem quite right, since in fact the VRA was passed before the very last vestige of the poll tax was eliminated.
I would agree if it said "eliminating the poll tax", but Terchek p 25 says "After the federal government mandated changes in the rules governing voter registration in the South in 1964 and 1965, black voter registration significantly increased. The first change was the elimination of the poll tax; the second was the abolition of the literacy test, proof of good moral character, and other devices designed to bar the registration of blacks; and the third was the dispatch of federal examiners to register blacks in counties designated by the Attorney General as particularly discriminatory. The poll tax was eliminated in 1964 by the twenty-fourth amendment to the Constitution and the other two changes were incorporated in the Voting Rights Act of 1965". SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think just making it "abolishing the federal poll tax" would address my concern; at the time the VRA was passed the state poll tax had still not been declared unconstitutional in Harper. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or am I misunderstanding something? I see at the end of the lead you say "Passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave federal authority to the Department of Justice to institute lawsuits against the four states that still used poll tax to disenfranchise voters in state elections", so the VRA allowed the DoJ to take action against state poll taxes even before Harper? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "federal" You aren't missing something, the VRA allowed the DOJ to target specific states that had especially discriminating statutes that disenfranchised voters. They had the power to determine that a law on the books was unconstitutional and clearly they did that in Texas and Alabama. They did not have the power to keep the state from passing another law that was also discriminatory, so Harper was crucial to putting an end to the practice entirely. SusunW (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granting women the vote had undermined the separation of the races as white women registered and voted in the same election facilities as black men and women. I don't follow this. Were black men registering in a separate facility? If so we should say so; if not, how was the separation of the races undermined more by granting women the vote, given that black and white men would have already been using the same facilities?
(Clearly you did not grow up in the segregated South, so I'll try to explain and then give an example, which may then help us arrive at a solution for the article's clarity.) It's a power dynamic. White men had the power (socio-politico-civil) to control blacks, but black men had the power (physical strength) to manipulate white women. So segregationist laws were as much about controlling blacks as they were about protecting white women (p 192). Schuyler p 24 says " If the feminization of the polls threatened white southern manhood on a psychic level, many white men believed that the feminization of the polls threatened white supremacy more concretely. The disfranchisement of African Americans rested on violence, or at least the threat of violence. Yet it was assumed that white women could not be counted on to defend the polls with force, and the feminization of polling spaces made it increasingly unlikely that white men would exercise such violence in white women's presence. Moreover, some African Americans believed that white men would have more difficulty keeping black women from the polls than black men. As one observer put it, "Not even the 'cracker' can treat a woman with quite the same brutality with which he treats a man". In other words, white men could threaten/harm black men to keep them from the polls (same facilities were used by both) but they could not do that to black women, or in the presence of white women. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Is this an argument that is generally accepted by scholars of the period? If so I think a word or two of additional explanation (e.g. "... as the presence of white women, registering and voting in the same election facilities as black men and women, had a restraining effect on white men's intimidation of black would-be voters") would help those who like me grew up in London. If you feel it's a position that is not universally held, you might consider qualifying it a little -- "It is argued that" or some such. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is definitely both generally known and accepted by scholars. But I also think it is more broad than just curtailing violence or women "mais l'utilisent pour exercer leur autorité morale sur les hommes blancs censés les protéger" [using their moral authority over white men who are supposed to protect them]. The reason white women were to be protected was to avoid "mongrelization"; she is the "gardienne sacrée de la civilisation blanche" [sacred guardian of white civilization], the key to preventing miscegenation.Stefani,Oh Simply allowing races to mix threatened racial purity. The two articles are an interesting juxtaposition, as Oh p 1341 makes the point that "Jim Crow operated to keep white women from black men, and white men from black women" but Stefani paragraph 4 makes the more nuanced argument that white men could act with impunity against black women and paragraph 5 but white women became the focus of "chivalrous acts" (violence, lynching) to prevent sexual threats against her. (Interestingly, Stefani also ties the beginnings of the breakdown in segregation to women's suffrage.) Perhaps I am simply overthinking it, as often happens when one's thinking is not linear but more encompassing. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything ramifies if you let it .... I think here some extra wording is needed though it doesn't have to be what I suggested. I would avoid the miscegenation/purity/"chivalry" line; it's interesting but here I don't think it would help the reader's understanding -- I'm just trying to make it clear to the reader that there was only one facility, and hint at why the presence of women made a difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just went with your proposed text. SusunW (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you seen this? I think it might be worth including in the article, though you'd have to check the sourcing for all the data.
    I have no access to the V. O. Key book. I found the other one, so it can be checked. My question would be is red/orange a difficult color for those with visual difficulties? SusunW (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no expert but I think that is indeed a bad colour combination to use. RexxS, if you're not tired of being pinged on accessibility issues, can you comment? SusunW, I'll leave this unstruck but it's up to you if you want to include it; I just mentioned it in case you wanted to use it. The Key book is available very cheaply online and I'd be happy to pick up a copy if that's the only thing stopping you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie and SusunW: I'm happy to be asked, so never worry about pinging me. In my view the red (#FF0000) and orange (#FF5E00) are just too similar to use without a lot of colour-impaired readers being unable to distinguish them. My recommendation would be to replace them with hatched shading with the hatching in opposite diagonal directions and by all means make use of colours, but choose opposites like yellow and blue. If you're thinking of using the image, let me know and I can make those changes for you. However, if you want to use the image, you will have to make sure that all of the information contained in it is repeated in the nearby text, otherwise you disadvantage screen reader users who can't see the image at all. HTH --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie and RexxS: I've done a bunch of analysis on the GIF (man is it hard to catch it rolling by, but I did it.) I am not sure that I understand the technical instructions RexxS, but yellow/blue works for me. As long as we can source it, does it have to be the same sources used to create the original? Because if that isn't an obstacle, then here's what I have:
    1868 Georgia — Not sure if this is correct. The Georgia Encyclopedia says the 1877 Constitution first granted the state the power to tax its citizens.
    1876 Virginia, repealed 1882 — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
    1877 Georgia — My reading is that the 1877 Constitution allowed for a collection of poll taxes to fund schools. But that it wasn't tied to voting until 1908. This begs the question do we leave 1877, replace it with and entry for 1908, or change the 1877 text to show legislation passed in 1877, but wasn't implemented as a voting prerequisite until 1908. However we do it, Florida and Tennessee should be treated the same, see below.
    1889 Florida — Enacted 1885 effective 1889 per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471) Do we make an entry that shows legislation passed in 1885, but wasn't implemented until 1889?
    1890 Mississippi — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
    1890 Tennessee — That year they activated a provision from the 1870 constitution (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471), which seems to be verified as well in the Tennessee Encyclopedia, "The Tennessee State Constitution of 1870 provided for a poll tax at the discretion of the general assembly, with revenues to be used for the common school fund. At the time, critics such as former president Andrew Johnson had recognized the potential harm inherent in the poll tax and vehemently protested it as a method to disfranchise the poor. Nevertheless, the provision remained in the constitution, and the 1889 legislature implemented the tax." The question becomes do we make a 1870 entry to the GIF that shows TN passed legislation but didn't implement?
    1893 Arkansas — Doesn't look to be correct. (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471) says 1891 and Branam, 2010, p 246) confirms the poll tax law was passed in 1891 by the legislature and approved by voters in 1892.
    1895 South Carolina — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
    1898 Louisiana — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
    1900 North Carolina — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
    1901 Alabama — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
    1902 Virginia, Texas — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
    1920 North Carolina repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 178)
    1934 Louisiana repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 182, footnote 8)
    1937 Florida repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 185)
    1945 Georgia repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 187)
    1951 South Carolina repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 188)
    1951 Tennessee effectively ended as a suffrage requirement — While (Ogden, 1958, p 193) confirms the 1951 information, he also says it was abolished 1953.
    1964 24th amendment — I question the legitimacy of this in the timeline as it only repealed for federal elections, but it was a landmark, so maybe we do? If we use it, we need to make that clear.(Archer & Muller, 2020)
    1966 Harper — Okay per (Archer & Muller, 2020) Thoughts? SusunW (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SusunW and Mike Christie: I think Mike will agree with me that we can't put an image into the article if the information in it doesn't match what we have in the sources. By all means, use your research to write what you've summarised above in the article. If you think a dynamic image would benefit sighted readers, then I could create one similar to File:Poll tax history.gif, but using your data. It would be icing on the cake, and I'd have to find time to create it, so let me know. (p.s. pardon my messing with your indents, but we might want a screen reader user to comment here and WP:INDENTMIX is relevant.) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS, neverfear, I have no problems with you changing the indents at all :) and think that the gif is an interesting addition to the visuals, as long as it is accurate. Since I couldn't access the sources of the original, I just found others and when I noted conflicts did more research. I'd be happy to have you create a gif with the verified information. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Susun, can I suggest you copy this discussion to the article talk page? It's not necessary for promotion to FAC, and you have a couple of outstanding questions above which would have to be resolved before RexxS or anyone else could build the gif. You might ask at the Graphics Workshop for someone to put it together since RexxS may not have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a bit confused about copy, did you mean move? But at any rate, I have pasted it to the talk page of the article. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the Campbell Amendments, there's an NYT article from 1949 giving some additional details about the reasons for the opposition to the amendments from groups opposed to the poll tax; it's here. If you don't have access email me and I can send you a copy.
I don't have access. Just tells me to subscribe. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're curious email me via the link on my user page, but I don't think there's anything in it that has to be included. I found it interesting because it gave additional reasons why the anti-poll-tax movement might oppose the amendments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am always curious and eager to learn new things. SusunW (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got it. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voters in Alabama could be charged up to 24 years in arrears, as they were required to pay from the time they became eligible to vote at age 21 until they reached age 45: just checking this is correct, since according to the Alabama section the law eliminating the poll tax after age 45 also shortened the arrears period from 24 years to 2 years.
Added "prior to the arrears being amended to 2 years in 1953". SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But does "until they reached age 45" apply before 1953? Didn't that only come into effect in 1953, at the same time the arrears period was shortened? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know when 45 was put in place, but clearly prior to 1953. Wilkerson-Freeman, p 333 " In 1937 Minnie L. Steckel, a sociologist at the all-white Alabama College for Women in Montevallo, made the following observations...Fourteen years later, Katharine Cater, the dean of women at Auburn, wrote: "Why have women not taken better advantage of the vote for which they worked so diligently? There are a number of possible reasons, but one of the most obvious is the poll tax. The Alabama poll tax very clearly discriminates against women between the ages of 21 and 45. Veterans of World War I and World War II are exempt from paying the tax. This includes many men. But it leaves most women with a tax to pay, one of the worst features of which is the fact that it is cumulative". SusunW (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we have a contradiction that needs to be addressed -- in the "Alabama" section you have "In 1953, the state legislature passed a bill exempting Alabamans over the age of 45 from having to pay the tax and shortened the cumulative collection period from twenty-four to two years", cited to Podolefsky and Wilkerson-Freeman. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an error in Wilkerson-Freeman as both citations are to her. She sources her information on the 1953 amendment to Ogden, pp 233-235. On p 230 Ogden says "No action resulted until 1953 when the cumulative period was reduced from 24 to two years by adoption of a constitutional amendment". On 233 he says "Poll tax opponents aimed for outright repeal in 1953. Unable to get the legislature to agree, they compromised for reduction of the cumulative period". Reading through the entire section on Alabama 230-237 I see nothing that indicates the 1953 amendment had anything to do with anything other than the cumulative period. I've changed the citation to Ogden and removed the bit about exempting Alabamans over the age of 45. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the first section of "Growth of the movement" seems a bit of a mixture of topics. We get tactics, a note about the NCAPT's formation/organization/demise, the impact of the Depression, Breedlove v. Suttles and its impact, Georgia law, the Voting Rights Act, and the final resolution in 1966. Some of this could be redistributed elsewhere in the article --e.g. the NCAPT's structure and important role is a fit for the previous paragraph; the issue of the impact of the Depression could go earlier in the section where there is other discussion of the impact of the poll tax, and is repeated, compressed, in the first paragraph of the "National efforts" section. Why is the Voting Rights Act and the 1966 SCOTUS decision mentioned here, though? What's the basis for putting something in this section rather than the "National efforts" or "State efforts" section? Would it make more sense to combine the first section of "Growth of the movement" with "National efforts" merging them to be a chronological overview, and then use the "State efforts" section to highlight particular cases? I'm not advocating that, but I don't quite get the current division of material.
  • The third paragraph of "National efforts" seems out of place -- the rest of the section tells a fairly unified story of the Women's Division studying, advocating, and writing reports, with the last paragraph telling the final chapter at the federal level. The third paragraph doesn't give dates or relate its material to the rest of the section. Again I think a more chronological sequence might be better.
Mike Christie as you will see from my answers, I'm kind of slow and meticulous, sorry, meaning I won't finish today. (Clearly I cannot just answer, everything requires contemplation, review of the sources, and analysis. ;) The structural part is difficult. It was initially why I contacted Gog, so I will need to ponder how to best address your queries and come up with a solution. This means that I will skip these questions, answer the rest and come back to them. Basically the current structure is devised to explain the scope, then discuss national efforts, and finally individual state efforts. Growth deals with the scope: Why were women involved, what women were involved (who were their partners--labor organizers, civil rights leaders), what was the problem, and why did the movement evolve as it did. This last part isn't just about changes in the movement because of related developments, but how world events, i.e. Great Depression, War, Cold War, forced them to change tactics. National efforts should only be about efforts toward a federal law and a constitutional amendment to my mind, whereas the state sections deal only with legislation at the state level. Because things were happening at a national level and state level simultaneously, I am not sure how one could make it purely chronological without being confusing so to my mind, these need to remain separate sections. SusunW (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with delaying to get it right. I will go through your answers probably first thing in the morning and strike everything that's done or leave additional comments. Re the structure, I'm open to being convinced it's correct as it stands and I do see that a purely chronological approach would be difficult. I'll sleep on it and see if I can come up with anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've taken a stab at this. Can you review it and let me know if you think it is better? SusunW (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, but probably not tonight; I'll knock off some of the easier strikes below first and will look when I have time to read thoroughly -- in the morning, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of the final 1966 SCOTUS decision is a bit distributed through the article -- it's mentioned in a couple of places, then we get a bit more detail in the section on Virginia, and finally more details in "Cases brought by women". This reinforces my feeling that a bit more of a chronological overview would be helpful before going into the details at the state level and the individual cases. I think merging "National efforts" with the paragraphs above it as an "Overview" section would not take much surgery.
Maybe that is indeed how we unify it. Instead of growth of the movement, overview? Still pondering how to best structure that. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Harper vs. Virginia State Board of Elections is the landmark case, why was an additional federal decision necessary in Mississippi? The lead, for example, says that the Virginia case "finally settled" the struggle. Ah, I see in the "Impact" section that the VRA was necessary to enforce the 24th Amendment. I think that could be clearer.
It went further than that. The VRA did not just allow them to enforce no poll tax in federal elections, it gave them oversight on discriminatory state laws. After Harper, it allowed them to nullify the state statues and eliminate poll tax in all elections. Open to suggestion on how to make this clearer. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understood this better by the time I finished the article. I'll have a think and come back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is an impressive article. Most of the points above are fairly minor and just need rewording or some clarification; the only one that is a bit of a concern is the question of organization. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate your reviewing the article Mike Christie. Very complicated subject, very complicated period of history. My brain needs a rest, but I'll come back to the structural part in a bit. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have now addressed everything. I've retitled growth of movement to overview, moved the paragraph from national efforts to there and rearranged it a bit. I am sure you may have other changes, but I am beat. Will be back tomorrow and await your advice on how to proceed. SusunW (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to everything I have the energy for tonight and should be able to pick this up again tomorrow. Yes, complicated; fascinating material and since I lived in Texas for 20 years it doesn't feel that academic a topic. More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through your replies above and am now rereading the article with an eye to its organization, though I don't know if I'll have time to finish it this morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a suggestion, though I'm open to discussion on other approaches. I think the main problem for me is that it feels like key information is buried. It's not so much that the article needs reorganization, it's more that when we get down to the detailed sections -- "State efforts", "Cases brought by women" -- I want to feel like I already have the basic scaffolding in place so I know where to put this information. I think this can be achieved with a couple of small changes:
  • Promote both "National efforts" and "State efforts" to a level 2 section heading, taking them out from under the "Overview of the movement" section (which I agree is a better name than "Growth of the movement").
done SusunW (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a bit more on the key moments to the "Overview" section, naming the cases but not giving all the details, which can be left to the later sections. Specific points that I think would need to be added are the 24th Amendment, Harper, and a couple of sentences on the final cases that eliminated the remaining poll taxes for state elections.
For example, Harper is one of the most important moments in the repeal, but it isn't named outside the lead till the end of the "Cases brought by women" section. If we name it at the end of the overview, without giving all the details, the later discussion will tie back to it in the reader's mind.
Okay, I think I have done this, better? SusunW (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having said this, I have a different question. How are you deciding what material belongs in this article and what belongs in Poll taxes in the United States? Without realizing it, I think some of my comments have been made in the expectation that this article would cover all the relevant information about the poll taxes, but since this is clearly not the summary article on US poll taxes, can you say what the appropriate degree of overlap is? For example, I was about to suggest that you add a sentence at the top of "State efforts" giving the date of repeal in the three states without subsections there, but if women were not involved in the repeal, I can see that information doesn't belong here. On the other hand, if the majority of the repeal effort was handled by women, so that this article contains 90% of what the parent article would contain, would we better off moving this article on top of Poll taxes in the United States and adding that last 10%? I'm definitely not suggesting that, just trying to understand what the difference would be between the articles if the other article were also brought to a high standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed everything to this section "I've finished going through your replies above" and while I've read what you said and agree that's a good path, I have no brain left tonight to do it. Tomorrow... But, in answer to your last query, if you look at the history of the article Poll taxes in the United States you'll see that I've tried to add to it as I discovered missing information while writing this. This article is not a history of the poll tax in general, only that part that has to do with poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. The poll tax has a long history that has nothing to do with voting and our article on it is very lacking in that regard. This article also has a definite beginning point and ending point, but the general article on poll tax doesn't necessarily. There is no discussion here about those whose motivations to eliminate the poll tax had to do with eliminating the ability for operatives to manipulate party power, nor any discussion of the concessions made to veterans (not really a women's issue as women were not generally allowed to serve in the military). It also has nothing in it about the scholarly debate as to whether paying for voter identification cards amounts to a new poll tax. I cannot really answer the how much overlap question as our poll tax article is so poorly written, but it would seem to me that there would not necessarily need to be a large overlap, except of course in the chronology for voting. SusunW (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also am out of brain power for the evening. I think your comment on the overlap convinces me; I was just checking. I will try to follow up on what remains tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've struck a couple more points and responded to a couple more. Since you say above you'll have a go at the slight reorganization I suggest, I'll hold off on commenting again till you've had a chance to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed everything, but advise if I've missed something. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved the resolved issues into the collapsed section; will look at the restructure tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through again and I think the tweaks you've made resolve the organizational question. I spotted two minor points that I'd like to address before I support:

  • Do we still need the last sentence of "National efforts", about the 24th Amendment? Now that the overview section covers the last few steps of the repeal, I think this could be cut.
done SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the introductory sentence to "State efforts", could we add "Most, but not all, of these states saw efforts by women's organizations to repeal these taxes over the following decades". This would remind the reader that this article is specifically about the women's repeal movement, not the whole history of the repeal of poll taxes in the US.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thank you. Added. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in adding women's different citizenship laws to the birthright citizenship article, I discovered that prior to 1934 American women could not pass on their citizenship to their children, so the 1989 amendment in the footnote allowed children born prior to 1934 to finally obtain derivative citizenship from the mothers. I tweaked the footnote. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your efforts to improve the article. I truly appreciate the collaboration and opportunity to make it better and more accurate. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is an outstanding article, very much worth the FA star. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias

edit
  • Going into this I had no idea about any of this, and am quite happy to have learned something here. I don't see anything major that needs to be addressed, but do have one suggestion: the "Overview of the movement" section is a little long; is there any thought to adding subheadings to it? Not a huge issue of course, but it may help readability if that can be added. Either way I'm happy to support. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Kaiser matias. I often say that in writing articles I learn far more than I impart. That was certainly the case here. I've added subheadings. Better? SusunW (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

edit

Amazing work, Susun, glad to see this here. I'm not a subject-matter expert, so I'm mostly commenting on prose. I will do some copyediting as I go. Feel free to disagree, as always. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you here. Thanks for the opportunity to work with you again on improving articles. Always enjoyable. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This created cross-overs between activists involved in the poll tax movement and those active in the broader civil rights movement"; I wonder if a more elegant term than "cross-overs" could be found; perhaps collaboration?
    done SusunW (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the formation of the United States 1776–1789" the date range is grammatically awkward; is it necessary?
    Perhaps, "From the formation of the United States, governing documents created between 1776 and 1789 established prerequisites for casting a ballot"? If that works then done. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party had traditionally been the party with which blacks affiliated, it was the rise of organized, discontented small farmers that was seen as a bigger challenge to political power at the turn of the century." I don't see how the second piece follows from the first...
    The point being made here is twofold. 1) Poll taxes were not implemented per se to disenfranchise blacks because the Republican party was in decline. 2) They were implemented in the Progressive era (when Democrats were stronger) not the Reconstruction era (when Republicans were stronger) to keep Populists from siphoning off the power of Democrats. The farmers were the Populists. Maybe it is solved if I add agrarian to the first sentence in the paragraph? SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920, which enfranchised them" at the risk of stating the obvious, might be worth clarifying (in a footnote, if necessary) that this was only legal enfranchisement for women of color, and did not work in practice until 1965...
    It was only a legal enfranchisement for any woman, regardless of color, living in the south who had the ability (cooperation of her spouse and sufficient assets) to pay to vote. I've added legally and tweaked the text, but since the whole focus of the article is from 1920-1966 seems to me that it is obvious that is when the problem of not being able to exercise their legal right (my personal opinion is that voting in the US is a privilege as it is always conditional) to vote. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the paragraph after "In North Carolina, women agitated for the abolition of the tax" strikes me as belonging further down the article, but that may just be a matter of preference...
    It is in this section to show how responses varied to women's suffrage and payment of the tax. North Carolinians abolished the tax at the same time women got suffrage and South Carolina decided that women didn't have to pay the tax at all. I'm not sure where else they would logically go, as they weren't fighting to abolish taxes that did not apply to them from 1920-1966, unless they were working in the national movement. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dollar values of the taxes would benefit greatly from those templates giving a present-day value
    Oh lordy, a technical thing. I'll try, but no promises. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I have no clue. I am sure I have the right template, but totally unsure how to make it work. I'll just do what I always do...Gog the Mild HELP! SusunW (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay done. Gog saved the day. SusunW (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a list of states with a poll tax would be helpful, perhaps in a note?
    There were poll taxes which were not conditions to voting registration in many states. The sourcing I found did not list them, but said 22 states. The only ones that required it as a precondition to voting are listed at the beginning of the "State efforts" section. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been busy, apologies. Resuming: I'm wondering why Breedlove vs Suttles is mentioned where it is; that material isn't about the tactics; might it fit better in "Development"?
    No need to apologize, it's the holidays. Hope you and yours are having a lovely season and wishing you a better and less stressful 2021. Moved it there. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the material in the last paragraph of "tactics" seems more concerned with legality...I'm wondering if "legal chronology" or equivalent makes sense as a separate section, but we can revisit that later.
    Changed the section title to "tactics and outcomes". Does that work? Mike Christie thought that the overview should let the reader know from the beginning what the following sections were going to lead to. So the synopsis of the section shows they used the national and state legislatures as well as the courts. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a little unhappy about this, but willing to defer to Mike...
  • "had even been "forbidden" by Democratic National Committee chair James Farley"; wondering about the need for quotes here; also, is any more detail available? Specifically, I'm wondering if he intended to forbid it, or whether it was intentionally in name only.
    He definitely intended to do it and the quotes are from the source. Wilkerson-Freeman p. 344: "When the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, James Farley, got wind of the women's activities, he met with the head of the Women's Division, Dorothy McAllister, and insisted that the women end their work on the poll tax. Farley then had a meeting with FDR, where he reportedly told the president, "You've got to shut up these damn women in the Democratic Committee because it's making trouble on the Hill with the Southern senators and congressmen." ... "Even though the Women's Division had been "forbidden" to work on the poll tax issue, May Evans nevertheless disobeyed Farley's orders..." SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Deal liberals" this link goes to the policy; folks may wonder how this constituency was different from labor unions; is there an easy way to specify this?
    Nope, no easy way. LOL Basically, the New Deal created public works and infrastructure, i.e. policy, programs, and alliances, to reorder society and create an environment of greater equality. Labor unions focused on the conditions and needs of the people who worked on those projects. Group A then is politicians and policy makers, whereas group B are advocates and policy proposers. Maybe this captures what I am saying. "The New Deal differed from previous eras of state activism not only because of the relatively more favorable political and legislative environment it created for organized labor but, perhaps even more important, because the New Deal provided a set of semipermanent political structures in which key issues of vital concern to the trade union movement might be accommodated". So maybe "The organization united New Deal policy-making liberals for the first time with labor union advocates as a means of developing strategies for rebuilding society". Better? SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A little better, yes...
  • Can you link/explain "failed in committee"?
    It means that they sent it there to die. The policymakers wanted to look like they were responsive to their constituents so they sent it to committee, with the understanding that the chair would never bring it up for discussion. In other words, they took no action, so it died. (Searching WP for failed in committee, died in committee, killed in committee, I find lots of hits but nothing to link it to. There is no article on the topic.) If "for lack of any action" works, I've added that. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew what it meant; but the general reader may not...
  • I'm wondering a little bit about the weighting of the "State efforts" section. You list eleven states there; only eight get subsections; of these, four are very long, and four are quite short. I appreciate that you're likely limited by source material here, but as it was it leaves the impression that the movement was stronger in some states than others. Can you comment on this? It seems to me we need some explanation of this imbalance...I did a quick google scholar search for Florida, for instance, and I found this, I wonder if it would be of use...
    Basically the states not mentioned Louisiana, North and South Carolina, didn't have a women's movement to repeal the taxes and repealed fairly soon after suffrage. It may well have been stronger in some states than others, but I cannot verify that. My guess would be that is logical, but I found no academic treatment that focused specifically on Florida, Georgia, or Arkansas' poll tax repeal movement. For example, Ogden says Arkansas women were very active, but provided no real details, thus, I am left with what I can access or what I can get from the Resource Exchange. As I am in Mexico, that often means newspapers, but even for my subscription accounts I must constantly negotiate the IP being whitewashed to allow me access. Even with access, the issue is, of course, how representative are the collections that have been digitized of the news available for a state. (In other words, for example, I know that the Oklahoma coverage in newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com are very poor. I spent years of my life researching in the collections of the Oklahoma History Society and know that there are far more titles available than those digitized on either of those websites. And don't get me started on the lack of access to the Associated Negro Press.) Between lack of academic will to study women's issues and lack of sources because of the passage of time, lack of digitization, or historic trivialization of women's news, there just aren't a lot of sources available, but I have tried to use everything I had access to. (Thanks for the Florida piece. It was interesting to read, but doesn't really say anything about poll tax repeal efforts). I can only hope that eventually more sourcing will emerge. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've to work with what you have...I don't have much to add to this; I may do another sweep for sources, but it looks like you've done what you can. As an aside, feel free to ping me for access to scholarly sources; I have JSTOR and Project Muse access, and some other academic databases; print sources are tricky, of course, but if there's a scholarly journal article online, odds are I can get it for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "curtailed the participation of women, as well as black and immigrant groups." you're referring to immigration laws; it's not clear why they apply to black people specifically.
    Added an explanation. because prospective voters who had been citizens for at least twenty-one years, were over age sixty-five, or were disabled could receive assistance even if they were illiterate. Better? Feel free to tweak it. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have the information (which you may well not) I wonder if a table or image of the dates of abolishment by state would be a useful addition...
    I am trying to get the graphics lab to put together a GIF on it, see here. I was told in my previous FA nomination that the format precludes tables. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Poll taxes specifically disenfranchised Mexican Americans because their low wages made payment of the tax a hardship." I know what you mean here, but I think the wording conveys a meaning you do not intend. Unless I'm missing something, poll taxes did not specifically target Mexican Americans; it just affected them disproportionately. There's a subtle difference that the word "specifically" confuses, and this may be something to check for throughout.
    Deleted specifically. I find no other instances of its use in the document. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "examining commonalities in sexism and racism" Miglionico was not the very first to do this at all, surely? If it was specific to electoral research, or some such, we should say so
    It wasn't specific to voting, Wilkerson-Freeman p 357, mentions voting as well as jury service and "Jim Crow ordinances", she also says "At this point, few Alabama AAUW women seemed to question, much less reject, racial segregation, but Miglionico's decision to examine the related issues of women's curtailed voting rights and race-based injustice was a prelude to discussions concerning the commonalities of gender and racial prejudice". Perhaps adding by the American Association of University Women solves the dilemma? SusunW (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Alabama Legislature introduced" unless I'm missing something, legislatures don't usually introduce bills, do they? Individual legislators do...how about "In 1947, a bill to eliminate poll taxes was defeated in the Alabama Legislature", assuming the year is the same?
    done SusunW (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The political climate did not allow reintroduction of anti-poll tax legislation" does the source elaborate at all?
    Wilkerson-Freeman, p 360 "By 1956 the women's organizations had been fighting for twenty years; most leaders had been in their forties when they started. With the election of governors John M. Patterson in 1959 and George C. Wallace in 1963, hopes that the Alabama legislature would make further concessions on the issue of suffrage rights strained reality". Basically two back-to-back very pro-segregation governors were elected. But of course the source doesn't say that. Okay, I've found a source and added with the election of successive pro-segregationist governors SusunW (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, again, for the delay. Almost done, now; however, the last section bothers me. First, I'm struggling to see the connection to poll taxes in the first paragraph.
    Added as is demonstrated by their involvement in the movement to repeal poll taxes to the first sentence, to demonstrate the tie. SusunW (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, I think the last two sentences of the second paragraph would fit much better at the head of that paragraph, which should also perhaps go at the beginning of the section.
    I tweaked the text and moved a sentence. Better? SusunW (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SusunW: I still think the last sentence feels like more of a topic sentence, and should be moved to the head of the paragraph; but it's not something to hold the article up over. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a remarkably detailed article, and the prose has been, I believe, brought to standard over the course of this FAC. To be completely honest I'm still a little uncertain about its structure; see comments above re: significance, placement of legal history, and historical significance; but I cannot at the moment think of a better way to do it, so it would be unfair to withhold my support. @Gog the Mild and Ealdgyth: apologies for holding this up as long as I did. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Several of the captions contain information which is not in the text, and so need separately referencing.
Sorry, but I have no clue what you are asking. Are we speaking about the photographs? Perhaps you speaking British, or perhaps I am just tired from real life stuff today? I'll hop on these first thing tomorrow. And thank you so much for looking at the umpteen sources here. I truly appreciate your help if I have not already said that enough. SusunW (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the photo captions.
Nope, you've not said that enough yet.
I honestly have never been asked (and I have been writing for many decades) to cite a photograph, thus my confusion, but that was easily done. I am assuming that it is not required for those with just a name and date? I learn much from you and I truly, truly appreciate your mentoring. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the captions, the writing underneath the images, contain information which is not also covered, and therefore cited, in the main article. Eg that Dorothy Stafford was elected president of the East Tennessee League of Women Voters in 1937. So where this is the case, could you add a cite to the end of each "set of words under the photos"? (Similar to the way I have done for the "caption" for the coin image towards the end of First Punic War.)
done SusunW (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 31: the source only refers to New York, it explicitly rules out other states. Suggest a minor tweak to the text. (Or a different source.)
I'm confused. It says is Married women had an obligation to permit their husbands sexual access to their bodies in every state until New York's marital rape statute of 1975. [my italics] I see no conflict with that and with the article text "Until 1975 married women were legally obligated to allow their husbands access to their bodies for sex." In 1975, 49 states still required women to have sex with their husbands and only New York did not; before that, all 50 required it, according to the source. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In footnote 4 you write "Until 1975 married women were legally obligated to allow their husbands access to their bodies for sex." That this was only referring to the US is a given. My reading of this is that it clearly implies that after 1975 married women in the US were not legally obligated to allow their husbands access to their bodies for sex. But the source, to my reading, implies that even after 1975 this was still the case for most married women in the US.
Got it. Okay, I've tweaked it. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until the mid-1960s and early 1970s, academics did not focus on women's history, their issues, or their political cultures." The source you cite says that academics didn't focus on this until the early 1970s. (On, IMO, a generous reading.) The "mid-1960s" bit is specified as non-academic.
Cut mid-1960s.
Fine.

SusunW (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, barring the trivial exceptions above, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

@SlimVirgin and Vanamonde93: What are your updated thoughts? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether I'll have time and energy to do a review. The prose needs a copy edit. Two examples from the Background section (this is after a ten-second glance): "The ramifications were deeper than political disenfranchisement, as in states where serving on a jury was determined by those on the electoral rolls, those who could not pay poll taxes were doubly discriminated against, being denied the opportunity to serve or have their case evaluated by their peers": "as in" and "being denied" need to be fixed. And "As women could not vote, the tax did not apply to them until 1920 when the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, legally enfranchised them." Could use a comma after 1920; should not have a comma after "Constitution". SarahSV (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the first to read The ramifications were deeper than political disenfranchisement, because in states where serving on a jury was determined by those on the electoral rolls, those who could not pay poll taxes were doubly discriminated against and were denied the opportunity to serve or have their case evaluated by their peers. Better? and fixed the second. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better, thanks, but reviewers can't highlight everything, so the best thing is for the article to undergo a copy edit, either by you or someone else. Someone needs to go through the text and fix any problems. SarahSV (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is after another glance: "Women and people of color in the South were not apathetic in the fight for voting rights,[276] though historians and political scientists before the 21st century often characterized Southern women as uninterested and indifferent to political matters in the interwar and immediate post-war periods." (a) although, not though; (b) what's the difference in this context between uninterested and indifferent? (c) you can't say "uninterested to". SarahSV (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! I am awaiting the nominator's permission to give this a root and branch copy edit. Although that is worth pretty much what I charge and comes completely without warranty. I hope to get this done on the 28th, but it's a big article and, you know - RL. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there's no rush for a copy edit. Better to do it well than quickly. SarahSV (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I will try to complete my review within the next few days. All my comments thus far have been minor, and I don't think I'll have major comments on anything except structure; so if I'm all that's standing in the way of promotion, you don't need to wait for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde, just checking how this one is going. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2021 [57].

SMS Gneisenau

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another German warship, an armored cruiser built in the 1900s. Gneisenau ended up as part of the East Asia Squadron and took part in the Battles of Coronel and the Falkland Islands early in World War I, helping to sink a British armored cruiser at the former and being sunk by British battlecruisers at the latter. I initially wrote the article in 2011, then rewrote it in 2019, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review in early 2020. The article is part of the Armored cruisers of Germany Good Topic. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis

edit
  • "The two Scharnhorst-class cruisers..." Link "Scharnhorst-class cruisers"?
    • There's a main article link directly above that line, I think repeating it would be a little much.
  • I don't have much expertise in ships, but it appears that Gneisenau is referred as "She." Correct me.
  • "Ludolf von Uslar" is redlinked, but apparently there's a deWiki article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludolf_von_Uslar -- maybe interlink?
    • Similar with "Arthur Graf Rex" (de: Arthur Alexander Kaspar von Rex), and "Günther von Krosigk."
      • I used to use the inter-language links, but @Dank: advised me against it in a previous FAC. I can't remember exactly why now (something to do with making link cleanup harder once the article is created here, I think?) but perhaps he can remind me.
  • "When World War I..." Link "World War I"?
    • Good idea
  • "St. Quentin Bay" is redlinked. Apparently there's an article called San Quentin, California. Maybe...?
  • "Blanco Encalada" is redlinked, but there's an article called Chilean ironclad Blanco Encalada.

Overall, it seems like a fine article to be bronzed, Comrade Parsecboy! GeraldWL 16:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerald! Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up the line drawing and all maps
    • Done, and I've filed a request here to get an SVG version of the Falklands map.
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • I think I've added them all, though I never know what's useful text.
  • File:HMS_Infexible_Falklandy.jpg: what's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

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

  • Gneisenau initially served with the German fleet in I Scouting Group, though her service there was limited owing to the development of the battlecruiser, which the less powerful armored cruisers could not effectively combat. Accordingly, Gneisenau was assigned to the German East Asia Squadron, where she joined her sister ship Scharnhorst. I think the lead could do a better job than this of summarizing what's in the body -- I didn't understand till I read the body that the re-assignment occurred after four year due to rising tensions with the UK and the development of the battlecruisers, which were not a factor in 1906. How about "Gneisenau initially served with the German fleet in I Scouting Group, but by 1910 the Royal Navy's development of the battle-cruiser..."?
    • I tweaked it slightly, but I'm not so sure about adding a reference to the Anglo-German naval race in the lead, as that seems to be a bit in the weeds for the intro.
    I think that's enough to make it apparent to the reader what's going on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a possible link for "General Department"? I assume it's some German governmental office.
    • No, we don't have a link for that
  • The ship was protected by an armored belt that was 15 cm of Krupp armor: a bit repetitive. Could we make this "The ship was protected by a 15 cm belt of Krupp armor"?
    • Works for me
  • It's not clear to me why we mention the Fukoku Maru's presence in Ponape. I see you mention "all available colliers" further on, and a rendezvous with several colliers, but does the mention of this collier and not the others add anything to the reader's understanding?
  • The map showing the route of the East Asia Squadron in 1914-15 doesn't mention the Gneisenau or Scharnhorst directly; I assume one or both is the "Hauptgeschwader" line, but that should be clearer to non-German speaking readers. Similarly can the other German words in the legend be glossed, or else could you update the image?
  • Fear of mines in the harbor prevented Spee from seizing the coal in the harbor. Our article on the action says the French burned the coal stocks.
    • Clarified
  • The second shell damaged some of the ship's cutters: does "cutters" refer to small craft carried on board? A link would be helpful; our article on cutter (boat) doesn't mention this as a possibility since the 18th century so I wasn't sure this was the intention.
    • Yes, that's the right link - that article isn't very well-developed, unfortunately
  • Nevertheless, the maneuver allowed Spee to turn back north: why "allowed"? From the linked battle article it appears Spee decided to engage again because he couldn't escape; that's not clear from this description.
    • The previous sentence (and some of the preceding paragraph) covers Spee's inability to escape. If Sturdee had his druthers, he'd have kept out of the effective range of the German guns for the entire engagement, but Spee's maneuvering allowed him to close the range - that's what the "allowed" line refers to.
      I hadn't understood this, and I think it could be clearer in the article for readers not familiar with naval battles. In the previous paragraph you say "Sturdee attempted to widen the distance"; I assumed he was temporarily trying to get away, not that he was trying to reach a position from which his armament would be effective without being in range of Spee's guns. Adding a few words at that point, or else making the point about the range of each ship's guns earlier in that section to set the stage for what each commander would be likely to do, would make this clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added a line on that, so hopefully it will be clearer now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • including two of Spee's sons: Spee died in the same battle so suggest making this "including Spee and two of his sons". There's also an interesting factoid in the Battle of the Falkland Islands article that seems like it might be worth using here: search for "One of Gneisenau's officers".
    • Done on Spee and his sons, I don't know that the other is worth adding.
  • In this case, the L/40 gun is 40 calibers, meaning that the gun is 45 times as long as it is in bore diameter. Surely 40 times as long?
    • Fixed, good catch

That's it for a first read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I spotted a couple of minor points on a second read-through:

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on both points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow

edit

Dipping my toe back into reviewing after a very long time, so I may be out of touch with current standards. Looks good to me and I would have no qualms supporting on prose; though I had a few queries:

  • In the lead you have "Named for the earlier screw corvette of the same name" and the main text "christened Gneisenau, in honor of the earlier steam corvette Gneisenau". Suggest that both should be either "steam corvette" or "screw corvette".
    • Good idea
  • The ships marked a significant increase in combat power over the predecessors of the Roon class, being more heavily armed and armored reads a little odd to me. It could be construed that we are discussing the predecessors to the Roon class. Is their a way to reword this?
    • How about "over their predecessors, the Roon class..."?
Yep, good for me - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gneisenau was 144.6 meters (474 ft 5 in) long overall, and had a beam of 21.6 m (70 ft 10 in), a draft of 8.37 m (27 ft 6 in)., would read better to me as "...long overall, had a beam of 21.6 m (70 ft 10 in) and a draft of...". Though maybe this is a ship thing?
    • Fixed
  • The following year passed uneventfully for Gneisenau, with the only event of note being a fleet cruise to Norway in July. can the year be described as uneventful if, in September, she was reassigned to the East Asia Squadron?
    • Changed to "The first half of the following year..."
I’m not sure how well “first half” works with the second part of the sentence mentioning a July event? - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gneisenau went into dry dock in Tsingtao for annual repairs in the first quarter of 1912. If the repairs were annual, it seems strange to mention them in 1912 but not any other year.
    • That year is the only one that Hildebrand et. al. have details for, unfortunately
Fair enough - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four cruisers, accompanied by Prinz Eitel Friedrich and several colliers, then departed the central Pacific, bound for Chile. On 13 August, Commodore Karl von Müller, captain of the Emden, persuaded Spee to detach his ship as a commerce raider. On 14 August, the East Asia Squadron departed Pagan for Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The first sentence seems to say the whole East Asia Squadron left Pagan for Chile; the second sentence says that one of the cruisers was detached to raid trade routes and then the third sentence that (presumably) the three remaining cruisers and Prinz Eitel Friedrich left Pagan (again?) for the Marshall Islands (which are, I think, still the Central Pacific?). I was left a bit confused about when the ships left Pagan and if Emden was detached at Pagan or en route to Chile/the Marshall Islands.
    • Good catch, fixed
The four cruisers, accompanied by Prinz Eitel Friedrich and several colliers, then departed Pagan on 15 August, bound for Chile. On 13 August, Commodore Karl von Müller, captain of the Emden, persuaded Spee to detach his ship as a commerce raider. While en route to Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands the next morning, Emden left the formation with one of the colliers is it the morning of the 16 August that the ‘’Emden’’ left formation? I think it’s currently a little ambiguous as the previous sentence mentions 13 August. I think the second sentence would also benefit from “had” prior to “persuaded” (as it is out of strict chronological order) - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's in correct chronological order now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the battle, Spee took his ships north to Valparaiso. Since Chile was neutral, only three ships could enter the port at a time; Spee took Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Nürnberg in first on the morning of 3 November, leaving Dresden and Leipzig with the colliers at Mas a Fuera. There, Spee's ships could take on coal while he conferred with the Admiralty Staff in Germany to determine the strength of remaining British forces in the region. "There" means Valparaiso but due to the last place mentioned being Mas a Fuera there is ambiguity.
    • Clarified
  • In the Battle of the Falkland Islands section there is a photograph of "Battle of the Falkland Islands" but the text only mentions that "boats from Invincible picked up 187 men from Gneisenau"
    • Hildebrand only mentioned Invincible, for some reason, but it's clear both ships participated - Hough confirms as much.
Glad you worked out what I meant there, I copy pasted the section header instead of the caption ... - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Dumelow (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dumelow. Parsecboy (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Is there a reason Hough lacks a publisher location?
    • Nope, just an oversight
  • Bennett: are you sure that the publisher location is London?
    • Good catch - that was a lot of articles that needed to be corrected.
Spot checks; cites
  • 43: My copy of Bennett, a different edition, does not mention 10:45. It does mention 11:00.
    • Good catch - Bennett does say 11:00, but Staff has 10:45; apparently I forgot to add that citation when I rewrote that section
  • 44: check.
  • 52: the article has "allowing some 200 of the survivors time to escape". Bennett has "270 to 300". The 200 is the estimated number still alive when the British ships reached the scene.
    • Bennett contradicts himself there (or the source he's quoting does) - earlier on the page the quoted source says "Within a few minutes we were up to the survivors, some 200 men supporting themselves with hammocks, belts, spars, etc." I suppose we ought to include the range of estimates he provides.
As I read Bennett, a German source says there were 270 to 300 men in the water as they abandoned ship, but "during half an hour's immersion many perished". A British source states that by the time they reached the survivors there were 200. I don't see a contradiction or a need for a range. You already have 187 picked up, which matches the "some 200". I suggest changing "allowing some 200 to 300 of the survivors time to escape" to '270 to 300'.
Works for me.
  • 23: check.
  • 45: should the cite not cover two pages?
    • For Staff? No, that's all on p. 66
OK. My ecopy has me scratching my head, but fair enough.
  • 56: check.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One counter response above. You have done a good job of conveying some of the drama of the encounter. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2021 [58].

Smooth newt

edit
Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another newt article, this time "the most ubiquitous newt of the Old World". Looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment from Aza24

edit
  • Confused by "Central Asia" – the map is showing only a single dot in Kazakhstan, so I'm not sure using the term "Central Asia" is appropriate, that makes it sound like it's spread throughout multiple central Asian countries (Unless the map is wrong). I would stick to just "Northern Kazakhstan". Also Siberia is not in central Asia so I'm not sure how "central Asia (Siberia and northern Kazakhstan)" makes sense. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's true. I've removed "central Asia" in the lead and Distribution section now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit

We can never have too many newts at FAC. I'll have a look soon, at first glance, there are a few duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script:[59] FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out – I should have caught the remaining duplinks now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link newt, and any other terms only linked in the intro, at first mention in the article body as well.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6 Later, the species was included in the genus Triturus, along with most European newts. This genus however was found to be polyphyletic" It probably wouldn't hurt to give dates and authors for these revisions as well.
There's several papers that found polyphyly (three cited), but I've now added the authors for the split from Triturus. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This genus name had first been introduced by the English zoologist Thomas Bell in 1839, and the smooth newt is the genus' type species." This would mean there's a gap in the taxonomy section, since the species was evidently already assigned to that genus in 1839. So what happened in the meantime?
Restructured this section now and mentioned some more genus synonyms. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a bunch of other synonyms in the taxobox that may warrant discussion.
Hope it's better now with some more genera it was placed in, but i wouldn't want to get into too much detail here (there's 60 synonyms). Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three subspecies are accepted" By who and when?
Added. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems we're missing the interesting story of how and when various subspecies were split off as their own species, and if the same may happen to the remaining ones?
Should be clearer now. The remaining subspecies don't reflect clear genetic units and have ongoing gene flow (see Evolution), so it's unlikely they will be split off. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as an exception among newts – slightly larger than the females" Doesn't that now also apply to the split off subspecies?
Probably yes – I now removed the "exception" part. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any photos of eggs?
Unfortunately not. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the breeding and aquatic phase the same? A bit hard to figure out by how it is written now.
Yes, I use them as synonyms in the text. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could be made clearer, then, because I was not sure whether they were meant as synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Went through it again but don't see where it is unclear; are you referring to a particular part? Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1–1.5 mm" Don't know if there is anything this could be converted to, but should be added if there is, here and other places.
Don't think it makes much sense to convert mm? Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under breeding characteristics, you mention differences in body shape, but are these general differences, or only during breeding? Are there no non-breeding differences?
There's no clear differences outside the breeding phase (see under "Similar species"). Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They initially have only two balancers at the sides of the head" What is meant by balancers? Are these the same as the gills?
Explanation added. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is some text in italics and some not in the table?
That was to highlight the, in my opinion, most useful characters for distinction, but I realise this is subjective and I don't really have a ref for that, so I removed the italics now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nominate subspecies, L. v. vulgaris, is most widespread." But where? You only mention where the other subspecies are found, I assume the reader could infer it, but it would be clearer to just state it outright.
Restructured section. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being declared a "controlled pest animal" in 1997" How so if it was first recorded in 2011?
Restructured section chronologically and added detail. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including predation and competition" What would it compete with there?
Frogs and invertebrates, now added. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were therefore split off as separate genus Lissotriton in 2004 by García-París and colleagues.[8]:233 This genus name had first been introduced by the English zoologist Thomas Bell in 1839, with the smooth newt is the genus' type species," Still seems odd this is not in chronological order. Shouldn't you logically begin by saying it was placed in its own genus in 1839, then moved to another genus, and then back to its own genus in 2004?
The thing is that Lissotriton never seemed to be a widely used name, it was just used later because it was the first name typified with a species from the clade it referred to. Tried to make it clearer again by mentioning Lissotriton with the other genus names earlier on and dissociating the split from the use of the genus name. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the image of the udnerside[60] could be cropped, so we don't show so much unnecessary dirt. There are also other underside photos on Commons which might be better?
Now using this one which I think is better?
  • "The male attempts to attract a female's attraction" Seems a bit clumsy with the double attract. Why not just "the male attempts to attract a female"?
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paedomorphism, where adults retain their gills and stay aquatic, occurs regularly." Under particular circumstances?
Added more detail now and split it off as separate paragraph. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evolution section would probably make better sense right after taxonomy (which has related info), as in most other animals articles.
Done, although I personally think "Description" is the part most readers will be interested in rather than Taxonomy and Evolution... Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but must come from a legal source." According to what legislation?
The source probably refers to German legislation though not explicit; now rewritten to make it more general: "from a legal source under the applicable legislation given their protected status (see above)" Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if amputated needs a wikilink. But if it is retained, I think cannibalism would be more important to link.
Both done. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have however have not" Double have is clunky.
That was one "have" too much – removed. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been fully resolved. Within the smooth newt" Looks like this should have been a single sentence?
No, but there was an "and" too much, should be clearer now: "Within the smooth newt itself, genetic groups do not...". Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the smooth newt was later classified in the newt genus Triturus before being placed in Lissotriton." As above, tis sequence of events seems a bit misleading, since it was placed in Lissotriton before Triturus. Not sure that level of taxonomic detail is even needed in the intro anyway, which seems a bit too long for an article this size.
Rewritten as "the smooth newt went by different genus names before the current classification in Lissotriton was adopted". I do think mentioning the recent taxonomic changes in the lead is important because many available guides and textbooks will be outdated on this. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why the intro doesn't follow the same subject order as the article body?
I think it flows more naturally this way, and I think its important to have the description and distribution in the first paragraph. That's what most people will be interested in and it will be shown in the previews when hovering over a link. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The smooth newt is one of the most common newts" Only seems to be stated in the intro.
Rewritten was "is common over much of its range", which is stated in the Threats section. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now, but as I think the additional info in the sources listed below will be an improvement, remember to ping me when it's added so I can look it over. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Esculenta

edit
  • Oppose based on 1b & 1c. Overall, the article seems underdeveloped. For such a common species with a large body of literature, I would expect a featured article to be considerably longer (it's currently about 2400 words). What is presented is competent, but after trawling through the literature, it seems like a lot of potentially interesting detail is summarized abruptly, and much recent research isn't mentioned. I looked through google scholar, searching for results published after 2016 (>1400 "hits"). For example, have you considered including any of this research?
I'm striking my oppose; several of the sources below have been added and I think the article is now more comprehensive. Esculenta (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Captivity" section is only two sentences; is there nothing else relevant that could be said about this? For example, there are several more details that have not been utilised from Spareboom 2014.

As it stands, I'm not sure the article meets FAC criterion 1c ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). Esculenta (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many of these look like primary source studies. Usually for science topics it's preferable to rely on secondary sources (eg. books or review articles) as individual studies may not be confirmed by later research. Still, I wonder if there is info that could be added to the article. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding secondary sources, I would suggest consulting Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas (2004); it is recommended (by Spareboom 2014, p. 240) as an excellent source on the natural history of this species. Spareboom also suggests Wiens et al. (2011) for information about the evolution of the male dorsal crest, a subject of research I don't see currently mentioned in the article. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esculenta, thanks for your comments and the literature suggestions. It's always tricky to decide which are the "major facts" that make an article "well-researched". My impression was that the level of detail is comparable to other FAs of the same category. I am not quite convinced that the articles you point out would make a relevant contribution, but I am happy to add them and additional primary sources if other editors support this. I did add some more on captivity from Sparreboom 2014. The Handbuch is unfortunately not available online, a bit too expensive for my budget, and all libraries here are closed at the moment. Also, it might be a bit outdated now – I've relied mainly on the Sparreboom 2014 book and especially the Grosse 2011 monograph and would be surprised if the Handbuch was more detailed or up to date. Tylototriton (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I'm familiar with the literature, but I don't think it would hurt to add some of the above info. Personally, I try to add as much info as possible about a species I write about, unless the literature is gigantic, which it doesn't seem to be here, and it's a fairly short article, so more text wouldn't bloat the article. But I wouldn't depend my support on it. But in the end, an article's length and detail should depend on the size of the literature, not on other FA articles, because those articles may be about species where little is known, and therefore the literature is less extensive, and the article logically shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, convinced. Give me a few days to incorporate these and other sources. Tylototriton (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Esculenta and User:FunkMonk, I've added data from 15 primary sources now, see my changes. Tylototriton (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments by Esculenta
edit
  • why link Siberia but not Kazakhstan?
MOS says country names should not be linked.
  • ”reach a total length” don't think “total” is required here
Removed.
  • ”The dry and velvety skin becomes smooth during the aquatic phase.” The idea that these animals have different “phases” has not yet been introduced, so the placement of this statement is a bit jarring.
Rephrased to "The skin is dry and velvety while the newts live on land but becomes smooth when they migrate into water for breeding".
  • ”and classified as Least Concern species.” by who?
Added IUCN.
  • ”placing it in the same genus as the green lizards.[4]:206” The volume of Systema Naturae should be indicated. I went to page 206 in volumes 1, 2 and 3 and couldn’t find reference to this species. Could you please check? Can you link directly to the page?
Thanks for pointing that out – the page number, which came from the Frost database, was wrong, now corrected and linked.
  • ”and most recently, it was included in the genus Triturus” perhaps include the year so the reader can quickly see how recent this is
I don't really have a ref for this and not sure there's a precise date – other names were published even after the first publication of the first Triturus combination, but the latest books definitely all use Triturus.
  • authorities in the taxobox should be linked
Done (and one corrected).
  • link morphologically
Done.
  • the fact that this species has more than 60 taxonomic synonyms (stated in the taxobox) should be mentioned in the taxonomy section, and (if possible), a reason for why there are so many.
Done, and number corrected (48 if the subspecies synonyms are not counted).
  • ”…around four to six million years ago.” the linked phrase leads to the article Myr, an abbreviation that is not used in the article. Is this link really helpful for the reader?
Probably not – removed.
  • palmate newt should be linked on its first occurrence
Done, and the same for alpine and northern crested newt.
  • ”The head is longer than it is wide, with 2–3 longitudinal grooves” where? top, bottom, sides?
Top, now specified.
  • ”The male has dark, round spots, while the females have” singular/plural mismatch between male/female descriptions
Now using singular consistently in paragraph.
  • link mucus, toxin, denticulated
Done.
  • ”Albinistic and leucistic individuals have been described.” Albinism was already mentioned in the final sentence of the previous paragraph
Now merged the two phrases.
  • check throughout for page ranges with hyphens that should be replaced with endashes
Remaining ones replaced.
  • link conifer, red list
Done.
Thanks for your comments, Esculenta, think I've addressed them all, see above. Tylototriton (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; I've changed to support above. Esculenta (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Four weeks in and only one support. Normally I would add it to Urgents, but it has an outstanding oppose. What progress in being made in turning this around? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow progress, I only edit on weekends. Made changes requested by Esculenta and FunkMonk now, waiting for their verdict! Tylototriton (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new text looks god to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit

Looks very good overall and I think I can support shortly. Thanks for the nice newt articles, enjoying them (and sorry for being so late with this one).

  • The article does not always follow the structure of other animal species articles. Information about the subspecies is spread across the article (in the description and distribution), while in other articles there is usually a dedicated paragraph within taxonomy (e.g., Common toad, Garden warbler). Furthermore, the weight and length is provided in separate paragraphs, while they are usually discussed together (the weight just after the length) in other articles. I do not feel strongly about these points, but want to point this out nonetheless; it can make it more difficult for people to find the information they are looking for.
I personally think taxonomy, description and distribution should be treated under the respective sections, including for subspecies. But restructued the description section so that size and weight are in the same paragraph.
  • The description is a bit on the short end. I would have, for example, expected something on the head coloration, there seem to be black stripes and, in breeding males, also some blue?
Added detail for the stripes, but there is no mention for of blue on the head in my sources (and it doesn't appear on all photos of breeding males).
  • An description of the efts is also missing (only larvae and adults are described)?
Sources dont give specifics for efts, but added in larvae section that their size is equal to that of the biggest larvae.
  • Maybe a sentence about the eggs as well (e.g., egg size). I guess the eggs are indistinguishable from those of the closely related species?
Egg size is given. Source says that eggs can be distinguished from other species using genetic methods (not surprising), but doesn't say explicitly whether they look different from other newts or not.
  • and the name of Triton, the ancient Greek god of the sea, – I would argue it is "an ancient Greek god of the sea", there is also Poseidon and other sea gods.
Done.
  • palmate newt – not linked at first occurrence
Done.
  • The male has dark, round spots, while the females have smaller spots which sometimes form two or more irregular lines along the back. – This begs the question: What is the color of these spots in females?
Now specified.
  • Albinistic and leucistic individuals have been described. – Albinism was already mentioned
Two phrases now merged.
  • In central Italy, it was found that the range of the smooth newt relative to that of the neighbouring Italian newt (L. italicus) was determined by climate. – It would be interesting to know what climate changes have such an effect. The reader may want to know this at this point.
Now rephrased to "In central Italy, where the range of the smooth newt subspecies L. v. meridionalis overlaps with that of the Italian newt (L. italicus), it was found that the latter prefers a warmer and drier climate".
  • (of which Parastrigea robusta was found to cause the local decline of a population) – Could you add the location of the population?
Country (Germany) added.
Thanks for your review, Jens Lallensack, see replies above! Tylototriton (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Certainly one of the best FAs that I read recently. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another coord note

edit

Has there been a source review and I'm just missing it? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: If you are, so am I. It is still on the Source Review Needed list. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Cite 29: Should there be an access date?
Not sure; it's a journal article and the link is just to an available PDF.
  • Cite 10: You have used a journal template; is it?
Changed to book.

Nice job of formatting.

Spot checks; cites
  • 3a, check.
  • 3e, check.
  • 36, check.
  • 32, check.
  • 33, check.
  • 23, is this referencing just the material in brackets, as is suggested by the cite being within the parentheses?
Yes, it's just for the statement inside the parentheses.
  • 5n, check.
  • "Ireland (where the smooth newt is the only newt species)" Which of the four sources given is used to support this statement?
Added citation inside brackets.
Ah ha! You are ahead of me.

Looking pretty neat so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

I'm mainly looking at prose and readability. I don't have the subject knowledge or access to sources to comment much on accuracy or comprehensiveness. The article is in very good shape, and I have no doubt I'll support once a few minor points have been addressed:

  • Please can we have parenthetical explanations of some scientific terms so the reader doesn't have to click away from the article and make it more accessible to a lay audience? (eg "eft", "diploid", cloaca")
Added parentheses for the three terms mentioned but not sure it would be useful in other places or just add clutter...
  • They are typically sun-exposed, free from fish, stagnant, permanent or water-filled for at least three months, close to similar water bodies, and have shallow areas with abundant water plants Bit of a run-on sentence, and it's not clear what you mean by permanent or water-filled for at least three months. I assume you mean water-filled either permanently or for at least three months, but is that any three-month period or three months out of the year? Also, isn't "permanent or" redundant to "at least"?.
Rephrased to "water-filled permanently or for at least three months of the year"
  • found in slightly brackish water Although implied in the list of potential habitats, this is the first indication that the species (generally) only inhabits fresh water.
Freshwater now clarified at beginning of paragraph.
Yes, an eft is a special instance of a newt (a juvenile) – but I prefer to keep a separate link in case there's a separate article for "eft" in the future.
  • and an overall age of 6–14 years can be reached in the wild "Overall" is redundant. In fact, you could rephrase to "can live for up to 14 years" or similar to avoid the passive voice.
Now "and the newts can reach an age of 6–14 years in the wild".
  • It has been shown that females tend to mate "it has been shown" is redundant and can be eliminated with no loss to the reader.
Done.
  • However, this assessment included subspecies "however" is a watch word at FAC and this instance doesn't really add anything. Suggest removing or at least replacing with something weaker like "although".
Removed.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Harry! Tylototriton (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tylototriton, have you addressed Harry's points? If so, you need to ping him. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now pinging Harry! Tylototriton (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good to me. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [61].

Charles I of Anjou

edit
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 13th-century French royal prince who established a powerful Mediterranean empire before his and his retainers abuse of power led to a popular revolt, known as the Sicilian Vespers. He is also the founder of a powerful dynasty, with members ruling southern Italy, Greece and vast lands in Central and Eastern Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • The footnotes could get citations.

Thank you for starting the review and also for your first comments. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could state (perhaps in parenthesis) what his father died from?
  • "to prevent other suitors from attacking" Attacking who?
  • As far as I can see, Louis IX is not presented or linked in the article body? I opnly know he was the brother of the article's subject by looking at the intro (which I always read first so I can notice such omissions), but both intro and article body should be able to stand on their own.
  • "about to join his brother's crusade" Link that crusade here?
  • You link Battle of Al Mansurah in an image caption, but shouldn't it be linked in the adjacent article text too, if that's when the subject was captured?
  • "rebellions had broken out in Provence." Any articles to link? And why did it happen?
  • "He received territories in the Lower Alps from the Dauphin of Vienne.[44] Raymond I of Baux, Count of Orange, ceded the title of regent of the Kingdom of Arles to him." When did either happen?
  • "but the latter choose to attack" Chose?
  • It seems a bit odd to have a section in a biography called "Collapse". Perhaps call it "Collapse of the empire" or similar, to indicate it is not the person who collapsed?
  • "declared the war against Aragon a crusade" wouldn't it be better to have the link at "war against Aragon" than at "a crusade"?
  • "his forces were forced to withdraw" Forces were forced sounds clumsy. Reword one "force"?
  • "However, he fell seriously ill" Do we know anything about his symptoms?
  • "Charles and his first wife" You could state her name in the caption.
  • Hohenstaufen should also be linked at first mention outside the intro.
  • Shouldn't the intro mention his death at the end, as it is supposed to summarise the entire article?

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Karel1Anjou.jpg: since this is a 3D work, we also need information about the photographer to determine copyright
  • Yes, the link goes directly to the image ([63]: "http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/image/archim/0001/dafanch02_pc35000592_v.jp"), but it is a subpage on the website of the French Ministry of Culture ([64]: "https://www.culture.gouv.fr/"). Borsoka (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:KorunovaceKarlazAnjou.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Viterbo,_palazzo_e_loggia_dei_papi,_05.jpg: as Italy does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original work
I think what is meant here is something like PD-old, to show that the original architect is long dead... FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it contains an explicit permission for the picture's use in wikimedia. Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly by the original architect, though, which is what I think is requested, just a tag that says this is PD due to age. FunkMonk (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, by the relevant authority (the local municipality). Borsoka (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am pretty sure Nikki means the structure itself, based on earlier reviews. I just added it to get it done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Charles_of_Sicily.jpg should include a date for the original work
  • File:Karel_Anjou.jpg needs a US PD tag

Thank you for your review and comments. I highly appreciate your work (especially, because I am not a copyright expert). Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24

edit

Support on prose based on my read through at PR. I'm a non-subject matter expert on this, but as far as I could tell, the research and comprehensiveness was there as well. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've updated the ISBNs
  • Not source related, but there's some inconsistencies with use definite articles before talking about someone, for example you have "Historian Peter Herde notes..." and "Historian Steven Runciman emphasises..." vs "The 13th-century historian Saba Malaspina stated..." and "the Florentine historian, Giovanni Villani, stated..." – I would think using "the" for all is ideal
  • Spot checks not done – although I have spotchecked this nominator before
  • I have no doubts on reliabillity or quality of sources
  • "Ann Arbor, Michigan" is the only location you include, for consistency I would either remove this or add locations to the other publishers
  • Partner needs an identifier of some kind, there's an ISBN here
  • I notice you give page ranges for all chapters except Hollander?

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Not in an area I know anything about, but I'll take a crack.

Lead
  • suggest "In 1270 he took part in the Eighth Crusade organized by Louis IX, and"
Body
  • suggest "Charles hurried to Aix-en-Provence at the head of an army to prevent other suitors from invading Provence,[10][13] and married Beatrice on 31 January 1246."
  • suggest "Ignoring their mother's strong opposition, his three brothers" (insert comma)
  • suggest piping the Battle of Al Mansurah as follows: [[Battle of Al Mansurah|fighting against the Egyptians at Al Mansurah]]
  • "but they were to abandon the campaign"? Why the future tense? Should it be just "but they abandoned the campaign"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the review. I highly appreciate your assistance in improving the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • counts' rights and revenues→count's rights and revenues, unless we are referring to more than one count here? In which case it isn't clear who else if being referred to
  • "their joint rule" whose?
  • "Emperor Frederick II, who was also the ruler of Sicily, died in 1250"
  • "Richard did not want to fight against Frederick's son, Conrad IV of Germany" but if Frederick was king, why would Richard be fighting Conrad?
  • "Charles returned to Provence, which had again become restive" from where did he return?
  • "Foulquois was elected pope in February 1265" what was his papal name?
  • link Philip of Montfort, Lord of Castres
  • suggest "subventio generalis" tax"
  • link Pisa, Constantinople, Poggibonsi
  • Frederick Lancia?
  • link Siena
  • no link for Walter of La Roche?
  • link Cremona, Aigues-Mortes, Viterbo, Piedmont, Alessandria, Latino Malabranca Orsini, Rhône
  • senechal→ seneschal, also in the Legacy section
  • comma after "Galeran could not pay his troops"
  • link Messina at first mention in the body
  • "ruling in southern Italy, which was known as the Kingdom of Naples,..."
  • "emphasized Charles' full competence"
  • "and a partimen, the latter with Pierre d'Angicourt." no need for the parens here
  • comma after "entitled The King of Sicily, to Charles"
  • the citations to Fine don't link because you've used 1994 instead of the more recent edition of 2009 in the citations
  • add |ref=none to the Further reading books to avoid the harv errors

That's it. Nice job thus far, mostly prose/grammar and wikification. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

@Nikkimaria: Are the image concerns addressed? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I changed the lead image. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This image, perhaps cropped, might be better. It seems unfortunate to have to fall back on a later image when there are contemporary ones. Srnec (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I understand that image cannot be used because of the special Italian copyright laws. If it could be used, I would also prefer it. Borsoka (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it's licensing on Commons is wrong? Srnec (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: could the picture be used? Borsoka (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Srnec's proposed replacement would need to address the Italian FOP issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. In this case, I cannot change the picture. Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Who owns the copyright in question here? The sculpture is PD and the photo is CC. Srnec (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural heritage works in Italy are subject to additional legal restrictions - go through the link I provided and then click on Italy for more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: are we good on images? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [66].

Podokesaurus

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first dinosaur discovered and named by a woman (Mignon Talbot in 1911), and also one of the first well-known small theropods discovered, which attracted international scientific interest at the time. Unfortunately, the only known specimen was destroyed by a fire, so it has become fairly obscure over time. All that will probably ever be known about the dinosaur is summarised here, so hopefully it can bring some attention to its historical importance. Some articles about it were published in Danish, which luckily is my native language, others in German, where I am grateful for help in translation by Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

edit

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Esculenta

edit

This article is well developed and reads smoothly. Here are some suggestions for your consideration. Esculenta (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough look-through, I'll address these issues within the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta, now most issues are solved, and I have added some comments to those remaining. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the changes, and am happy to support this candidacy for promotion. Esculenta (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the article looks better for it! FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Perhaps genus should be linked in the first sentence, as this is what the article is about.
Done, strange it wasn't already. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”of the earliest known dinosaurs” hyphen
Removed the entire sentence, it was a leftover from before I worked on the article, and I couldn't really find support for the exact claim in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States shouldn’t be linked (per MOS:OVERLINK)
Removed with the above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the intensifier “very” is noticeably used several times in the second paragraph; consider eliminating some or using a different intensifier
Removed two. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider the following links for the lead: humerus, femur, affinities, family, holotype, Early Jurassic, cervical, dorsal, caudal (with the last 3, consider glossing with parentheticals like is done later in the “Discovery” section)
Done (Early Jurassic was already linked in the first paragraph). FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”and a natural cast specimen was assigned to it” what is a “natural cast”? Is this different than a “cast replica” referred to later?
Yeah, this could be confusing (natural vs man-made casts), but the distinction is explained in more detail under classification. Perhaps you had not gotten to that part yet when you wondered about it? Or would you want more explanation in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is the family Coelophysidae not shown in the taxobox?
It is only widely thought to be a Coelophysoid, a level above family. It is likely a Coelophysid, but we will probably never know for sure due to the lack of material (this is discussed in detail in the last part of the classifications section). FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”but is currently believed to date” is “currently” necessary?
There is a fair chance it will change again because the dating has been so unstable historically (as is explained in the paleoenvironment and classification sections), so I thought "now" or "currently" would be good to underline that it may not be written in stone... But I can remove it if it is very jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

  • ”She asked the owner of the land for permission to collect the specimen for Mount Holyoke College (an all-women's college a few miles from there), where she was in charge of the department of geology, which was granted.” clause at the end seems awkward; may I suggest “She was granted permission by the land owner to collect the specimen for Mount Holyoke College (an all-women's college a few miles from there), where she was in charge of the department of geology.”
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • links: scapula, coracoid
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • scapula, coracoid, and astragalus are not helpfully glossed like the other anatomical terms are (I see this is done two paragraphs later; maybe swap places?)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the generic name derived from Greek or Ancient Greek]? Should the Greek text be wrapped with the template {{lang-grc}}? (See wp:GREEK)
It is almost certainly ancient Greek, but none of the sources specify this. Perhaps we have someone who can identify it by the text (ποδώκης σαύρα)? Perhaps Cplakidas? But yeah, I'll add that template. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to all, while σαύρα is still used in modern Greek, ποδώκης is definitely ancient Greek. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that's sufficient to label it as such. Also added the template. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The American paleontologist Robert T. Bakker stated in 2014 that while old professors grumbled that females were unfit for working with fossils during his time at university, Talbot's discovery of Podokesaurus was a counterargument to that.” Perhaps this tidbit would be better placed in the article about Talbot, as it seems quite peripheral to the article topic?
I see what you're getting at, but I think it also helps establish the significance of Podokesaurus itself; it is the importance of the specimen that was part of making Talbot well-known, and the discovery itself which countered the old professors. If it had just been an unimportant fossil, it wouldn't have changed any opinions. Bakker's text is also more in appreciation of the dinosaur itself, he says the model of it at Yale made him determine to apply there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”…specified that it was from the Longmeadow Sandstone.[6][2][11][7]” ensure that multi-citations like this one have the cites in correct numerical order (check throughout)
I don't think that's a requirement here, though. Haven't seen it in the WP:MOS. And if I was to move some text around, the order would be messed up again anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know (that it's not in the MOS). I've seen it requested at other FACs. Esculenta (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Apart from a tooth…” any link to an article about the species to which this tooth belongs?
Interesting suggestion, I found one 1976 source saying Coelophysis, but today that would probably be considered too specific for just a tooth, so I have given it the cautious wording "assigned to Coelophysis in 1976". FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • seems inconsistent to present Lull’s estimated morphometrics in mm, while Von Huene’s is in cm
Now mm, used cm before because that's how von Huene gave them. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Talbot stated… while Paul stated…” switch up verbs to avoid same-sentence repetition
Said "Paul thought" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”As a coelophysoid, it would likely have been similar in build to for example Coelophysis” is the struck part necessary?
There are other coelophysoids as well, the source doesn't only mention Coelophysis. Problem is, it says "likely that this theropod was built much like Coelophysis or Dilophosaurus", but the latter is not currently thought to be a coelophysoid. But the gist of it is that it is compared to more than one coelophysoid. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • styliform - unfamiliar word
Added "(resembling a pen or bristle in shape)". FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • check article throughout for use of “which” (some need a preceding comma or should be replaced with “that”)
I've shaken it up a bit, hope it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”… long and 2 mm (0.079 in) wide.” -> long and 2 mm (0.1 in) wide.” (so that sig. fig. output matches input)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link processus lateralis, condyle
Linked and glossed condyle. No link for the former, but glossed it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification + the rest

  • ”forward directed pubis “, “smallest known Coelophysis specimens” , “latest surviving coelophysoids” need hyphenation
Added (if it is in the ways you meant). FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In the same volume, the paleontologist David B. Norman agreed …” I don’t think the first bit is important
It was more to avoid just repeating the year again. Or would that be preferable? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • favour -> favor (article is Am. Eng., I assume)
Whoops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that you always use the definite article “the” with a noun phrase before a person’s name (e.g. “the writer Jan Peczkis”; “The paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn”, etc.). This read a bit odd to me, so I researched grammar rules to see if this was common. My understanding is that both ways are correct (i.e., with or without “the”); perhaps consider switching up its inclusion for a bit for more variety.
Heh, every other FAC, someone tells me to either add it or remove it. In any case, I think it'd be best to keep it consistent within an article. Since it's so subjective, I'd prefer to keep it as is, since it's impossible to keep everyone happy anyway, and it's be tedious to remove. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta: Drive by comment - false title. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a useful link – thanks! Esculenta (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted
Removed ", U.K." from one, if that's what was meant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: is this an authorized republication?
What I used is just an online version of the text, I can't find any indication it was ever republished. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This online version appears to be hosted by someone who is neither the original author nor the cited publisher - do they have the right to publish it online? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the book is about Mount Holyoke College, and it's hosted by that college's official website, so I'd assume they have some claim to it? I can remove it if necessary, but it seems there is a close affiliation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this cannot be verified I would suggest removing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link. I will try to email the college and see what they say. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2 seems a bit of an odd source to be used in this type of article - can you explain?
Well, it's a book about Mount Holyoke and its environs, which is where the only fossil of this dinosaur is found, and it is therefore discussed in that source as a significant part of the history. The writer (Christopher Benfey) is a teacher at Mount Holyoke college, where the specimen was first studied. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that author is credited primarily as a literary critic? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His article here also says he is a scholar. A Google scholar search[67] indicates he has published various history-related books and articles, which is relevant here, since the source covers the history of the college and the fossil as an object, rather than palaeontological aspects of it. He is only cited for statements relating to the fossil's history at the college, which he appears to be a historian of (having published several books about the history of Mt. Holyoke College). FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 has an unmatched parenthesis - is this a typo or is there something missing?
Removed, not sure how that happened. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10: |publisher= is sufficient, we don't also need website
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN17: pages?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18: what kind of source is this?
It is a sort of museum journal or bulletin, the source pdf says "Postilla includes results of original research on systematic, evolutionary, morphological, and ecological biology, including paleontology. Syntheses and other theoretical papers based on research are also welcomed. Postilla is intended primarily for papers by the staff of the Peabody Museum or on research using material in this Museum." Added a comma after "postilla", as some citations do it, but it is admittedly an odd format. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: formatting doesn't match other sources
It is a book published by a journal (Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin), so I was unsure how to format it, as a journal article or a book? I tried now with using the journal instead of publisher field, if that suffices. I removed the location field accordingly, not sure if that's the best solution. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I was told theses could be cited for uncontroversial info as long as it is made clear in-text it is only a thesis. Changed format to "cite thesis". FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that provision at WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this would seem to support such a citation? "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Also, since we have Template:Cite thesis[68], I'd assume it is because such citations have been anticipated. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the author, Tykoski, is already cited earlier in the article for a peer-reviewed paper, and the same info of his thesis is supported by many of the other citations, so there is nothing controversial about the short sentence cited to his thesis. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now only give numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusal from coordinator duties in order to review. I did a little copy editing on this, but let's see what else I can find to pick at.

  • "but was lost when the science hall it was kept in burned down". Optional: "science hall" → 'building'.
Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "1 kg (2 lb) in weight"; Body: two options offered with no indications as to which is "superior". Why has one been picked out for the lead?
I took that because it's newer, but I see your point, so i gave the full range. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lull drew a reconstruction of the skeleton with missing parts". Read literally this implies the opposite of what I think you mean.
Not entirely sure what you mean, but I reworded to make it clearer: "basing the parts missing from the fossil on the equivalents in Compsognathus". FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lull had sent his manuscript to the Danish ornithologist Gerhard Heilmann for criticism prior to publication, which Heilmann published in a 1913 article wherein he included previously unpublished photos of the fossil received from Talbot, as well as his own restorations." Suggest breaking the sentence after "publication". Maybe "wherein" → 'in which'?
Took your suggestions and started the new second sentence with "Heilmann published his response in a 1913 article". FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the peculiar distinction of being the dinosaur that vanished twice in history". "history" has a specific meaning; Benfey doesn't use the word and the article shouldn't either.
It was just to paraphrase the geological times mentioned (which technically is history), "once in the Triassic period etc.", but I removed the word. I think it's valid paraphrasis, though, but probably not necessary, the point comes across anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your habit of not narrowing down cites further than the whole journal article drives me crazy. What page(s) in Peczkis support the 10-40 kg estimate?
It's because I often use the automatic doi to citation thing, where it just gives the page range. But since this paper doesn't really discuss the estimate, I can narrow it down further (as I just did), otherwise, it should be easy to find by searching the name in the pdf. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not a pdf, it's a JSTOR article, which if it has a search facility I haven't found. I ended up reading the whole (tedious) article and still not seeing it. Why do you give "p. 530-531" when all of the information required to back the cite is on p. 531?
Well, I also explain how the measurement was done "through pelvic height determination", which is not stated on the page where the actual measurement is found, but a caption to that table on the previous page refers to a method discussed earlier in the article, so I think we need that too to support the entire sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "merely confirmed that they were dinosaurs rather than establish a specific relation between them" Should that be 'established'?
Hmmm, when I read it, the current wording seems to make more sense... Also if I reverse the verbs: "merely established that they were dinosaurs rather than confirm a specific relation"... But can't really argue for the grammar laws behind it... Perhaps we could ask for further opinions? FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you reversed it I would still be querying. Surely either both confirm and establish need "ed" adding or neither do? And not sure why we might need other opinions when you "can't really argue for the grammar laws behind it".
Ok, I went with "merely confirm that they were dinosaurs rather than establish", sounds better to me than "merely confirmed that they were dinosaurs rather than established". FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15–20 km/h (9.3–12.4 mph)"> IMO the mph figures are spuriously accurate.
You mean the converted numbers, or the first numbers? Because that's the name of the game, it's all just educated guesswork... I added "about", to make it clearer it is just an estimated range. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The converted figures. I understand that it is educated guesswork, which is my point. '9-12 mph' is the rough and ready conversion; "9.3-12.4 mph" specifies a degree of accuracy which isn't the case.
I tried a parameter that rounds up to "(9–12 mph)", is that ok? FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He cautioned that comparison was difficult because dinosaur anatomy differed significantly from that of mammals and birds, including in their massive tails, and hindlimb retractor muscles that originated behind the femur, while these muscles originate more forward in mammals and extant birds." I find this sentence confusing/convoluted.
I split it in two, does it look better? "He cautioned that comparison was difficult because dinosaur anatomy differed significantly from that of mammals and birds. Differences included the massive tails of dinosaurs, and hindlimb retractor muscles that originated behind the femur, while these muscles originate more forward in mammals and extant birds." FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I have. I said when I copy edited that this was good work even by your usual high standards, and I can only repeat that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for looking over this article, all should now be answered above, though with some uncertainties left. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses to response above. Otherwise all good. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And a few more answers... FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Four weeks in and only two supports. You could do with calling in a favour or two if the coordinators are not to get twitchy. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to ping some of the editors who currently have biology FACs, Tylototriton, Dunkleosteus77, LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dunkleosteus77

edit
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's the common name for it. I tried with "(the pubic bone of the pelvis)", how is that? FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could just say "the pubic bone (of the pelvis)" or "the pubis (the lower pelvis)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lower pelvis" is very imprecise and not really correct when it comes to dinosaurs, I think the current wording does the job best so far. But I wonder what Jens Lallensack has to say, probably being one of the only trained animal anatomists around? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that "pubis (pubic bone)" is a bit pointless. The question is if it needs to be glossed in the first place (it is easy to just follow the link). It is not explained in the lead, btw, although accessibility is even more important there. The lead links to the article pubis (bone), while the body links to the glossary (but actually I like it this way; the main article is a quicker way to understand the term). Regarding your question, what about combining two explanations: "the pubis and ischium (bones forming the lower front and lower back of the pelvis, respectively)" or simply "the pubis and ischium (bones of the pelvis)"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I took your longer suggestion, just to make it fool-proof... And added some more glossing to the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but is that a rule? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who uses inches and feet, 4 ft is a lot easier to visualize than 48 inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "speed" is imprecise, it can be slow or fast, it doesn't have a value in itself. Or do you mean instead of locomotion? Then I think the current wording is more adequate for a biology article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example Baryonyx was also found with a possible gastrolith. But there is no follow up in the literature on why Podokesaurus would have had it, or if the identification was correct. This paper[69] seems to indicate that low numbers of gastroliths found in Baryonyx and Allosaurus may have been accidental ingestion... But I can't really use that here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tylototriton

edit

Support. With the reservation that I am not very knowledgeable in paleontology, this is a very comprehensive and interesting article.

  • All images are in the public domain or have other free licences.
  • References all look reliable, include primary and secondary sources
  • Minor suggestion: some sections are a bit long, perhaps subsections would improve the structure?

Tylototriton (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, layman reviews are certainly useful, and since you're knowledgable about zoology, it doesn't come from nowhere. I found it hard to find places where it made sense to section text further, but I added a "postcranial skeleton" section under description, if that helps. But with the longer discovery and classification sections, it's hard to figure out how to name them, and how the included info can be described collectively... FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another coord note

edit

@Dunkleosteus77 and Nikkimaria: have your concerns been resolved? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: sorry to be a pest... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [70].

O Captain! My Captain!

edit
Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 01:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably Whitman's most famous poem, considered by many critics these days among his worst. I personally am a fan. I've reworked the article through a a GA review (thanks Hog Farm) and a peer review (thanks, Gog the Mild, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt. I think it's now well on its way to FA quality and ready for an FAC. Thanks for any and all comments you may have -- Eddie891 Talk Work 01:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • "the most famous during his lifetime". Body text supports most popular, but that's a slightly different thing - source for "most famous"?
Changed to most popular though most famous could be sourced, I think popular fits better
  • Lead says first published in The Saturday Press, infobox says Sequel to Drum-Taps - which is correct?
Saturday Press
  • "stylistically uncharacteristic of Whitman's poetry because of its... narrator other than Whitman" - source?
cut, though implied in several sources I didn't find it explicitly stated
  • Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited later
Added, and picked a quote that uses "trite" instead of "triteness"
Done
You've now got "Manuscript Division" twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and otherwise filled out
  • FN6: page? Ditto FN13, check for others
Removed 6, added page to 13
  • FN17: section title is not part of work title
added
  • Use a consistent date format
Ran date formatting script
  • Some citations have doubled quotation marks
Think I got them all
  • Be consistent in how you present citations to works hosted at the Walt Whitman Archive
filled out, standardized
  • FN40 is incomplete. Ditto FN75, check for others
fixed, I think that's it unless you think I should add ISSN's to all of the sources
No, but you should be consistent about when you include them. 75 (now 74) still has an incomplete title. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed title, added ISSN's to all news orgs
  • FN41: date is overprecise
Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher and/or location for periodicals
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think I cut them all now
Still present for Literary Digest. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN55: author is backwards
fixed
  • FN78: title shouldn't include publication date
cut
  • Check alphabetization of General sources
Reorganized
  • Be consistent in whether you include location for books, and if so how these are formatted
Think they all have consistent locations now, cities like Chicago and New York City I left off states, more obscure ones I added them
  • Csicsila: location is incorrect
It's given as Tuscaloosa, which is what I have?
Arizona? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 16:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cut them except for journal/chapter/encyclopedia page ranges

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusal coordinator duties to review this. I looked it over at PR, but it seems to have changed a bit since then.

  • "and was greatly moved upon Lincoln's assassination" Suggest "upon" → 'by'.
  • Done
  • Why is the text in note e not in the main article?
  • put in the article
  • "In the 1997 book A Reader's Guide to Walt Whitman, scholar Gary WIlson Allen concluded that "The symbolism is trite, the iambic-anapestic movement artificial, and the rhymes erratic". [Paragraph break] The poem's critical reception in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has been far more negative." Possibly you could do with moving some sentences around.
Cut that sentence-- it doesn't really add anything
  • "The 2004 Oxford Encyclopedia of American Literature entry on Whitman argues that the poem has been "unfairly criticized for its conventional rhythm and rhyme" " Should this not be in the last paragraph of "Reception"?
  • sure
  • " "deliberately [made] a salve for his ailing country" by writing the poem in a style they" Either "they" → 'it', or recast this part of the sentence.
  • it works for me
  • "In the second and third stanzas, Whitman invokes religious imagery, making Lincoln a "messianic figure", according to Schöberlein. Schöberlein compares ..." "Schöberlein. Schöberlein". Maybe 'In the second and third stanzas, according to Schöberlein, Whitman invokes religious imagery, making Lincoln a "messianic figure". Schöberlein compares ...'?
  • done

A fine and well prepared article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thanks for the comments. Replied above. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Approaching four weeks in and only one support. Eddie891, you need to call in some favours or otherwise generate some interest if this is not to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Uh oh! You are pretty much the only person that I have on speed-dial to call in! I'll ask around, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Hog Farm, fancy something a little different? SusunW, might this be up your street? Feel free to ignore if not. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shall give it a look over when I finish Loker this morning. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm traveling so I won't be able to review for several days yet. Hog Farm Bacon 16:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusunW

edit

A most enjoyable read Eddie891. Most of my comments are trivial in nature and concern establishing the authority of various persons mentioned in the article. A one-word title/profession would probably be sufficient in most cases.

  • He volunteered in the army hospitals as a hospital missionary It is redundant to use hospital twice and medical missionaries tend to be nurses, physicians, and surgeons. Did he have medical training?
Fixed redundancy
  • Who is Helen Vendler and why is her opinion definitive?
Literary critic-- as addressed later, she's written one of the few works that focuses on this poem. I established who she was.
  • Who is Horace Traubel and what does the phrase presented Whitman with a newspaper mean? Did Traubel write the article or was it someone else? Why would Traubel give Whitman someone else's critique?
Traubel was one of Whitman's closest friends who published transcriptions of their dates. I've tried to clarify-- does that help at all?
  • Ditto with William Dean Howells, who is he? I can assume he is a critic, because he is "reviewing" but what authority does he have to critique?
He was an author, actually very famous, known as the "The Dean of American Letters" and a prominent editor of The Atlantic Monthly
  • Who is George Rice Carpenter? Why should his opinion carry any weight?
Scholar and biographer of Whitman. He was pretty well known in his day
  • Why is Henry B. Rankin's opinion worth noting? Who is he?
Noted biographer of Lincoln, NYTimes gave him a brief obit
  • Same for James O'Donnell Bennett.
author. His opinions in that book are still cited in well known and prominent publications, [71], [72]
  • Can you link "threnody"?
Certainly
  • Who is William E. Barton?
Not the person linked, as it turns out-- but the book itself is notable, reviews: [73] and in the Saturday Review of Literature, Booklist, and several newspapers, cited in relevant works like: [74]
  • Gary WIlson Allen is cited to Gay Wilson Allen, which is correct?
Gay Wilson Allen
  • In 2000 Helen Vendler argued, you've already given her full name above. Vendler is sufficient, here and in the rest of the article.
done
  • Who is Daniel Mark Epstein and why is he authoritative?
Already defined above, cut to last name
  • Ditto for C. K. Williams.
Famous poet, won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry
  • Who is Stefan Schöberlein?
His bio describes him as: STEFAN SCHÖBERLEIN is a doctoral candidate in English at the University of Iowa, a research assistant with the Walt Whitman Archive, and the managing editor of the Walt Whitman Quarterly Review. His scholarship related to Whitman has appeared in WWQR, American Literature, American Literary Realism, the Chicago Review, as well as the South Central Review. Stefan's translation of Whitman's Jack Engle into German was published in 2017. He's gone on to become a professor of English. Went with 'academic', though that's not very specific
  • The poem's speaker places their "arm beneath… singular speaker, perhaps better to use its "arm"?
I'm not quite sure what change you're asking for here -- probably my bad, but could you rephrase the comment?
Suggest you use "speaker places its "arm..." (speaker and its are singular and in subject verb object agreement. Speaker places their arm is singular singular plural and not in verb object agreement.)
OK, done
  • "ironic" by Michael C. Cohen just Cohen, he's already been identified in the article.
Sure

Thanks for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW thanks for your comments, I've responded to most of them, a couple you will probably have a response to. I gave you the in-depth reason for including some peoples opinions here and added a couple of words in the article-- if you want any more expansion let me know. Thanks again! Eddie891 Talk Work 19:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick work on these Eddie891. The descriptions you added help the reader IMO understand who the person is and that they have the authority to make observations we should care about. So, we are down to 2. The first question and the "its" one. SusunW (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW I think I've gotten everything. With regards to Did he have medical training?, the answer is essentially none. from [75], Whitman was a voluntary nurse in the American Civil War. Starting at the age of 43, he would serve for seven years in the 40 hospitals of Washington, D.C. ... His involvement in the war actually came about by mistake. Whitman traveled to Fredricksburg to find his brother George, a wounded soldier, and during his stay there, he was first exposed to the trauma of the war. Nurses had no formal education at the time, but he learned through experience alongside doctors and nurses. Gangrenous limbs, amputations, and diarrheal illnesses plagued the soldiers. In later reflections, Whitman recounted that diarrhea would often signify death for his patients. I've emailed you a copy of the article to verify that I'm not pulling quotes from thin air. Do you want me to add any of that? I think it's kinda superfluous detail to this article. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are fine. Enjoyed reading the piece you sent and if it were me, I'd call him a volunteer nurse like it does rather than a missionary, but that's your call. Everything else is cleared and I am happy to support. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say at the peer review. Seems to meet the criteria. I've made a few additional hands-on edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • Autograph fair copy of Whitman's poem—signed and dated March 9, 1887—according to the 1881 edition: I don't know exactly what the last point means -- with the text as it was given in the 1881 edition, perhaps?
yeah exactly that, went with "as published in 1881"
  • The reception section suffers a bit from the A said B problem. The paragraphs are organized by theme, with e.g. the second paragraph listing some of the praise the poem has received, but it could flow more smoothly. Currently it's "Epstein wrote that... In his book, Csicsila similarly noted that...and went on to write that... In 1916 Ranking wrote that... The Literary Digest wrote in 1919 that... ". I think part of what's going on here is that we're using the quotes to imply what could be said directly. The key points from the first three paragraphs seem to be:
    • It's not a characteristic Whitman poem
    • It changed some opinions of Whitman
    • It was very popular in its day and for at least 80 years
    • It has lost popularity and critical respect over the last 50-70 years
Could the quotes be integrated a bit more into a supporting narrative for these points? In some places the article does do this -- the last two sentences of the second paragraph (The poem was not...) make a plain statement and support it with a single example; and the quote from Matthiessen, citing Cohen, is another place where the readers gets the quote and the meaning in a neat package -- but in some places it feels like a list of quotes.
  • I changed "The poem utilizes a rhyming structure" to "uses a rhyming structure", but is there a reason not to just say "The poem rhymes, and..."?
not at all
  • played across radio stations: I don't think this works; do you mean "played on many radio stations", or perhaps "played on radio stations across the country"?
went with your first suggestion

Overall this is in very good shape, but I think a little prose work is still needed in the reception section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Mike Christie. I get what you're saying with the reception, but I'm not positive of the best way to actually make those changes. here's my attempt at reorganizing the reception section. Could you let me know if that's any better, worse, or somewhere in between? CHeers, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a go at copyediting the reception section, but can you just confirm that the quote from Rankin is correct? It would read more naturally as "The nation's, aye, the world's, first funeral dirge". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the first two paragraphs a bit, aiming for flow and connecting similar thoughts, and varying the rhythm a bit. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie I think that looks great, thanks! You're right about Rankin's quote, but it turns out that Coyle had it a bit wrong, so instead I've directly cited Rankin's work. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it had to be wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support — ImaginesTigers

edit

I'd put "comments" in the title but (as you can see) I have not yet read the article. Tagging this—expect the review tomorrow! ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. I'm going to go through the article and make little changes. The main problem, as it stands, is the article is (I think) over-reliant on quotes. Ironically, although Whitman was a complicated poet, this was one of his more straightforward poems (as the article says). As a result, the criticism tends to be quite technical. To make this article more comprehensible to everyone, we really have to make sure that the jargon is stripped down. As I do my copy edit (which will be done by the time you read this, but Present-tense Tigers has not yet done), I'll be making a list here of things which really need rewording. I did read the article last night, and it’s in pretty good shape. I can't unconditionally support because of the quotation problem (which I do think needs to be resolved), but feel free to revert any of my changes that you think worsen coherency or flow. ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So this was going to be a list, but I've been fixing things as I went along. This sentence, however, I've no idea how to fix. It is, with all affection, a monstrosity: The literary critic F. O. Matthiessen expressed a view in 1941 that Michael C. Cohen, a literature professor, considers to exemplify twentieth century opinion on the poem: "that this ballad, wholly untypical of his poems, should have been the only one to have found its way to the great world of grammar school readers is ample and ironic comment on how far Whitman's authentic idiom was from even the rudimentary means by which a wide audience is reached." I'm going to leave this one to you; my brain is broken. The quotation definitely needs to be abridged, but it’s the long constituent before the quotation that's the real issue. It’s long, awkwardly constructed, difficult to read.

To me, Style should go above Reception. This is up to you, and I realise that—the way the article is written—style is almost an off-shoot of Reception. I'll let you be the judge of that, though. I think Style is the section with the largest problems. It requires some restructuring. It starts of the way I would expect: a fairly plain description of meter, then becomes about the simple, accessible language, then structure. But then Winwar's quote, although it mentions the sing-song quality, is not actually about structure (although it directly follows it); it’s about the accessibility again. It also bounces back and forth in time really wildly. We go from 2009 to 2004, 2003 to 2005 (fair enough), but then 1999 to 1941, to 1892. Then the section ends with a huge quote, which I understand; it’s public domain at this point. But it’s just very messy. I recommend breaking things up to be a little clearer. If you're short on references for his style, I can try to do some digging for you. There's plenty here; it’s just a bit scattered in those last two paragraphs.

Themes section is really strongly written. No problems!

Okay, so. Having now finished my review, here's where we stand:

  1. The one big quotation above, and the confusing part before it, needs to be simplified. I understand what the introductory part of the sentence is convoluted, but I think you'll find a way to fix it. It can easily, I think, be split into two sentences with one reference, especially with the quotation cut down.
I've tried to do what you ask here, but I'm not positive that I did, please let me know
  1. The prose was a little flimsy in some places. I've tightened it up, I think. No objections regarding prose.
Your ce looks mostly good, I changed a few things-- mostly clarifying (de-capitalizing Warfare, 'Waltman' -> 'whitman', 'Vender' -> 'vendler', there are also a couple of things where I think you went a bit far from the sourcing so I changed them back. Let me know what you think
  1. I think the section on Style needs some restructuring; it doesn't flow as well as Reception currently does. On the note of Reception, I broke two paragraphs up and tried to clarify the gradual transition of critical consensus. I think the quotations should really be paraphrased more aggressively in Style, too, if you can.
It's an interesting thought, where style should go, and I think you're right. Moved above reception. I've tried to make it flow a little better, but I'd like to here what you think.
  1. Footnotes are pretty good, and I spot-checked ten sources in total as I went. Everything was properly attributed, no issues! I'm also pretty impressed with the wide amount of criticism; everything I thought needed to be there (Vander, Schoberlein, chiefly) was there. No big absences, so good job. side-note: Visual Editor makes it hell to check citations

Looking forward to hearing from you, Eddie! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers thank you a lot for taking a look at this. I've had a stab at addressing your comments, now I'd like to here what you think. As is often my problem, I understand what you're saying, but I'm not positive the edit actually addressed it. Happy new year, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! I made a few changes and fixed a typo, but I'm really happy with the way the article is looking. It’s ready, imo. Great job, Eddie!
I support this article's promotion to FA. ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [76].

Frances Gertrude McGill

edit
Nominator(s): Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Canadian criminologist and forensic pathologist Frances Gertrude McGill (1882–1959), who helped establish the first Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) forensic laboratory in 1937. Nicknamed "the Sherlock Holmes of Saskatchewan" for her deductive skills, McGill solved prominent cases across the province and later taught forensic investigative techniques to RCMP recruits. I brought this article up to GA status in 2018, and have since made substantial edits in response to a peer review and some helpful advice from Iridescent & others. Although well known to the public during her lifetime, McGill has fallen into some obscurity since then -- I think her story is a fascinating one and well-worth the effort of bringing up to featured article status. This is my first FA nomination. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit
@Buidhe: thanks for catching that! The streetcar photo licensing is definitely incorrect -- I did some checking this morning, and I'm not certain that it WAS public domain in 1996 (since it's anonymous and apparently unpublished, which may require 75 years instead of 50 for copyright to lapse), so I've just removed it from the article for now. Can you clarify your concerns about the McGill laboratory photo? That one already uses the URAA license tag, and it was published early enough that I think it should meet requirements for URAA. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Frances Gertrude McGill working in laboratory.png — the issue is that it's not clear to me, based on relevant Canadian copyright law, whether this photograph was in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996. Could you explain your reasoning why this is the case? (t · c) buidhe 12:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I think I was mistaken, unfortunately -- I was under the impression that published photographs became public domain in Canada after 50 years, but I'm not able to confirm that now (or at least, it doesn't seem to have been applicable during 1996). Thanks for your patience -- I've removed the photo from the article. I'm going to have to keep improving my understanding of copyright rules. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie

edit
Nope -- I haven't been able to find any clear dates, although it was most likely between 1900 and 1910. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was soon responsible" and add a month if possible, perhaps?
Done -- October 1918. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earning the unofficial nickname" If it was unofficial, maybe add where it came from?
That's uncertain. Merna Foster and Susanna McLeod both reference this nickname, but I don't know exactly where/when it originated. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can link Holmes again in the body
Done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " by obtaining an assistant and" perhaps "hiring" an assistant?
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued to attract notice across Canada and overseas." there's no indication of any notice 'continuing'-- had there been some before?
Rephrased: "had attracted notice across Canada and overseas". Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", and discovered that five of the bodies were murder victims" and none of the five had been suspected/confirmed to be murder victims presumably?
I think that's the presumption, but this information comes from a single line in the source material, and it's hard to identify any more nuance to it. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and "a gasp went through the crowd" as court watchers " what's being quoted here?
Clarified in text -- it's a description from biographer Myrna Petersen. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While interesting, I'm kinda struggling to see the relevance of "The South Poplar Case" to this article -- curious to hear your thoughts on the matter
Sure! There are a number of different cases I could have chosen as examples in this article. Contemporary media/interviews tended to focus on the most sensational cases, and the Lintlaw Case and Northern Trapper Case were among those. However, I wanted specifically to highlight McGill's skills (and her role in affecting the outcome of cases), and not all of the sensational cases actually involved her in any great capacity. I found the South Poplar Case an appealing choice because it was an example of how McGill used her skills to uncover the truth about a suspicious death, rectifying an earlier forensic error and helping police avoid a totally unnecessary investigation. Does that make sense? If you feel it's the weakest case example, I may be able to replace it with another (or add a fourth case), but I think it's a reasonable inclusion. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For bedtime reading, she often indulged in crime fiction" perhaps simply "she enjoyed reading crime fiction" or something similar, unless we know that she only red it at bedtime
I'm not sure how important it is, but the source does specify "bedtime reading". I'm guessing McGill didn't have a lot of spare time to read for pleasure. ;-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conflicted. To the best of my understanding, historian Merna Forster was simply suggesting McGill as a possible candidate for inclusion on a bill -- but the government never formally listed McGill as being in the running, and she wasn't ultimately chosen (they went with Viola Desmond in the end). I'm inclined to leave it out, unless you think Forster's opinion as a historian is worth mentioning? Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article, well done on the whole. My comments are pretty minor, subjective things for the most part. It is curious to me that there isn't more to say about such an interesting person. I may be back with some more comments. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: thanks for the review! I think I've addressed your concerns/comments thus far -- let me know if there's anything else. I also find it curious that there isn't more to say about McGill; the fact that she was a woman in an unconventional profession probably contributed to some lack of coverage/legacy, especially after her death, but I suppose she was also a rather private person (no autobiography, few existing interviews). Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfied with your responses, I agree now that the money bit doesn't merit inclusion, were I writing this article I'd cut the South Poplar case, but I won't impose myself upon your article, I really do think it's fine with or without it. Well done, Support -- mostly on prose but after a few searches I'm inclined to think comprehensiveness is met, though if I get a chance I'll look again for more. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review — pass

edit

I'll do a source formatting review, but when my vet shows up, I'll have to finish it later.

  • Ref 3 Basswood 1878-1978: It's a book so needs place of publishing Basswood, Manitoba. Averill says it was printed in 1978 (which is confirmed by Worldcat.) Optional to list oclc #63072380
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 Medicine and Duty: Entire title should be in title case. Norris should show as editor. Calgary is misspelled as publishing location. ISBN 978-1-55238-193-9 missing, (while it is optional, as you have listed it for other books they should be consistent).
Done. Not sure how I managed to spell "Calgary" quite so whimsically there. ;-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 ISBN sections should be formatted 978-1-55488-970-9
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. SusunW (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 8: date of article September 16, 2010 missing
Fixed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13: Place of publication, Toronto missing
Fixed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14: Place of publication, Ottawa missing.
Fixed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: Place of publication, Ottawa missing.
Fixed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17 & 18: Paper name The Leader-Post differs from name in ref 16, Regina Leader-Post. Should be consistent and probably Regina Leader-Post, as that is how our article on the paper is styled.
@SusunW: Hmm - the paper is "Regina Leader-Post" today, but in the first half of the 20th century (before merging with other papers) it was simply "The Leader-Post". Do you think it matters if I drop this distinction? I think this question applies to several of your other comments as well. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of "those" who opts for accuracy over consistency (I use 10 digit ISBNs if that is what the source shows, and birth names until a legal name change), so if it were me, what I would do is use the paper's name at that time and pipe it to the current name, i.e. [[Regina Leader-Post|The Leader-Post]] and insert the place of publication. The reviewing guide says you must input a place of publication if it is not in the paper name, but again, I just always input a publication place. SusunW (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a very sensible solution, and I'm inclined to side with accuracy over consistency too -- done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 20: Insert links, i.e I typically list multi-page article links in the page section as 24-25, 27, 30, 39 though there are other ways to do it.
Works for me -- done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. SusunW (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref. 21 & 22: Star-Phoenix does not match newspaper name Saskatoon StarPhoenix in Ref. 11. Should be standardized and probably Saskatoon StarPhoenix, as guide says city of publication is required, if not included in name of newspaper.
Fixed (kept old name, but linked to modern name). Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 26: Newspaper name should match Refs 16, 17, 18, etc.
Fixed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: Publisher is known, Canadian Science and Technology Museum
Fixed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links, though not really part of references, shows The Leader-Post, which should be consistent with all the other namings of this paper.
Fixed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think that is it for formatting. SusunW (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources appear to be reliable and curated with the exception of Petersen's The Pathological Casebook of Dr. Frances McGill. That source looks to be self-published; however, based upon WP:RSSELF as she has published an article on McGill in the curated Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan it appears to meet the WP criteria for exceptions. (I note also that the Casebook was used to develop a University of Canterbury master's thesis and that Petersen received research funds for the book from the Saskatchewan Heritage Foundation lending credence that other scholarly organizations nod toward it being a reliable source.) SusunW (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this source -- I knew about the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan article, but I didn't know Petersen had been referenced in that master's thesis. That's helpful. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck
  • Basswood confirms when and where the parents got typhoid, but does not indicate it was from drinking water. Just noticed that the water part is in Waiser (2017). Add citation.
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not see that Herbert took over the running of the farm in McGill, but it is in Basswood
Corrected citation. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you rephrase "Two years later she became director of the provincial laboratory"? Verbatim from Celebrating Women's Achievements.
Done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only issues found through "Retirement and consultancy". Will continue tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot find any links to The Pathological Casebook or R.C.M.P. Quarterly (1946) can you e-mail me pages 26 and 129–131 from Casebook and 2 or 3 pages from the Quarterly to spotcheck the refs?
I've emailed the requested pages to you. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Got them and appreciate your sending them. All appears to be in order. SusunW (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A local doctor ruled it murder and sent the victim's remains to McGill's laboratory for further examination does not appear to be in Hacker, p 205. Can you provide another source?
The info is confirmed in the RCMP Quarterly source (1946) -- I've corrected the citations in that section. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just saw that as I was reading the RPMC article. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that it is necessarily wrong to list pages as a broad range, but it makes it far more difficult for verification purposes. Were it me, I would show the specific page number(s) for each citation throughout the article as you have done with Petersen's Casebook.
That definitely makes sense for longer page ranges -- I've now inserted page numbers for individual citations from McGill H., Hacker C., Salterio J. and McGill/Willock, which are the only sources that draw from a range of more than three pages. I'm not sure it's necessary for the McGill E. and Forster M. sources (3 pages or less), but if you feel strongly about them, I can add page numbers there as well. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's all. Thank you so much for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: I think I've addressed all your comments so far. Thanks for the thorough review, and please let me know if you see anything else! Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have adequately addressed all the issues. Good luck with the rest of the reivew. SusunW (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

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

  • had once circumnavigated the globe while travelling between teaching jobs in Canada and New Zealand: I think I know what's intended here, but I visualized a line going back and forth between Canada and New Zealand and of course that's not a circumnavigation. How about "had once circumnavigated the globe, travelling to New Zealand for a teaching job and later returning to Canada"?
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Master: just "postmaster", I would have thought, or is there a reason to use the caps?
"postmaster" is perfectly adequate. Done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • her parents accidentally drank contaminated water at a county fair. They became ill with typhoid fever, ... Not quite right; they didn't drink it accidentally. How about "her parents came down with typhoid fever, contracted from contaminated water they drank at a county fair, ..."?
Fair point. I've gone with "her parents became ill with typhoid fever after drinking contaminated water at a county fair". Does that sound better? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much information about what McGill did between 1900 and 1915 -- trained as a teacher, sure, but did she teach? Was she living at the farm still? If there's nothing in the sources, of course, we may not be able to say.
There's very little info published about the years between her parents' death and her schooling. I couldn't find anything to include aside from what's already there. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a single year, she made as many as forty-three excursions to investigate crimes, even travelling to remote northern locations in the Arctic Circle. I initially read this as meaning that there was one year in which she made 43 trips and travelled to the Arctic Circle, but I don't think that's what's intended. I can't be sure what would work best without knowing exactly what the source says, but how about "Her investigations required frequent travel – up to forty-three trips in a single year – and McGill sometimes used a snowmobile, dog sled or float plane to reach the crime scenes, even travelling to remote northern locations in the Arctic Circle."?
I've edited the line with your suggestions: "Her investigations required frequent travel – up to forty-three trips in a single year – and McGill sometimes used a snowmobile, dog sled or float plane to reach crime scenes, once travelling all the way to the Arctic Circle." Sound good? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGill used her resourcefulness to make do with dramatically fewer resources: a bit clumsy, and I think unnecessary -- wouldn't just "McGill made do with dramatically fewer resources" make the point just as effectively?
Definitely unnecessary -- I've trimmed it, as per your suggestion. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was such a thorough and articulate instructor that her teaching notes were once compiled for use in a student textbook in 1952. Using "such" like this makes it seem directly causative, as if anyone who had been equally thorough and articulate would also have had their teaching notes used in a textbook. Again I can't be sure what can be done without seeing the source, but could we do something like this: "She was a thorough and articulate instructor, and her teaching notes were compiled for use in a student textbook in 1952"? I cut "once" as well -- I don't think it adds anything.
All sensible. I've made the edit. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • her reputation as one of the few female members of the RCMP: I don't think "reputation" is the right word -- your reputation is typically about something that is a matter of opinion, such as your ability. I think what's meant is that she was well-known, and that the fact that she was one of the few female members of the RCMP was part of what made her well-known. I can't offhand think of a better way to put this -- perhaps "her status as" or "her prominence as"?
I've gone with "status". Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any of the three cases you give details for have enough coverage at the time or later to be worth an article in their own right, and hence a redlink from this article?
The Northern Trapper case could arguably be given its own article (it received plenty of media attention across Canada at the time), so I've redlinked Oskar Schwab. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The South Poplar case section's short second paragraph seems abrupt. If we make it "McGill determineid that there had been no foul play: the cause of death for the hitchhiker had been a simple heart attack." I think it would then flow well at the end of the first paragraph.
Done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She traveled extensively whenever possible: I don't know what "whenever possible" means here.
I've rephrased: "She enjoyed travelling abroad and did so extensively...". Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't seem to have an article on Cherry Valley, Manitoba; how about a red link?
I can't find any info on Cherry Valley, Manitoba, so I'm guessing it's too small -- I don't think it warrants a link at this point. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is in good shape; this are all minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think I've addressed your points. Thanks for the copyedits! You smoothed over a number of bumps I hadn't noticed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Your changes all look good. A very readable article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

The article is interesting and well written. Pendright (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Nicknamed "the Sherlock Holmes of Saskatchewan" for her deductive skills and public fame,[1]
Replace the comma at the end of the sentence with a period.
Hmm -- this clause is not intended as an independent clause (it doesn't have a subject, only a verb, and it introduces the rest of the sentence), so I can't change the ending punctuation without rewriting the beginning as well (e.g. "She was nicknamed..."). Unless you feel strongly about it, I'd prefer to keep this clause the way it is. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<>My apology for jumping at the incorrect conclusion - the sentence should stand as written. Pendright (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGill influenced the development of forensic pathology in Canadian police work and was internationally noted for her expertise in the subject.
Add a comma after work to join the independent clauses.
The first clause is independent, but the second is not (no subject, only the verb "was"), so I think the lack of comma is grammatically acceptable here. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<>As I understnd it, both subject and object pronouns can be be used in an indepenent clause to form a complete sentence - so what's the problem with "her"? Pendright (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty -- digging out my grammar book to double check this: Maxine Ruvinsky's Practical Grammar says that an independent clause requires a subject and verb, and it has to be able to stand on its own. The clause "McGill influenced the development of forensic pathology in Canadian police work" does make sense on its own, but "and was internationally noted for her expertise in the subject" does not make sense on its own. The pronoun "her" is not doing enough to stand in for a subject -- it's not connected to the verb "was" (as the subject needs to be), but rather is working as part of the predicate to provide additional information beyond the subject/verb --> What was McGill internationally noted for? Her expertise on the subject. I can't locate any sources that say an object pronoun can create an independent clause, but if you have one, please pass it on! I'm happy to pick up something new. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poking my nose in to say that I think the sentence is OK as written -- I think adding a comma would be a stylistic choice and is not grammatically required, though it would be OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: No problem! Pendright (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where she was hired first as the provincial bacteriologist and

  • where she was hired first as the provincial bacteriologist and then the provincial pathologist.
How about -> where she was first hired?
Conflicted about this one -- I'm using the modifier words "first" and "then" to describe the two jobs rather than the word "hired", so I'd like to leave "first" where it is. However, your comment has made me realize that I could improve the parallel structure within this sentence by adding "as" to the second part --> "she was hired first as the provincial bacteriologist and then as the provincial pathologist". How does that sound?
<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and she continued to act as a consultant to the RCMP until her death -> in 1959.
Done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

  • Frances Gertrude McGill was born on November 18, 1882[2][3][note 1] in Minnedosa, Manitoba.
In this date format, a comma is required after the year.
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • n 1915, McGill completed her medical degree at the University of Manitoba, receiving the Hutchison Gold Medal for highest academic standing,[9][10] the Dean's Prize and an award for surgical knowledge.[8
for [the] highest academic standing -> add the definite article.
As it currently stands, I'm using "Hutchison Gold Medal for highest academic standing" as a single descriptive phrase about this award, just like "an award for surgical knowledge" (rather than "an award for HER surgical knowledge"). I could change this, but I think it's correct in its current form. Sound okay? Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<>Okay Pendright (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pathologist:

  • Her personal motto was reportedly "Think like a man, act like a lady and work like a dog
Is a punctuation mark needed after reportedly?
Since it's a motto rather than a quoted piece of dialogue (no "she said" involved), I don't think a comma is required to set it off from the rest of the text. Let me know if you have reason to think otherwise, however. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<>In which case, doesn’t the MOS suggest the use of italics.
Not that I can find, anyway: in the section on italics, MOS says italics should only be used in quotations to add new emphasis or indicate the use of non-English words. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern trapper:

  • races of blood in his shack.
"shack" might be worthy of a link?
Sure -- now linked. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following February, police arrested Schwab's former trapping partner Thomas Kisling, who admitted to killing Schwab but subsequently tried to argue that it had been accidental or in self defence.[22
"Thomas Kisling" -> Shouldn't this be set-off by commas?
That sounds right -- I've added the extra comma. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death:

  • McGill died on January 21, 1959, in Winnipeg,[10][25] having been diagnosed with breast cancer and later pleurisy.
Consider addding her age at death.
Done! Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: Finished - Pendright (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: I've addressed your initial comments (either incorporated or otherwise responded to). Let me know if you think any further edits are still needed. Thanks for the review! I appreciate your taking the time. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave: I've responded to the questions/remarks you have about some of my review comments. Thank you for the detailed and prompt reply to them. Pendright (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: Thanks! I've responded again to the last two items. You're certainly putting me through my paces, grammar-wise. ;-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave: I'm pleased to support this nomination. For my part, civil discourse on the rules of the road can be beneficial. Thank you for your participation. Good luck as you head for the FAC finish line. Pendright (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your support is greatly appreciated, Pendright. Your comments and suggestions helped me take a much closer look at this article (and make some solid improvements). Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [77].

1920–21 Cardiff City F.C. season

edit
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first season played by Cardiff City F.C. in the Football League following their move from the Southern Football League in 1920. The side surprised many by not only adapting well to the new division but immediately winning promotion to the top tier of English football, missing out on the title by virtue of goal average. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No images are included in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite true, Buidhe (there's a shirt graphic, and these can cause problems) but true enough to Oppose. Criterion 3 says: "Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions..." and there must be loads of images on Commons that are appropriate. I'd hunt some out. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnbod: There are certainly not loads of images on Commons relevant to the article. The only players with images were uploaded by myself from a postcard (which I'm still in the process of ascertaining a possible author to pass an FAC), apart from Jimmy Gill whose image is probably not correctly licensed anyway. There are no match photos from anywhere near this time and the oldest photo of the ground is from 1956, at which time it looked nothing like it would have in 1920. If you have access to any appropriately licensed images, I'd love to add them in. Kosack (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Straight off I'm seeing one at keystone player Billy Hardy (footballer), plus Jimmy Blair. I don't see you need a "possible author" at this date. After that, if necessary I might settle for teams or grounds they played, or Cardiff in the 1920s, Cardiff Castle, or a muddy football. What is not going to happen is me supporting an article of this sort with no images. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Hardy and Blair pictures are both ones I added from the above postcard and, based on previous FACs, I'd be surprised if they went through without one. Kosack (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Johnbod: With the help of another editor, I've expanded the free use rationale which should be enough to cover the license review. I've added the Hardy and Blair images and an image of George V which is relevant to the text. Kosack (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, thanks. I've struck the Oppose, but I'm not sure if I'll do a full review. If a postcard isn't "published", I don't know what is. If the stand behind the later pic of Ninian Park in the photo of the man with a leek (NP cat on Commons) was in place at the time, that should be added, also maybe the OS plan of the ground. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass added images are reasonably relevant and appear to be in the public domain. (t · c) buidhe 12:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I've copyedited a fair bit; please feel free to revert anything you don't agree with.

  • This is not a source review, but I did notice you're inconsistent about publisher locations -- some cites have them and some don't. It doesn't matter which but I would suggest being consistent unless a location is unavailable.
    Added. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still no location on Grandin, Cardiff City 100 Years of Professional Football, in footnote 43. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need either more in the lead about the Southern League, or cut the mention -- it's not clear what exactly happened unless you already know. I had to read the first section of the article before I understood this.
    Dropped the Southern League from the lead. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen "league winners" used in Wikipedia for winners of divisions below the top tier, and it surprises me. It's a long time since I religiously read football match reports, but I still keep track from the US via the BBC web page, and my recollection is that "league winners" is rarely used in newspaper reports for winners of divisions below the top level. Surely "league winner", to most English football fans before the Premiership started, would mean "winner of the First Division"? I would have thought Cardiff would have been called "Second Division champions". If you have sourcing for this usage I won't object, but it doesn't read naturally to me.
    Dropped. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pattern of paired fixtures in the match results -- consecutive home and away games against the same team -- is something that I've never noticed before, and I think others who are not students of the game's history will be surprised too. Can anything be said about this, perhaps above the "August-December" section? When did this practice stop, and why was it ever implemented in the first place? And why does it only happen for part of the season?
    The fixture lists were organised by Charles Sutcliffe who devised his own system that he used until his death in 1939 and which was then carried on by his son until 1967. His system generally tried to pair teams together, but obviously changes were made depending on potential clashes (two teams from the same city being home on the same day for example) and the longer it was used, the more variation was introduced. A brief explanation can be found here. I've tried to work this into the first paragraph at the first use of reverse fixture to hopefully explain this better. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very interesting; I should have guessed it was something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it usual to refer to Port Vale as just "Vale"? I haven't seen that before but if it's a known usage that's fine.
    I have heard it used but probably not widely, so I've added the full name to avoid any potential confusion. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He missed only one senior match for the side, the club's Welsh Cup defeat. This is explicitly in the lead but only implied in the body; I think it could be made explicit in the body too.
    Added. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conflict between the Welsh Cup match and league match is surprising to a modern reader. You may not have anything in the sources that addresses this, but if you can source it, a footnote saying when scheduling conflicts were eliminated would be interesting to note.
    As far as I can tell, this was a one-off as the Welsh Cup never clashed with a league fixture again and matches are generally moved with little to no hassle. I can't find any explanation as to why this match wasn't moved, perhaps the Football Association of Wales, which governs the Welsh Cup, tried to flex their muscle over the importance of the competition and it backfired. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks close; just a few minor issues above, a couple of which you may not be able to do anything about if there are no sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review and copyedit. I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good, though there's one more location to add to a citation. I just noticed that you say Cardiff keep seven consecutive clean sheets in the FA Cup, but it looks like it was only six? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Fixed those two issues. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

edit

I'm happy to review.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me doing this piecemeal, but here's a bit more:

I'll look at the rest tonight. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And onwards we go ...

  • Goal average. I would like to see a little explanation. I'm not sure linking is enough. It's not in use anymore so I think it's okay to add a few words about it, and perhaps even add that it is no longer in use in English football.
    Added a basic explanation. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for second place on 38 points --> maybe add who was leading at the time and with how many points
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • although the match was marred by a broken leg suffered by Barnett that ended his season --> I'm not a native speaker so I may be wrong but would "although the match was marred by Barnett breaking his leg, ending his season" be better?
    The double use of -ing seems to read a little jarringly to me. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a native speaker who suggested "although the match was marred by Barnett breaking his leg, which ended his season"
  • as Cardiff won six --> consecutive sentences using "as" construction
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bristol City were four points behind the pair meaning --> I would like to see a comma after pair, but I've learned that some people prefer to avoid them as much as possible. (I did enjoy reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves.)
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • needed a point from their remaining two fixtures --> is it worth adding a footnote explaining that in those days a victory was 2 points?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the league results table, may I propose inserting a Round column?
    In terms of league matches, I'm not sure of the benefit of a round column, given that the round is only for numerical order which they are sorted into anyway. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And both 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season and 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season have colourcoded the table. Should their format be followed? I can see why the Ipswich table has to use colour coding because how on earth can I decide if their away game against Brighton was a win or a defeat? It says 0–1. It shouldn't make the user think. I like the Arsenal table best. It uses the common "Middlesbrough 0–4 Arsenal" format.
    A discussion at WP:FOOTBALL fairly recently ascertained that the table format, like the one here, is generally the better option as it's more inline with the requirements of WP:ACCESS compared to the format used in the Arsenal article. In regards to colour, I've tended to avoid it as I'm not sure it adds much other than for the sake of it, but then I'm partially colourblind so I don't see much of the difference anyway! Kosack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find the discussion - I didn't look very long :). I can understand the accessibility argument but I am sure there has to be a better way than making users think. Do you happen to have a link to the discussion? Sorry, too lazy to look any longer myself.
    It's mixed in with information on prose at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 133#2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season formatting. Comments by Stevie Fae and Struway2 near the end sum it up best probably. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

Tomorrow seems like a fine day to conclude the review with a source spotcheck. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking sources:

  • I couldn't find it in MOS but I believe I was told at FAC once to keep capitalisation consistent within the list of references, so possibly change the capitalisation from the original. I always use Camel Case for Book Titles, but in Newspaper article titles you won't see me using many capitals. I just checked some of your earlier FAs and it seems that what you have here is perfectly fine.
    Generally I just copy and paste the title from the source. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opening Day History:Starting With Success" --> the article title appears to have a | instead of a colon. In any case, a space is probably needed between the symbol and Starting
    Ah I remember adding this one, the line makes the template malfunction and I'm not sure how to fix that. I've added the space, is there a solution for the line | problem? Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Check the source of this line to see how I made this |
  • Also add a space in "City Decades:The Triumphant Twenties"
    Added. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randomly picked refs all check out: #18, #29, #30, #51, #52, #55, #57, #59, #60. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article. I give my Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

edit

I'll save this article in a way that goal average never could... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Background

  • and becoming a professional football club ===>>> and to become a professional football club
    I'm a bit unsure of this one as it seems to imply that the change was required to join the league, which it wasn't. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leeds United, looking to replace Leeds City who had dropped out of the Football League after eight matches the previous year, led the ballot with 31 votes ===>>> Leeds United – looking to replace Leeds City, a team that had dropped out of the Football League after eight matches the previous year – led the ballot with 31 votes (the "who" clause doesn't fit; too many clauses)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • particularly at Portsmouth who had ended the season as champions ===>>> particularly at Portsmouth, the reigning league champions. (the "who" clause doesn't fit, or maybe just add a comma before "who" this time?)
    The use of reigning concerns me that it may be confused with other years, which is why I went for the above. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • , but the emergence of Fred Keenor ===>>> ; however, the emergence of Fred Keenor
  • The alterations would stretch into the season but ===>>> Although the alterations would stretch into the season, but

August to December

January to May

Cup matches

  • on 8 January 1921 with Cardiff causing ===>>> on 8 January 1921. Cardiff caused
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • after a goal from Gill. ===>>> on a goal from Gill.
    I've never seen the phrase "on a goal" used in BritEng I believe? Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Division side Chelsea ===>>> First Division side Chelsea,
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • having been taken to two replays ===>>> , having been taken to two replays
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A crowd of 50,000 attended the match at Ninian Park. <<<=== End the sentence here.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as Cardiff took an early lead through Cashmore's second goal in the competition.[10] Cardiff proceeded ===>>> After Cardiff took an early lead through Cashmore's second goal in the competition,[10] Cardiff proceeded (combine the two sentences)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff's victory over Chelsea resulted in the side becoming the first Welsh team ever to reach the semi-final stage in the competition's history. <<<=== Just to check, so they were not the first Welsh team to make the fourth round and/or quarter-final stage?
    I'm not really sure right now, most of the references use that marker. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolves were adjudged to have been the stronger of the two sides with Evans being named as Cardiff's most impressive attacking player, although the side's defence was praised after recording their sixth consecutive clean sheet in the competition. <<<=== Re-organise this sentence and maybe split. The clauses don't work together.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point but was breached after just 12 minutes. ===>>> Although Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point, they were breached after just 12 minutes.
  • which was converted by Keenor ===>>> that was converted by Keenor
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a brief upsurge in performance as the side looked for an equaliser, but a number of long shots were defended by Wolves who added a third goal soon after and ended the winners as the match finished 3–1. <<<=== Split this sentence in two.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • against Pontypridd, but the ===>>> against Pontypridd; however, the (and also split the sentence in two at "in the third round;" before this part)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Player details

  • 7 FA Cup matches; The only <<<=== the semicolon is fine, but the capitalization.
  • scoring 19 ===>>> add "goals" or "times"
  • scoring 12 ===>>> add "goals" or "times"
    All Done. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • Okay.

Overall

  • There is a bunch of instances where you use "but" in the middle of the sentence where it would make more sense to use "Although" at the beginning of the sentence. I believe I marked all of them above. (I see a bunch of these were added by Mike Christie who was against beginning sentences with "However". Although that's a fair concern, I don't think putting "but"s into the middles of sentences is grammatically correct either.)
  • The article looks comprehensive and well-structured. The above points are mainly minor grammatical issues.

Will support once the above points are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But vs. Although

Hi, Sportsfan77777; I saw you mentioned me re "but" in the middle of a sentence. It's fine to use "but" in the middle of a sentence (google "but in middle of sentence" and you'll get lots of grammar guides), but a comma is often recommended before the "but" (as in this sentence!). You actually do this yourself in your comments above -- It's fine to use 42000 in the infobox, but it might be worth noting.... Using "although" at the beginning of a sentence isn't wrong, but it can change the meaning. For example you suggest above Although Pagnam scored on his debut as Cardiff defeated Barnsley 3–2, suffered consecutive defeats for the first time -- this makes no sense as written, and even if fixed, the meaning is wrong -- the "but" here refers to the contrast between Cardiff's defeat of Barnsley and their subsequent consecutive defeats. Re "however", it's a useful word but it can get overused, and it's stronger than "but" or "though" so I tend to weaken it while copyediting unless I see a strong reason not to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mike Christie, thanks for the reply! I'm not trying to be overly grammatically correct in my wording of the comments, only in the suggestions. Not saying this is the best source, but they say "Although is slightly more formal, and is preferred if you want to stress that both halves of your statement may be true. But is used when you wish to stress contradiction between the halves of the statement.". For example, if a sentence said: "Cardiff won the match, but lost their best player", that would be fine because the second clause negates the first. But if it had said: "Cardiff won the match, but lost their next match", that does not make sense because the second clause does not negate the first; it is just separate. They should really be written as two separate clauses. That said, some of the suggestions above were also or instead due to tense issues or wording issues. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I'm at work so can't read in detail but will take a look, probably this evening. Kosack, I trust your judgement if you want to go ahead and make whatever changes you think are necessary based on Sportsfan77777's comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through your detailed notes below, and I think your usage is fine; I differ from you on exactly when "but" is acceptable but some variation isn't a problem. I'll leave this for Kosack to make their own judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fair! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case-by-case

  • The pair, alongside Billy Hardy, had formed part of the "holy three", as they were known by fans in the Southern League, but the emergence of Fred Keenor hastened their departure.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "The pair, alongside Billy Hardy, had formed part of the "holy three", as they were known by fans in the Southern League, but their departure was hastened by the emergence of Fred Keenor." I think that's a more correct use of "but", but then the second part is in passive voice, which I don't like. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alterations would stretch into the season but the ground would have an initial capacity of 35,000 for the start of the campaign.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "The alterations would stretch into the season but they did not stop the ground from reaching an initial capacity of 35,000 for the start of the campaign." I would be fine with that, just as much as my "although" suggestion above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff defeated their Severnside rivals 1–0 with Barnett scoring the only goal,[10] but a loss to Stoke on 5 February saw Cardiff drop to third place.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "Cardiff defeated their Severnside rivals 1–0 with Barnett scoring the only goal,[10] but still fell to third place after their next match, a loss to Stoke on 5 February." I don't think the current way it's written has parallelism. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pagnam scored on his debut as Cardiff defeated Barnsley 3–2 but suffered consecutive defeats for the first time during the campaign, losing 2–0 against Rotherham County and 2–1 against Port Vale in their next two fixtures.
I'll revise my above suggestion to be: "Although Pagnam scored on his debut, a 3–2 victory over Barnsley, Cardiff suffered consecutive defeats for the first time during the campaign in their next two fixtures, losing 2–0 against Rotherham County and 2–1 against Port Vale." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "but" works too well here with there being two clauses in "Pagnam scored on his debut as Cardiff defeated Barnsley 3–2" already. The only way the rest of the sentence could negate the first and justify the use of "but" would be to tie the next two fixtures to Pagnam as well (i.e. something like "Pagnam scored on his debut, a 3–2 victory over Barnsley, but could not prevent Cardiff from losing their next two fixtures 2–0 against Rotherham County and 2–1 against Port Vale, the first time they suffered consecutive defeats during the campaign"). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point but was breached after just 12 minutes.
If I were to use "but", I would write it as "Cardiff's defence had not conceded a goal in the competition to this point, but gave up their first after just 12 minutes." Again, to keep parallelism. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for the review, I've addressed the majority of the points above with a few replies as well. I've left the although/but issues for now while the discussion continues. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: I've incorporated the changes noted above following the discussion. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting! I made a few minor copyedits, check if those make sense. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Citation style appears consistent, especially with repeated citations to The Times.
  • Most material is sourced to books or newspaper articles from the time, which seems appropriate.
  • The Times sources on the Gale site are marked as needing a subscription, but I accessed them without signing up for anything. Is that correct? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically no, I've been granted access via the WP:LIBRARY so they used to be subscription only and trying to access the archive from a Web search still requests a login. I'm assuming GALE have opened up somewhat or provide access to cited sections now? Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC Sport is the only source that is linked (in [21]). I'd recommend unlinking it to keep consistency, unless there is a reason? The author is also missing for this one.
    Unlinked and added author. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times is the only one with a specified location (London). That may be fine, but is there a reason for that? (such as, to avoid confusion with other newspapers with the same name?)
    Removed. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • In [56], "He would go on to become Cardiff's all-time leading goalscorer with 128 goals in all competitions", I see the 128 goals mentioned in the article, but not that that made him the all-time leading goalscorer.
    Added a further source. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [5], the title could include the subtitle (Changes and Prospects).
  • The following sources support the associated statements: [5] (teams leaving), [18] (underdogs), [36] (table position and number of games), [49] (Chelsea difficulties), [51] (good defensive line, and attendance), [54] (attendance and money)

First ever source review. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Nearly four weeks in and only one support. I shall add it to Urgents, but this nomination needs further reviews very soon if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at WP:FOOTBALL to try and garner some attention too. Kosack (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this still needs a source review? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Yeah, I've added it to the source review requests. Hopefully someone has time over the holiday period. Kosack (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. - I've taken the liberty of assuming that the few remaining source formatting nitpicks will be okay'd by Sportsfan - they did not seem to be huge enough to worry about ... since Kosack has said they did them. If Sportsfan doesn't think they are perfectly correct, I AGF on both of them being able to get it fixed on the talk page even after the nomination is promoted. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2021&oldid=1003652937"