Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 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) 31 July 2021 [1].

Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots

edit
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lear is today better known for his nonsense tales and limericks, but he was a gifted artist, painting commercially while still a teenager. This 1832 parrot book, although financially a failure, established his reputation as one of the leading nature paintings of his day. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
Well, perhaps it could be made possible to use something like the upright parameter, which doesn't force a particular pixel size, as is possible with regular images. Not something to apply here, but I'll see if I can bring it up somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a solution might be implemented at some point:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the authority of Aristotle" Perhaps good to introduce him as "the ancient Greek polymath" or some such, to show it was even very dated information by that time?
  • "and Lear's main contributions to the development of bird painting" This is your first mention of Lear outside the intro, so his name should be spelled out and linked here.
  • "had a successful three-year voyage" When?
  • "was outdated by 1839" Outdated in what way?
  • Spell out and link Lear's name first time it's mentioned in an image caption?
  • You spell out some names again after first mention, wouldn't last names be enough? This includes Anne Wentworth and John Gould, perhaps others.
  • "Plate XLIII from Samuel Pepys's hand-coloured copy of Francis Willughby's Ornithology[1]" Give date for context?
  • "and Gould eventually produced 68 plates for the book, acknowledged by Gould. He also produced at least ten plates for Gould's A Monograph of the Ramphastidae, or Family of Toucans." Am I misunderstanding something here, or should the first "Gould" be "Lear"?
  • "Lear's macaw, Anodorhynchus leari was named by Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1856. Bonaparte had identified it as a new species from Lear's accurate painting in his book." Could benefit from specifying that it was identified as another species in the book, which only seems to be mentioned in the image caption?
  • "who was known for the quality of his reproductions of fine art." Only stated in the intro.
  • Was there text in the final book?

Comments

edit
  • 175 copies shouldn't be a number to start a sentence, see MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • the teachings of the church do the sources say Christian church?
  • Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets (1753–1824) what does the year-range mean here?
  • HMS Blossom, commanded by Captain Frederick W. Beechey had add a comma after Beechey.
  • Lear painted 12 plates of birds and two of mammals for The Zoology of Captain Beechey's Voyage, probably in 1829, when he was aged 17, or 1830, but long delays by another contributor, the keeper of zoology at the British Museum, Edward Gray, meant that the book was more than ten years out of date by 1839, when it was finally published, with several other expeditions having taken place in the interim. sentence is way to long.
  • plates to Gould for £50 you convert into current currency in other places but not here, why?
  • He also produced at least ten plates no need for "also"
  • Now Lord Derby, he used the grounds of the ancestral home, Knowsley Hall add a comma after "Hall"
  • Lear's macaw, Anodorhynchus leari no need for first comma

Support from Casliber

edit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Early ornithologies... - odd use of the word, why not just, "Early (scientific) works on birds..".?

Support from EdwininLondon

edit

With the caveat that I am not in expert in the field, I have the following comments. I found the prose easy to read and had to work hard to find any nitpicking comments:

  • north west North America --> I think it is one word, northwest. At least it is in wind directions.
  • , and printed by Hulmandel, and --> stylistically not the prettiest sentence. Any chance of a rewrite?
  • Like Lear, Walton often --> is there a reason why you use Walton? Should it not just be Like Lear, Ford often ..?

None of these prevent me from giving my Support for this nomination. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will conduct one. Hog Farm Talk 06:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources were all reliable
  • Didn't catch any significant formatting errors
  • Spot-checked several sources and didn't find any issues with copyright violations, source-text integrity, or close paraphrasing.
  • quick check didn't turn up any key literature that is missing

Pass on sourcing Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aa77zz

edit

I wasn't aware that this was here.

  • Ref 4 Kusukawa (2016) p. 306. - not in list of Cited texts.
  • I'm surprised there isn't a mention of George Edwards and his A Natural History of Uncommon Birds published in London between 1743 and 1751. See for example here. Edwards visited wealthy houses and made drawings from live specimens - including parrots. There is a chapter on Edwards is Lederer 2019 pages 52–58. Edwards is important in the history of ornithology - many of Linnaeus's descriptions and binomial names were based on Edwards's illustrations. (Lederer mentions nearly 350)
  • He was the first major artist to paint birds from life.[17][18] - Many of Edwards's drawings were from live birds. Lear is a "major artist" and Edwards isn't?

Perhaps more later. - Aa77zz (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link in Ref 1 Birkhead & Montgomerie 2009 is dead.
  • Consider incorporating 'Note a' on the Histoire naturelle des perroquets into the body of the article. An earlier book on parrots with hand-coloured illustrations seems highly relevant. (BHL has a scan)
  • "Large folio" links to Elephant folio - which in term links to Paper size#Current U.S. loose paper sizes which doesn't exist as a heading and Elephant isn't mentioned in that article which is about modern paper sizes. It would be better to link to Folio where "Elephant folio" (58 cm in height) is mentioned.
  • The arrangement of the species was by alphabetical order in Gessner's Historia animalium, and by arbitrary criteria in most other early works. - not very relevant. How did Lear arrange the parrots?
  • I'm not sure if he made it explicit, but it looks as if it's basically aesthetic, with his later, better, paintings in the earlier parts, and the less polished ones later on. Do I need to say that? I put the Gessner comment to contrast with Ray, where an attempt was made at a taxonomic arrangement. Should the Gessner bit go? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can something more be said about which parrots are depicted? I notice that there are not 42 different species as on three occasions there are separate plates for the male and female.
  • I've tried from the outset to avoid having a long list of parrots, especially since I have linked the full text in the bibliography, which has the contents here. I think that I have only mentioned 42 plates, I've not said that was the number of species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is messy to source. The plates are specified in: Peters, James Lee, ed. (1937). Check-List of Birds of the World. Vol. Volume 3. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 171, 247, 270, 152, 262. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help) but we use the taxonomy of the IOC: Gill, Frank; Donsker, David; Rasmussen, Pamela, eds. (July 2021). "Parrots, cockatoos". IOC World Bird List Version 11.2. International Ornithologists' Union. Retrieved 30 July 2021.

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supported above. A nice article - well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, many thanks, interesting to write too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 30 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2021 [3].

1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season

edit
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cardiff City F.C.'s second season in the Football League and their first in the top tier of English football. The team started disastrously, losing their first six matches, but recovered to claim a creditable fourth place. The article follows the same layout as the previous season which was promoted to FA last year. As ever, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Comments

edit
  • "The average league attendance during the season was 27,000" - this disagrees with the infobox
  • Western Mail should be in italics in the photo caption
  • "Wolverhampton Wanderers defender Dickie Baugh Jr.." - avoid double full stop
  • "Club officials estimated between" => "Club officials estimated that between"
  • "Tottenham received a blow early into the game" => "Tottenham received a blow early in the game"
  • "having proven a stubborn opponent [...], they" - there seems to be a single/plural disconnect here
  • The term "reverse fixture" might be unclear to people without in-depth football knowledge.....?
  • "a match that was described as "The most" - don't have a capital on The in the middle of a sentence (still applies even though it is a quote, I believe)
  • "Jimmy Gill who had been the club's top scorer the previous season scored" => "Jimmy Gill, who had been the club's top scorer the previous season, scored"
  • "On 31 October, club captain Keenor" - this is the first mention of him so his forename should be included (along with a wikilink)
  • "yielded only a point for Cardiff after losing 2–0 at home and drawing 1–1 away" => "yielded only a point for Cardiff, who lost 2–0 at home and drew 1–1 away"
  • "The team's victory over Blackburn during this spell saw an unusual debutant" - pedantically, was he a debutant? He had played for the club before the war.....
  • "the team's drew 1–1" - lose that apostrophe
  • "with their opponents already having secured the First Division title,[29] winning 2–0" - wording seems slightly ambiguous as to who actually won
  • "before beating the then relegated Manchester" => "before beating the already-relegated Manchester United" (as a football fan of more than 30 years I have never heard Man U referred to simply as "Manchester")
  • The term "brace" (to mean two goals) is used repeatedly but never explained or linked - any way to do so, as I don't believe this to be a common/well-known term
  • "Southampton who they had defeated" => "Southampton, whom they had defeated"
  • "The replay was held at Tottenham's ground White Hart Lane and such was the demand for tickets, " => "The replay was held at Tottenham's ground White Hart Lane and, such was the demand for tickets, "
  • "Gill and Len Davies each scored once, Davies' goal was his eighth" => "Gill and Len Davies each scored once; Davies' goal was his eighth" or "Gill and Len Davies each scored once, Davies' goal being his eighth"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit
  • Link the variant of football in the opening sentence.
  • Link promotion. Apparently there are sports where all the teams just get to recycle year after year after year....
  • "highest tier ... top tier" in the same sentence is a little repetitive.
  • "finished the campaign" repetitive.
  • "the FA Cup, Cardiff" I would link the specific edition.
  • "reached the fourth round" did they enter in the third? I.e. this feels a bit overblown if they only won one game to get to this defeat...
  • "During the campaign, 31..." last campaign was the cup run...
  • "made more appearances than" repetitive, maybe "played more times" or something?
  • "However, the league fixture against Tottenham recorded an attendance of 50,000 although ..." However although reads poorly for me. Also, is it Tottenham or Tottenham Hotspur?
  • "In the side's first season" in the Second Division...
  • " on goal average after" up to you, some others would suggest this needs explanation, perhaps a footnote explaining what it means. For me, I'm happy with a link but I know what it means already. Does a seven-year-old American child though??
  • For "top tier" you could link English football league system.
  • Link Manager.
  • "an agent acting" is there a football agent article?
  • Again, perhaps earlier, link the specific edition of the FA Cup.
  • "In the team's first match" new section, reiterate Cardiff.
  • "they met FA Cup holders Tottenham Hotspur" is the cup relevant to the league?
  • "an extra 6-10,000 people" additional, not extra, and en-dash there.
  • Consider linking positions, like "defender".... that seven-year-old US kid is looking confused....
  • "Jack Page started" if not ambiguous, just use surname after already introducing him above.
  • "Tottenham received a blow early in the game as Jimmy Seed picked up an injury. Despite the setback, Tottenham proved" -> "Tottenham suffered a setback early in the game as Jimmy Seed picked up an injury but proved.."
  • "score board" one word..
  • "to use as " use it.
  • "club to approach local police to seek advice on crowd" they asked the police to seek advice or they sought advice from the police?
  • "reverse fixture five days later" no anchor for context on "later".
  • "with The Times describing" overlinnked.
  • "prompting manager Fred Stewart to" do you need to reintroduce him as manager and include his first name?
  • "was described as" by whom?
  • "a surprising turn of form" according to whom?
  • "an upset to" link upset.
  • "for £1,500" inflate.
  • Link transfer fee.
  • "for £500.[21] On" inflate.

Okay, that takes me to "November–May", let me know when you'd like me to continue. Incidentally, watching Wales v Denmark right now. Sad face. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review, I'm up to speed now and have addressed everything here so far. The less said about that game the better... Kosack (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yielded only a point for Cardiff.." got me thinking, would be very helpful to have a footnote explaining that a draw was worth one point and (I assume) a win was worth two? Especially for our non-football readers...
  • "the teams drew 1–1 " at?
  • "with their opponents... , with..." repetitive run-ons.
  • Could link "relegated" (I know that's technically going to be an overlink, but still useful).
  • Avoid using the semi-colon markup for section headings.
  • "Source: [31]" no space before ref.

Gotta pop out, more soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "round, being drawn" -> "round where they were drawn"
  • "were praised for" by whom? The Times?
  • "was drawn against" add "away" here so we don't need to explain that The Dell was Soton's ground.
  • "victory in ... Their victory" repetitive.
  • Link "dribbled" (can you imagine what the seven-year-old American would make of that??)
  • "to finish past" perhaps "to strike the ball" or "to shoot" instead of the more euphemistic "finish"?
  • "all going close" + "to scoring."
  • "for Gill to convert" score rather than "convert"?
  • "headed in from a corner" link both.
  • Also link cross.
  • "winning goal.[36] The goal" repetitive.
  • Link referee.
  • What leagues were the Welsh Cup opponents each in?
  • "Davies' goal" s's (per MOS, which if you ignore, I won't be upset...)
  • "Player details" section could just be called "Players" and then use "Player statistics" as a table caption rather than a subheading.
  • "matches in all competitions" I know this is common parlance, but would "across" be less ambiguous than "in"??
  • "three less than" fewer.
  • "new club record for goals in a single season" perhaps "new club single-season record"? I don't think the repeat of "goals" is necessary.
  • "the 1922–23 season with " you've already linked it in this para.
  • " £63,000 for the campaign, £12,000" inflate.
  • Minor point, but I usually italicise Football Club History Database as it's a website.
  • I would expect ISBNs to be consistently formatted.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Ok looking now...

In the FA Cup, Cardiff entered the competition in the first round and progressed to the fourth - sounds odd, why not "Cardiff entered the FA Cup in the first round and progressed to the fourth"
Club officials estimated that between 6—10,000 people broke into the ground err no, either "Club officials estimated that between 6 and 10,000 people broke into the ground" or "Club officials estimated that 6—10,000 people broke into the ground"

Otherewise looks in good nick....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for taking a look, I've amended both points above. Kosack (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

edit

Specific

  • Suggest changing title to "Citations"
  • #3 — Suggest linking The Times. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. And rather than linking to the landing page (which requires a subscription), you can link to the image itself—right click on the image, open it in a new tab, and adjust the URL as needed. See ref #2 at George Sidney Herbert as an example.
  • Do you have a way to edit via a computer? It's not something to hold up the review over, it's just preferable to have an unpaywalled link. Separately, here and elsewhere, you haven't responded about retrieval dates for printed matter. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not directly to hand I'm afraid. Also, the retrieval dates are quite common in this sort of use, every FA I have ever sent through uses them and there are numerous FACs ongoing right now doing the same. Kosack (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #3 — Is this reliable?
  • I'm assuming a ref has changed position since this the review as The Times is ref 3? So if you mean the Football Club History Database, yeah it's widely used here on Wiki and has gone through FA numerous times before. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #4 — "last updated" date can be used as the page date. Is this reliable?
  • I'm assuming this is England football online.com. If so, yes I believe it is, the site is maintained by Chris Goodwin and Glyn Isherwood who are both professional football journalists and have had books published in the past. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #7 — Same as #3.
  • #9 — Is this the same paper as Western Mail? If so, can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #10 — Same as #3.
  • #11 — Same as #3.
  • #13 — Sheffield Daily Telegraph can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #15 — Same as #3.
  • #16 — Same as #3.
  • #18 — Same as #3.
  • #19 — Same as #3.
  • #21 — Star Green 'Un can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
    Not addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #22 — Is this the same as the Athletic News? If so, it can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #24 — Same as #3.
  • #27–29 — Same as #3.
  • #30 — This should probably be in "Bibliography," with a short cite here, for consistency.
  • When a single page of a book is referenced, I typically include it as a direct citation as done here. If multiple pages are cited, I list it in the bibliography. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #39 — Last updated date can be used as page date.
  • #41 — Is this reliable? Author missing.
  • #42 — This should probably be in "Bibliography," with a short cite here, for consistency.
  • #44 — Same as #3.
  • #45 — Is this the same paper as Western Mail? If so, can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.

Bibliography

  • Lloyd 1999 — Publisher location missing.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Thanks for taking a look. I've responded to all of the points above. Kosack (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kosack, a couple comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: Addressed the remaining issues. Kosack (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kosack, I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:49, 18 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2021 [4].

Christian Bale

edit
Nominator(s): KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Welsh-born English actor. Known for his work in films, including the Dark Knight trilogy, Terminator Salvation, American Psycho, and The Fighter, the last of which earned him an Academy Award; he has been noted for repeatedly gaining and losing weight for his roles. The article has seen a major expansion since its successful GA review, so here's hoping that one of the most physically gifted and versatile actors of his generation becomes one of Wikipedia's featured articles! KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit
  • File:Ch Bale 02.jpg What's the evidence that the uploader actually took the photograph?
  • Currently there's a lot of headshots in the article. Would be better to replace some with group photographs or other images that show the subject in context for variety. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed Ch Bale 02.jpg from the article. Since so many of the uploader's files have been kept after deletion requests, I though it was at least established that there was also no evidence of the contrary (i.e., the photos not being their own work), but I understand that this is not in line with the FA criteria. Regarding the other headshots, I've replaced the photos from the Public Enemies premiere and the American Hustle promo rounds with ones from the 2011 Oscars and the 2019 TIFF red carpet. KyleJoantalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

edit
  • You state that he "will play". This should be rephrased to avoid WP:CRYSTAL, such as saying that Bale has agreed to play these roles. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" is too long—should be split up. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" and "2013–present: Continued success"; added "2005–2011: Batman and dramatic roles", "2012–2018: Continued acclaim", and "2018–present: Recent career". KyleJoantalk 04:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an improvement, although I would say 2005–2011 section is still probably longer than ideal. Keep in mind that a majority of readers will be accessing on their phones, where this section (on my phone, at least) is more than six screens long—more frequent section breaks would make it easier to read. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adjusted the headings to encompass 2005–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2018, and 2018–present. You were right about the section breaks. The article seems to flow much better this way. KyleJoantalk 06:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now...will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • He attended Bournemouth School but later said that he left school at age 16 - why "but" here?
  • Para 2 of 1986–1999: Career beginnings and breakthrough and para 2 of 2000–2004: Rise to prominence and commercial decline are a bit listy. I sorta get why but some other bits about the roles he did/motivation/or any anecdote might break the listy feel. THe article has 26kb of readable prose so size is not a worry at this point.
    • Added these sentences:
"Rebecca Milzoff of Vulture revisited the film in 2012 and found the cracks in Bale's voice during his performance of the song "Santa Fe" charming and apt even though the actor was not a great singer."
"Of Bale's performance, Ryder said that he captured a complicated component of the role."
"Bale said he found it refreshing to play Mandras, who was emotionally humane, after working on American Psycho and Shaft."
I hope these suffice! KyleJoantalk 05:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is good - didn't need much, just something to give it a bit of colour/depth. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...an audio recording of when Bale went into a tirade on the film's set.... - I remember this...the wording here is slightly awkward. However I am having trouble thinking of a smoother alternative.
    • This was a struggle for me. Does this read better? "In February 2009, an audio recording of a tirade on the film's set in July 2008 involving Bale was released." I think it works because the sentence right after explains that it was Bale who directed the profanities. KyleJoantalk 05:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not terrific but an improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there anything about which actors he was inspired by, and who has regarded him as an inspiration?
    • The "artistry" section lists Rowan Atkinson and Gary Oldman as those who have influenced him. Regarding the latter, I couldn't find anything in reliable sources. There have been actors, such as Amy Adams and Bella Thorne, who have praised Bale in interviews, but those have only been captured on video and not been written. This is why I thought it was important to include statements or quotes from the directors Bale has worked with on the "career" section because they at least convey some aspect of the industry's general perception of him. I hope the new bit from Winona Ryder also contributes to said perception. KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise pretty comprehensive. Reads well - there are a few run-on 'and's but alternative phrasing with subordinate clauses don't spring naturally so not sure they can be "improved" as such. Will read through again as I am not the best at picking up prose improvements. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your copyedits were all appropriate, Cas Liber. That aside, I believe I've addressed the above points. Please let me know if there are other changes you believe would be suitable. Thank you very much! I truly appreciate the time you took to examine the article. KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, am happy with comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bettydaisies

edit

My first thought is that this is a very, very well written article that manages to be pretty consistent in tone and wording throughout, an impressive feat for anything on this website. It employs summary style beautifully while still leaving the reader informed about the legacy and weight of each of his roles, and tells his life story in a digestable, interesting way without comprising the integrity of its status as an encyclopedia page. I really have very few suggestions: during the phrase "For Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March, recommended Bale" there's a small moment of 'recommended Bale for what?' before you move on to the next sentence; it might possibly be beneficial to simply add a "for the role of Theodore "Laurie" Laurence" or some other clarifying phrase, if needed.

This image also might be served a bit better with a crop, since the four others in the frame have little to do with the information in the body, but I can see it might be difficult simply given Bale's positioning in the picture. Also, the phrase "believed it marked the beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman in a great way" seems slightly simplistic given the sophisticated (but readable) vocabulary in the rest of the article, and could be replaced by something like "to critical praise/significant acclaim/etc." or other. Those are really the only things that happened to catch my notice, apart from the multitude of rock-solid positives and exemplary writing. Kudos to all, including KyleJoan of course, who worked on the article!--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments and unbelievably kind words, Bettydaisies. Regarding the image from the 2011 Academy Awards, the group setting adds the variety that Buidhe mentioned during the image review. It also shows Bale among his peers in addition to providing context to his win at that ceremony. That aside, I've rephrased the two sentences based on your terrific suggestions:
  • "For Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March, recommended Bale." → "In Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Bale played Theodore "Laurie" Laurence following a recommendation from Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March." The source only specifies that Ryder recommended Bale for a role, so I neutrally put together his portrayal of Laurie and the recommendation without directly correlating the two.
  • "Critics viewed the film positively and believed it marked the beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman in a great way..." → "Critics commended the film and deemed it an excellent beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman..." I hope this serves as a more polished summary of the sources.
Please let me know if these changes are suitable and whether there are any others you'd like to see! KyleJoantalk 08:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This look lovely! Thank you for the considerations + explanations. Best of luck with this nomination, and I fully support its candidacy.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear! Thank you so much again! KyleJoantalk 00:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

edit

I casually read through this article a couple weeks back but was reluctant to show support because I didn't want to come off as just stamping nominations. It was a good read! I also have my own nomination for Jamiroquai here [5] if you're interested in reviewing. 😃 웃OO 07:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! And I'll be sure to read the Jamiroquai article and see what I can offer. "Canned Heat" is a great song! KyleJoantalk 11:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "Known for his ... leading man status" - source?
    • There are three references in the article that verify this: The Guardian ("American Psycho, based on Bret Easton Ellis’s novel, established Bale as a leading man with a very sharp edge."),[6] Vanity Fair ("This was the part that took Bale from promising young star to leading man with range."),[7] and Vulture ("That rare child actor to evolve into an indomitable leading man, Bale is notoriously dismissive of celebrity.").[8] KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox claims he has been active since 1982. What is the source for this claim?
  • Associated Press is not a work title. Ditto BBC, check for others
    • Sorry about this! I made ABC News, Associated Press, BBC, BBC Cymru Wales, BBC News, CBS News, CNN, ComingSoon.net, Dark Horizons, Den of Geek, Digital Spy, IndieWire, Moviefone, MovieWeb, NPR, The Numbers, Reuters, RogerEbert.com, Rotten Tomatoes, UGO Networks, and Yahoo! Movies all publishers. KyleJoantalk 14:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Harron had chosen Bale for the part, the film's production and distribution company, Lionsgate, originally disagreed and hired Leonardo DiCaprio to play Bateman with Oliver Stone to direct. Bale and Harron were brought back after DiCaprio and Stone left the project." - is there a better source for this?
  • What makes Dark Horizons a high-quality reliable source? MovieWeb? Den of Geek? ComingSoon? The Quint?
  • FN180: as per WP:ROTTEN there are limitations around use of this source for works before the 2000s
    • I removed Little Women (1994) from the list of his top-scoring films on Rotten Tomatoes. KyleJoantalk 10:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but if we are needing to omit part of his oeuvre because of this issue... why is the scoring a meaningful statement to include? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The scoring is an indication of Bale's best-reviewed films, which reflects their critical merits. About Little Women, a New York Times ref in the "career" section verifies that it was "a critical and box office triumph", so its score meets the accuracy and effectiveness ROTTEN mentions. I only removed the film from the statement because I forgot about said citation, so I've re-added it. Aside from being meaningful, I believe the list is due for inclusion given that we've verified that the pre-2000 films garnered the same type of reception Rotten Tomatoes notes. KyleJoantalk 03:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, we've verified that that film garnered the same type of reception Rotten Tomatoes notes. We don't know whether other of his pre-2000 films might have showed up in the list if the site didn't have these limitations. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • My bad, I meant "pre-2000 film" in the singular sense. The source for the list is Rotten Tomatoes' editorial, which means that we're citing a news article that references the scores and critical consensuses rather than the scores and consensuses themselves. Initially, I could see how Little Women's score could be undue. But even if there is no New York Times article to verify the acclaim, "According to the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes..." is a biased statement of opinion, so the limitations do not apply here because we're merely presenting the editorial's findings. Any high-quality news article is similarly limited, so the attribution should be sufficient in the same way that it is for praises or criticisms. Variety's Kristopher Tapley said in 2017 that Bale's performance in Out of the Furnace was his best, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Joe Williams wrote in 2014 that Bale's work in Exodus was his career's most indifferent. Bale has appeared in several films after 2014 and 2017, but if there are no sources to contradict these opinions, then there's no use in pondering whether he may have done better or worse work after those years. Likewise, more comprehensive data possibly existing in other publications do not lessen the list's reliability and high quality. All of that said, would it be more appropriate to write "some of Bale's highest-scoring films" to give the list a tad less weight? KyleJoantalk 04:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. The issue I have with this isn't that RT is unreliable for what the RT site itself says; it's that, given these known issues about RT, does this give people a misleading impression, even with the in-text attribution, of what this actually means. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's completely understandable. I added "some of" to the sentence to counterbalance the ranking aspect, allowing readers to conclude how well-reviewed the rest of his films are themselves. KyleJoantalk 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of Further reading should match References. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! I believe I've addressed all of the above points, Nikkimaria. Please let me know if I need to provide more documentation or clarify anything. Thank you so much! I genuinely appreciate the thorough review. KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria and thanks for that. How is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No remaining objections. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Nikkimaria! KyleJoantalk 02:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shahid

edit
  • "leading man status" - this sounds like a very vague and unclear phrase. You could write "he has been a leading man in a range of film genres, and is a recipient of various accolades..."
    • Is this better? "Known for his versatility and physical transformations to play his roles, he has been a leading man in films of various genres. Bale is a recipient of many accolades..." I thought it would be less run-on-esque if the sentence was split into two. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bale secured a minor role in the television film Anastasia" - a) please specify the year b) do you know how he got the part?
    • Specified the year, but there are no details about how he was cast. There's not a lot of information about the film in the first place, and Bale's involvement seems the most notable for how its star connected him to Spielberg. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then recommended Bale for Spielberg's" - "then" seems redundant, it obviously happened after the first film (you could switch it with "subsequently" which makes more sense).
  • "which was unsuccessful at the box office and with critics" - I'd add "both" before "at"
  • This might be just my own preference, but referring to him as "the actor" sounds very journalistic and unencyclopedic. It is particularly ambiguous when other actors are mentioned before. It might be my own problem so suit yourself.
  • "Ryder said he captured a complicated component of the role" - maybe you want to clarify what she meant (that he captures the cmplex nature of the part? Its complexity?), but I'd anyhow rather see what a critic might have thought of his performance instead of a co-actor.
    • Used "the complex nature" in the place of "a complicated component". I haven't found any review that highlighted Bale's performance, and I thought Ryder's take injected a nice change of pace from the regular critical reviews. It also provides the anecdote that Cas Liber suggested above. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after DiCaprio and Stone left the project" - "had left" I'd say.
  • "He also had his teeth capped to embody the character's narcissistic nature" - how so?
    • Changed this to "He also had his teeth capped to assimilate to the character's narcissistic nature." Bale basically said that Bateman would be obsessive about his own aesthetic and that the character wouldn't feel right about having Bale's old teeth. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was released in April 2000, becoming a commercial and critical success as well as developing a cult following" - I'd change it to "The film was released in April 2000 to critical and commercial success, and later developed a cult following" (I think "later" is a key word in cult following as it happened in the years that followed".
    • Rephrased this to "The film was released in April 2000, becoming a commercial and critical success and later developing a cult following..." The commercial and critical success also did not come right away, so this phrasing connotes that bit but also specifies that the cult following came even later. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bale claimed he had not worked for a while because he hadn't come upon scripts" - hadn't - not contractions are allowed but then twice "had not" would be bad so please revise it.

More later, Shahid • Talk2me 13:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nolan himself chose Bale, who was still fairly unknown, for the role" - the use of "himself" clearly aims to imply something, but then it's a little POV - 'himself' as opposed to whom? And why is it important? I think it goes without saying that a film director would be the one to pick the star of a film. If you want to say he was impressed with Bale, say that. "Bale, who was still fairly unknown at the time, was cast in the role by Nolan because..."
  • "He regained the weight he lost for The Machinist and built muscle, weighing 220 pounds (100 kg) to play the character. He also trained in weapons, Wing Chun Kung Fu and the Keysi Fighting Method." First, two sentences starting with "He", the first "He" should be changed to Bale (Nolan was mentioned in the previous sentence, too). Also, "to play the character" is repeated from the previous paragraph so I would suggest rewriting the entire thing to "For the part, Bale regained the weight he lost for The Machinist and built muscle, weighing 220 pounds (100 kg), and underwent training in weapons, Wing Chun Kung Fu and the Keysi Fighting Method."
    • Done! This suggested phrasing clarifies so much. That said, I kept the weapons training and whatnot separate to minimize the repetition of "and". I hope that's OK. KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, in 2005" - please refrain from overusing "also", "Later that year" would be good enough, and the next sentence "He had been a fan of Miyazaki's animated film Spirited Away".
  • "For the 2006 film The Prestige" - the sentence is too long, better to break it into two.
  • For The Prestige, you don't mention his part.
  • "The Dark Knight has been regarded as the best superhero film" - by whom? It's better to say "was cited by ... as".
    • The two sources cited say this in a way that reads like a neutral representation of an established consensus rather than each publication's personal view. Variety, in particular, says that the film is "widely regarded as the best in the genre", so it wouldn't work to attribute the view to Variety when the magazine is noting a universal belief. I could name specific critics from various reliable sources that share the notion, but it would overwhelm the paragraph, so the general statement seems more appropriate. In addition, since I did not find any source that contradicts this claim (i.e., another superhero film being universally regarded as the best), I thought the general statement was due. KyleJoantalk 09:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It captured the actor directing profanities at Shane Hurlbut, the film's director of photography, after Hurlbut walked onto the set during a scene Bale was filming with Bryce Dallas Howard and also threatening to quit the film if Hurlbut was not fired" - too long -> " "It captured him directing profanities at the film's cinematographer Shane Hurlbut, who walked onto the set during the filming of a scene acted by Bale and Bryce Dallas Howard, and culminated in Bale threatening to quit the film if Hurlbut was not fired."
  • "Actors Whoopi Goldberg, Terry Crews and Sharon Stone defended Bale attributing the incident to his dedication to acting; director Darren Aronofsky also defended him" - hmmm the list is a little redundant and reads like a court defense (and I'm sure there might have been others who condemned his conduct), although the essence it not. How about "Several colleagues in the film industry defended Bale, attributing the incident to his dedication to acting."?
  • "He added he and Hurlbut had completely resolved the matter and after seeing a rough cut of the film felt that Hurlbut had 'done a wonderful job'" - isn't that a bit of a stretch, it's just an incident on the film's set and it dominates the entire paragraph, while its value is quite gossipy anyway. I'd shorten it to "Bale publicly apologised in February 2009, calling the outburst 'inexcusable' and his behaviour 'way out of order' and affirming to have made amends with Hurlbut" (the compliment to Hurlbut is unnecessary anyway)
  • "Terminator Salvation was released in May 2009" at least let us know how the film fared after all the fuss. :) The sentence as it stands is not informative at all.
    • Ah, I see what you mean. Added "abysmal reviews". Interestingly enough, there's nothing about the film's overall commercial receipts, which probably means it performed adequately (i.e., not bombing but not exceeding expectations either). KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During filming in January 2011, Bale, and a crew from the CNN television network, attempted..." - absolutely unnecessary trivia, in my view, and doesn't belong in the career section anyway (not that it belongs elsewhere considering it didn't even materialise).
    • I actually expanded this material and made it part of Bale's personal life. It seems his and Chen's relationship had more legs than I even realized. I think it adds context to his support of/work with nonprofits. Would love your thoughts on this. KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, Shahid • Talk2me 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, all good so far. I'm reading the Artistry section now. I have a little question - the article looks very well sourced, but I have to note that a quick go through Google Books shows some substantial coverage of Bale, including entire books dedicated to him. Did you read some of them? Do you think they have any information that is otherwise missing in the newspapers/magazines that this article employs? Else it could be beneficial to list the major ones in the Further reading section. This isn't criticism, just asking. Shahid • Talk2me 12:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it interesting that you mentioned this because sourcing has been tricky, as Bale has not contributed much to the coverage surrounding him due to his reserved nature. There was even an interviewer that noted Bale requests that his profiles be in Q&A format so reporters can't paraphrase and narrate on his behalf. Due to this, I did browse some books. The biography by Harrison Cheung, which seems like the most notable book about Bale, is gossip-filled, as Cheung worked as Bale's assistant for years and said the two became estranged. While the biography by Matt Green seems more credible, I was not confident that it's a worthy further read since its first paragraph does not even say anything that is not verifiable via an already-cited Vulture piece. So to answer your question, I found the books available to be less comprehensive than the web sources cited. KyleJoantalk 13:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional, general comments
  • "During his acceptance speech at the 76th Golden Globe Awards..." - I really don't get the purpose of this sentence, it's really vague and the readers just need to guess what he meant and what Liz Cheney meant. How about adding what exactly Bale thinks about Dick Cheney? There must be something more substantial out there.
    • There is an interview where Bale compared Cheney to Donald Trump, so I added the adjectives with which Bale described Cheney. That said, Bale never divulged his personal feelings about Cheney. I can't find the exact quote, but I remember him saying that he intentionally refrained from doing this to remain ambiguous about his stance on Cheney's politics. I believe this is why the "Satan" moment at the Golden Globes became the sensation that it did, as Bale essentially confirmed that he felt the same way about Cheney as Americans did. It was the closest thing to a tangible statement about Cheney that we got. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances where I wish there was some additional information about his character other than just its name, including some context of the film's story in relation to the character, its trials and tribulations. I do understand why some rather unidimensional parts such as Batman would not require this sort of detailing, but the more complex roles he played do need to be elaborated on. For example:
    • What was the time period during which the story of Vice takes place? The film's article says "The film follows Cheney on his path to becoming the most powerful Vice President in American history" - wouldn't it be beneficial in Bale's article as well? We need to know what he plays, not just who he plays.
      • I don't know how accurate that quote about Vice is, as the film chronicles Cheney's life from the beginning of his political career until way after his career had ended. While his fame and power culminated in his involvement in the Iraq War, which is depicted in the film, it does not dominate the film the way the description leads you to believe. Due to this, I added a sentence about a general perception of Cheney, which I believe conveys a better sense of the character in a more appropriate way. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He then portrayed sports car racing driver Ken Miles in the 2019 sports drama Ford v Ferrari" - what is this film about? What was Damon's role? Isn't it relevant that Damon was there too? It doesn't require a lot of additional work - just like in Public Enemies you changed the introductoy sentence to "Bale portrayed FBI agent Melvin Purvis opposite Johnny Depp as gangster" which gives us valuable context, the same should be done here.
    • Going back, even in American Psycho - the duality of the role is missing, the fact that he was an investment banker who moonlights as a serial killer is an important plot element and description of his character, as it says a lot about the complexity of his character and lets the reader know it's not just about the regular villainous role (although imo, it is :)).
      • Done! I added that Bateman is "a stock market investor who is revealed to be a serial killer", as it would sound awkward to read that he works as somebody who kills people, which is a more apt description for a hitman. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same for The Machinist - according to the film article, he plays "...a machinist whose insomnia and psychological problems lead..." - that is crucial information which explains why he had to lose weight, smoke cigarettes and drink whiskey.
    • Same for The Fighter - this is perhaps the most acclaimed performance of his career and yet we know nothing about his role. I see now he struggled with drug addiction, which explains Bale's weight loss (contrary to what's expected in the case of boxers) and that he is a retired boxer in the film who trained his younger brother. As is, the article says, "Bale's portrayal of professional boxer Dicky Eklund, for which...", I'd add - "Eklund, who/during [something about his part]..." to let the readers know more about this popular performance.
  • Please apply this across the board where you see a role about which more can be said. This could really help readers respect his psychological rather than just physical efforts to play his roles. Shahid • Talk2me 14:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe all of the other roles are pretty comprehensive as they are. The only one I went back and forth on was John Connor in Terminator Salvation, but then I realized there weren't any sources available that elaborated on Bale's process for the film because the coverage had been dominated by the outburst and the negative critical response, so I added the description "post-apocalyptic" to the genre to better illustrate the fictional setting. I hope this is sufficient. Thank you for the additional comments, Shahid! Please let me know if there is anything else I need to add or change! KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! I support the nomination for promotion. Shahid • Talk2me 10:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- spotchecked half a dozen online citations for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; no issues. Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 31 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2021 [41].

Momčilo Đujić

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momčilo Đujić is the fourth WWII Chetnik leader I've brought to FAC, and the first one who was also a priest. A member of the interwar Chetnik Association, which largely functioned as a paramilitary arm of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government, Đujić escaped the initial onslaught of the Ustaše after the Axis invasion of the country and the establishment of the so-called Independent State of Croatia, but returned during the general uprising to take charge of a large proportion of the Chetniks in the Dalmatian hinterland. He collaborated extensively with the Italians and then the Germans against the communist-led Partisans, and withdrew west alongside the Germans at the end of the war, surrendering to the western Allies. He was able to emigrate to the US, where he lived among the diaspora. He played a bit supporting part during the Yugoslav Wars and died in 1999. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Images appear to be freely licensed
  • I rescaled and moved around some images for MOS compliance
  • Dinara Division section is too long for ideal readability, I would try to put in subsections. (t · c) buidhe 08:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe, did a bit of a restructure! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vacant0

edit
  • I gave this a read, and everything seems to look fine, although I noticed Šešelj later became the leader of the Serbian Radical Party, a government coalition partner of Serbian President Slobodan Milosević, so Milosević should be changed to Milošević. Besides that, everything looks fine. Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vacant0! Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tomobe03

edit
  • In the lede, when I read ...Đujić escaped to the Italian occupation zone and... I though he escaped from German to Italian occupation zone (either Zone II or III). From the corresponding prose in the body, I understood he fled to Kistanje, but that would be Zone I annexed by Italy on 18 May 1941.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, Tomobe03. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Tomobe03, do you feel you could do a source review for this one? It would be good to have someone who knows the range of sources available for these things to have a look. Guidance on source reviews at FAC is here in case you're not familiar with it. Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to - later on today (CET).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, Tomobe03, someone else has stepped in, but I'd be interested in your views on their queries about Glas javnosti in 2000 and E-novine in 2010 as regards their reliability for what is being cited to them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a street in Zemun recently named after Đujić: Apparently former "Prvomajska" was renamed recently. I cannot determine when accurately, but according to this [42] 21 March 2021 article there was talk of such change, and according to this [43] 7 July 2021 article it has been renamed. (The latter also carries info on Dragutin Keserović you might find useful elsewhere, but that's not relevant for this review.) Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I tried to find more reliable sources to confirm that the change has actually went through, but found none. Could be because it happened a couple of weeks ago and was kept low key, or could be that danas.rs was too quick to call it. I'm leaving the judgment entirely to you then if this warrants inclusion now or possibly later on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partial sources review
  • Regarding the Glas javnosti source - is the passage meant to stress that there was a commemoration that year specifically (2000) or that there were/are commemorations in Serbia at all? Would it be noteworthy that there was one such event for example in 2012?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As regards reliability of the Glas javnosti source, I'm not entirely convinced I'd use it - maybe to determine timelines and similar non-controversial aspects. Specifically, I tried to find any information about its editorial board or founders in the About Us section, but found no mention except vague reference to "numerous organisations". On the other hand the cited story regarding commemoration offers no value judgments, so I would think it is non-controversial enough to be acceptable.
  • Regardless of the above, the Glas javnosti article is actually an announcement inviting people to attend - not a text describing what happened.
  • As an aside, there is a reliable source that such a commemoration took place in 2012 [45].--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, the e-novine source will not open for me - seems dead. However, it appears that there is the same article (at least the title and the author are the same and it fully supports the prose currently referenced to e-novine) available at [46] Novosti. I'd say that source is quite acceptable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This great stuff, Tomobe03. Thanks. I'll start adding this material to the article tomorrow (and will add a bits related to other Chetnik leaders to their articles). It is hard to keep up with the wholesale revisionism going on in Serbia regarding WWII. I agree re: Glas javnosti, I think is is uncontroversial and it is ok to use it for what it is being used to cite. I will also swap out E-novine for Novosti, it is definitely better quality. Cheers again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome PM. Happy to support.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • The lead seems overlong to me. Parts are a bit wordy and seem to go into unnecessary detail. Obviously this is subjective, but you may want to see if you could trim it.
  • Maybe link "warlord"?
  • " He was also active in promoting workers' rights, and was briefly jailed for leading a protest by railroad workers. He was also a member of the exclusively-Serb Agrarian Union political party." " He was also ... He was also ..."
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a policy of widespread incarcerations, massacres, forced emigration, and murder of Serbs". The comma after "emigration" causes me to read this as meaning that only the "murder" applies specifically to the Serbs, while the other policies were applied more generally. Is this what is meant?
Fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and even captured Drvar" → 'and even captured the town of Drvar'.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a Chetnik vojvoda." Use English or include an English explanation in line.
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having been raised listening to the gusle". 1. Foreign words which are not proper nouns should use lang templates, not italics. 2. This is the English Wikipedia, very few readers are going to know what gusle means. MOS:FORCELINK: "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."
Fair enough, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reconstruction of the church bells, which had been destroyed by Austro-Hungarian artillery in 1916". I am not how something which has been "destroyed" can be reconstructed, which implies repair of a damaged object.
Good point, the better translation of lijevanjem is "casting". Changed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Interwar Chetnik Association" goes into unnecessary detail. Actually the whole section could do with rewriting in summary style.
I will look at this in the next day or so, but see my comment below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hungary and Romania joined the Tripartite Pact". An in line explanation of "the Tripartite Pact", or rephrasing to a more general usage?
Fair enough, substituted Axis powers, and explained the Pact. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World War II" also seems far from summary style to me.
Same. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PM, I am stopping for now. I am teetering on the edge of opposing over "going into unnecessary detail" and not using summary style. Rereading and given your comments I withdraw this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your feedback on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised on a couple of levels, Gog. I have addressed the substantive points above. I don't accept that there is a significant amount of "unnecessary detail" in the article, and think that saying that something is "wordy" without providing a few examples isn't helpful guidance. In my view the article is comprehensive, and included all the important things that need to be recorded about Đujić in an encyclopaedia. Just the other day a TFA of mine was criticised by a very experienced editor because in their view it didn't have much information on the life of the subject outside of his war service, so it is clear that views vary about what constitutes "unnecessary detail" in biographies varies across the board. The background and situation of WWII Chetniks was highly complex, few readers will know any background information about such an obscure topic, and his initially wildly swinging allegiances and eventual involvement with the Chetnik movement between the wars is important background to his later actions. I would also observe that summary articles on the important themes in this article are in a poor state, and being too focussed on summary style and relying on parent or see also articles to fill in gaps is not useful to the reader given that situation. Perhaps one day it could be cut down when those articles are of better quality, but right now it is what it is. I will have a go at trimming, but I really don't accept the criticism of "unnecessary detail" is justified on the whole. I must also observe that your "leaning oppose" has most likely dissuaded other reviewers, and making coordinator notes about pending closure when you have recused to review and noted that you are "leaning oppose" is also really inappropriate, and I strongly suggest you stop that practice if you have done it before. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have reviewed a number of each others articles and have been pretty much on the same page. I anticipated your seeing what I was getting at readily. Not necessarily agreeing, but seeing it. I am certainly in agreement that an article should be complete in itself and not rely on others to bring a reader up to speed. I shall go through again, bearing in mind as much as I can your comments on comprehensiveness, and come up with some specifics which we could perhaps discuss the relevance of.
  • Link "warlord"? I also note that it is used in the article and not the main article.
Added to the body cited to Binder, and linked both. The voivoda article does mention warlord (because that article is about this sort of vojvoda), but the Vojvoda (Serbia and Yugoslavia) article doesn't, because it was also a formal military rank/appointment in Serbia/Yugoslavia. Neither article is very well cited, unfortunately, and the former virtually ignores Chetnik vojvodas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This consisted of World War I-era Royal Serbian Army battledress and a black lambswool cap known as a šubara, with skull and crossbones insignia." This seems to me to be unnecessary detail.
OK, I thought it added "colour". trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His embrace of the Chetnik movement gave the impression he was (sic)". Maybe "His" → 'Đujić', and the end of the sentence seems to have gone walkabout.
Unformed thought which was replaced by the summary of his politics at the end of the Interwar... section. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular, he criticised Niko Novaković-Longo, a deputy from Knin and minister without portfolio in Milan Stojadinović's government." Unnecessary detail? The previous sentence seems to summarise the main points.
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to police records". Unnecessary?
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was attended by a crowd of over 800 people." Would probably fit better straight after first mention of the rally.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later received financial compensation" Is it known when. Even roughly - weeks, years, decades?
The source doesn't specify, but I suspect pretty soon after. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historians Popović, Lolić and Latas observe that while Đujić's espoused political views appear to be wildly inconsistent during the interwar period, they ascribe this to his willingness to do anything to achieve power and wealth". Optional: → 'The historians Popović, Lolić and Latas observe that Đujić's espoused political views appear to be wildly inconsistent during the interwar period, but they ascribe this to his willingness to do anything to achieve power and wealth'?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "closing the ring around Yugoslavia". As there was a border with Greece, is this strictly true?
Well spotted, tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the aim of securing his southern flank for the pending attack on the Soviet Union". Optional: "for" → 'before'.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the instrument that constituted the Axis, after some delay". Should the comma be a spaced en dash?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was in Strmica with his family when the Axis invasion began." Unnecessary detail?
OK, trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 13 July, the Ustaše had ordered the arrest". Why the change of tense? Suggest deleting "had".
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was recruiting them for the Chetnik cause". Optional: 'among them', or 'from them'.
Went with the former. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had contacted the Italians", Again maybe remove "had"?
This is because it isn't clear when they did it, only that they had done it by early summer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a goal of the". Just checking that this was a goal, and not the goal.
a pretty major one, but a one goal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between the Chetniks and Italians". 'the Italians?
added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chetniks were given 100,000 kuna", Is there some way of communicating in line that kuna was a currency? Maybe something like 'The Chetniks were financed with 100,000 kuna'?
Good point, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although these relationships were "based only on their common fear of the Partisans" and "characterised by distrust and uncertainty"." MOS:QUOTE says "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in the original.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Germans had intercepted his radio communications with Mihailović in September, rendering them ineffective." I don't understand how the first part of the sentence caused the second.
Some context has been lost there, rewrote this. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obituary following his death". Possibly the last three words are unnecessary?
Oh yes, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "written by the journalist David Binder, wrote that". "written by ... wrote that".
Rewrote this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Vojvoda Momčilo Đujić Dinara Chetnik Movement" in quote marks?
Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The former Serbian basketball player". It may be worth mentioning that he played in the US as well as - or instead of? - Serbia.
Added a bit, not sure about the punctuation there, check? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't addressed all of your comments above, as this somehow dropped off my to do list - for which apologies - and I have been racing to get the main review completed before being off line for four days. Taking into account your comments and rereading it seems likely that I will be supporting this comprehensive account. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing the review, Gog the Mild, I think I've addressed all your comments. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all good.

  • There are a few duplinks.
  • Refs: there seem to be some stray brackets at the end of Popović.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks very much Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Over a month in and only one general support. Unless this shows signs of a consensus to promote developing over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit
  • Infobox military person Allegiance parameter is supposed to denote who the person served with/for during their "years of service". His affiliation with the Chetnik Association either counts towards this or does not. In other words, we shouldn't be saying in the infobox that he had allegiance to a group in 1935 when he wasn't in "active service" until 1941.
Have tweaked this. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was the oldest of five children born to Rade Đujić and his wife Ljubica (née Miloš)...The couple went on to have three sons and two daughters over a 16-year period. This seems to be a little redundant and could be consolidated into one sentence.
Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Đujić and his family were relatively wealthy by the standards of Depression-era Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Is this due to his wife's wealthy origins?
I suspect this was the case, but while Popović et al could be read to imply this, they do not state this explicitly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Đujić's reputation was such that he was chosen to stand by Alexander's coffin reads somewhat flowery without any further explanation. Simply mentioning that he accompanied the coffin should suffice.
Sure, it was about his status in the town, but that is pretty clearly implied even after the trim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I knew that the country would not survive", Đujić explained, "because nobody can put Serbs and Croats in the same bag" Quotes should be followed by a citation, even if it's the same one as the next sentence.
Well spotted, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Chetnik Association worthy of its own redlink?
Possibly, but the best link at present is Chetniks in the interwar period, which I've added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • his statements ranged from right-wing royalism to left-wing progressive Since royal --> royalism, perhaps progressive --> progressivism?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Đujić's repeated calls for democracy and national rights You've mentioned that he varied his speeches, but this line seems in direct contrast to statements about his flirtations with royalism and quasi-fascism. What kind of democracy and rights was he calling for (exclusively for the Serbs, I imagine)?
His political views during this period are subjected to some analysis in Popović et al, I've tried to add some more in a final para in this section to clarify what they say his motives were. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Đujić led a massive strike between Bihać and Knin in which more than 10,000 disenchanted railroad workers participated Excise "disenchanted". It's rather obvious they were displeased, otherwise they would not be striking.
Fair enough, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He later received financial compensation from the Yugoslav government for the time he spent in prison What caused them to backpedal, fear of Dujic's popularity?
The source doesn't say, but I added the reason why he received the compo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coup enraged Hitler, who declared: "even if Yugoslavia at first should give declarations of loyalty, she must be considered as a foe and therefore must be destroyed as quickly as possible." He then ordered the invasion of Yugoslavia, which commenced on 6 April 1941. Hitler's quote seems unnecessary here, the regular text conveys what context is needed.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August, once a general uprising against the Ustaše had begun, Is there an article for this revolt?
Linked Drvar uprising. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • They were given 100,000 kuna Who is "they"?
The Chetniks, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not exactly clear why Dujic briefly chose to cast his lot with the Italians as they surrendered while opposing the Germans and seemingly have little to no sympathy for the Allied cause. Sunk cost fallacy, or did he think he could use what remained of the Italians to shore up the Chetniks?
Not sure what you mean here Indy beetle. He aligned with the Italians from August 1941 onwards. Two years later he was still working with the Italians (despite the fact the Germans had opposed this relationship throughout), and quickly switched to the less enthusiastic Germans after the Italians threw in the towel. By September 1943 he was pretty desperate to hang on. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is his condemnation of Slobodan Milošević due to Serbian war crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars tarnishing Serbia's reputation, or due to Milosevic's coalition with a leftist party?
Because Milosevic was the leader of the Socialist Party of Serbia, which Đujić considered communist. And because he considered Milošević to be Tito's successor and that he had compromised Serbian national rights. I have tried to clarify this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo of him speaking at an event in Canada in 1991 raises the question, was he an active speaker to Serb expat communities during this time? Would reliable sources support such a statement?
Not quite that, but I've added a sentence about him being active in the diaspora and the church in North America. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Indy beetle, I've had a crack at addressing your comments. One point needs clarification. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Pendright

edit

@Peacemaker67: I can start in a day or two? Pendright (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be awesome mate. I should have addressed all the other comments by then, so you won't be in danger of doubling up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start - Pendright (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Lead:[reply]

  • Momčilo Đujić (Serbian Cyrillic: Момчилo Ђујић, Serbo-Croatian pronunciation: [mǒmtʃiːlo dʑûːjitɕ]; 27 February 1907 – 11 September 1999) was a Serbian Orthodox priest and Chetnik warlord (Serbo-Croatian: vojvoda, војвода)[. He] who led a significant proportion of the Chetniks within the northern Dalmatia and western Bosnia regions of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), a fascist puppet state created from parts of the occupied Kingdom of Yugoslavia during World War II.
Consider bteaking this long sentence into two along the lines suggested above?
Fair enough, I was trying to shoehorn all his basis for notability in one sentence, but it really was a bit much. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this role he collaborated extensively with first the Italian and then the German occupying forces against the communist-led Partisan insurgency.
Think about droppig first
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)*Đujić was ordained as a priest in 1933 and gained a reputation as something of a firebrand in the pulpit.[reply]
Change in to on
I don't think that is right, People are generally described as being in a role, not on one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<<>> My sugewstion was based on this: In is a preposition, commonly used to show a situation when something is enclosed or surrounded by something else. On refers to a preposition that expresses a situation when something is positioned above something else. Your call! Pendright (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following [After] the assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia the following year, he joined the Chetnik Association of Kosta Pećanac [the next year], forming several bands in the Knin region of Dalmatia.
Consider these suggested changes
Instead I just went with the year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These [and other Chetnik Association, bands, along with the rest of the Chetnik Association, became a reactionary force used by the central government to oppress the populace.
Consider these suggested changes
Went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Active in promoting workers' rights, [Đujić] he was briefly jailed for leading a protest by railroad workers, and [he] was a member of the exclusively-Serb Agrarian Union political party.
Consider these changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the Croatian Ustaše regime implemented a policy of widespread incarcerations, massacres, forced emigration and murder of Serbs and other groups, and [but] Đujić [managed to escaped to the coastal zone annexed by Italy and began recruiting Chetniks in a refugee camp.
Is this a detail you can live without?
Partially done, the recruiting is sort of central to his involvement with the Italians. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once [When the] a general uprising began in August, [Đujić] he returned to Knin and employed his Chetniks to defend local Serbs from the Ustaše, and [he] even captured the town of Drvar in the Bosanska Krajina.
Consider the above changes
Did something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By mid-1942, Đujić was even encouraging his Chetniks to co-operate with NDH forces, and in early 1943, he attempted to participate on the Axis side in the Case White campaign against the Partisans, but this was blocked by the Germans.
Conaider the above suggested changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August, the Dinara Division suffered significantly at the hands of the Partisans[,] and through desertion, and by the time of the Italian capitulation [in September] the following month, it was of little use for [to coninue] offensive operations.
Consider the above suggested changes
I consider the comma after an introductory date/month phrase helps clarity and indicates a pause, implemented other suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<> By rule, short intro's do not require commas. Your Call! Pendright (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Đujić was tried and convicted in absentia for war crimes by the new Yugoslav communist government, which found him guilty of mass murder, torture, rape, robbery, and forcible confinement, [and] as well as collaborating with the German[s] and Italians.
Consider the above suggested changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He later stated that he regretted awarding the title to Šešelj on account [because] of his involvement with Slobodan Milošević and his Socialist Party.
Consider the above suggestede changes
Went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1998, Biljana Plavšić, then President of the Republika Srpska, presented Đujić with an honorary award.
Consider the above suggestedchang
see above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

  • In 1929, he began attending the Serbian Orthodox seminary in Sremski Karlovci, graduated in 1931 and was ordained a priest two years later.[3]
Sugest:
  • Dropping the comma after 1929, it's a short intro
See above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace he with Đujić
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "where he" before graduated
Ended up splitting the sentence and tweaked wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 9 January 1935, Đujić, with a carbine slung over his back, presided over a gathering of twenty newly-recruited Chetniks in the village of Sveti Štefan just north of Knin, together with gendarmerie Brigadni đeneral Ljubo Novaković and one of Pećanac's deputies who brought Chetnik and Sokol insignia from Belgrade.
  • "just north of Knin," is supplemental information and is usually set off with commas?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who brought [the symbolic] Chetnik and Sokol insignia
Not sure this is needed, and insignia implies symbolism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colaborations agreements:

  • Commencing in April, the Ustaše implemented a policy of widespread incarcerations, massacres, forced emigration, and murder of Serbs within the territory they controlled.[25]
Consider adding a year after April
Sure, it is a new subsection. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While [the Italians] they generally stood by as the Ustaše committed atrocities, [they did] the Italians also [open] opened up the border crossings into the Governorate of Dalmatia [for] to Serbs fleeing the Ustaše.
Consider these changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August, once a [Once the] general uprising against the Ustaše had begun [in August], Đujić went to the centre of the revolt in Drvar with another Chetnik leader and sought approval from the leadership of the uprising to take leadership of the rebellion in t
Consider the above changes
Partially done, I've gone with "a" rather than "the" as there were multiple uprisings all over the NDH. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1942:

  • By [the] summer [of] 1942, Đujić's Chetniks [had] were effectively [become] Italian auxiliaries, and [they] the Italians began providing Chetnik detachments with arms, ammunition and supplies.[40]
Consider the above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1943:

  • The remainder began collaborating with the Germans as early as October, although it they did not number more than a few thousand.[62]
it ?
Doh. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retreat and surrender:

  • Đujić said of the Dinara Division that it was "under Draža's command, but we received news and supplies for our struggle from Ljotić and [leader of the puppet government in occupied Serbia, Milan] Nedić. ... Nedić's couriers reached me in Dinara and mine reached him in Belgrade. He sent me military uniforms for the guardists of the Dinara Chetnik Division; he sent me ten million dinars to obtain for the fighters whatever was needed and whatever could be obtained."
Suggest a block quoteFi ished
quoted out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: An interesting piece on a complex man of the cloth. A few nitpickers that you may or may not agree with. Regards! Pendright (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Pendright! You always value-add! See what you think of my responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - left you a couple of after thoughts to read <>. Regards! Pendright (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: this one now has four supports and an image review, just waiting on a source review. Can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry PM, but not until a source review has at least been started. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: can I take it I can go ahead now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, be right to go ahead now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

edit

Notes

Changed back to Footnotes, which is what I usually use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #4 — Is this a library catalogue entry? Anything better to cite? What about the book itself?
Yes it is a library catalogue entry. Replaced with book details from Worldcat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #6 — Only the year needed, not the day/month.
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #79, 81 — Ditto re: year/day/month. Pages/line numbers needed. Why are these sources being used? For instance, can the indictment be considered reliable? At least in the American context, indictments tend to comprise yet-to-be-proven allegations.
Replaced the first one with Lazić. For the second one, I think the issue is if he was the subject of the indictment, which he wasn't. Slobodan Milošević was on trial, and as we know he died before his trial was completed. In any case, the court wasn't going to make any findings about a minor detail such as this. It is identified as material given in evidence, so I don't see a problem with it. Added how much Babić said he gave and the page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #84–87 — Ditto re: year/day/month.
All done except Hoare, he published a book in the same year and this journal article needs a unique anchor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links can be archived.
I generally let the bots do that, or do it manually if I notice linkrot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried running InternetArchiveBot but it did not capture any of them. As Tomobe03 notes above, the E-novine source will not open and may be dead. Seems to be as good a reason as any to protect the others. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gudžević 2010 — What is e-Novine?
e-Novine is a now-inactive web portal for news and commentary based in Serbia. It wasn't the finest news site in the world, but it was OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Glas javnosti?
It was a daily newspaper in Belgrade that is now an online news site. It is also OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names of publishers can be linked.
Sure, but not necessary for verification purposes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the works with multiple authors, suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reckon I might have addressed your points, Usernameunique. Thanks very much for stepping in and doing this. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, Usernameunique, as prompted I had a look at Glas javnosti and e-novine refs, but I included my comments on the matter (plus one other issue) in my earlier comments above. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day both of you. I have now added material from the news articles and opinion piece Tomobe03 found. I reckon this is good to go. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as far as I'm concerned.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, there are a few issues with the links. The e-Novine source (no longer used) went dead, and the link for Latas & Dželebdžić 1979 now links to an advertising page. Once you deal with that, I would also manually archive these ones, to avoid the same problem recurring: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. (The last three are more likely to last, but might as well protect them too.) --Usernameunique (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Usernameunique. Done, all except the glas-javnosti one, which is already from their archive, and I can't find a Wayback version of the article itself, only the archive index page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Gog the Mild, I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 30 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2021 [47].

Tornado over Kansas

edit
Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1929 Regionalist painting by John Steuart Curry. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing-pass

edit

Nice to see you back at FAC with another great article about notable works of art! (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Since it appears that Baptism for Kansas is slated for deletion, and since PD-US so far can not be justified for Line Storm, I removed those images from the article. Hopefully, they can be added back sometime in the future. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the main image still needs to be uploaded with a fair use rationale since there's no evidence it's PD-US. (t · c) buidhe 23:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: After obtaining a copy of Sweeney p. 99, I realized that this page of the 1977 book contains a full, albeit black and white, image of the painting without any copyright notice. Does this count as sufficient rationale for PD-US, or does the specific publication date in the year 1977 matter as well since metadata in the Duke University catalog dates publication to "c. 1977" for a October 1 to November 30, 1977 exhibition. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, what exactly does it say in the Duke University catalog? (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email with the relevant pages, including both the image and the catalog entry. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it doesn't say it was first published in 1977. The original/first publication is what counts for copyright. It's ok because there's a clear fair use rationale for using it on this page. Just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard "Upload a non-free file". (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks. I uploaded the file to File:Tornado Over Kansas.jpg. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: It seems to me we are close to wrapping up this review, so I just wanted to confirm that the image review is passed? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit

Coordinator note

edit

This has been open for a while and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the reminder. Is it considered acceptable to ask users to review a certain candidacy on their talk pages or just ping them directly here? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, so long as the notification or request is phrased neutrally. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To note; ping received and looking. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 days after my first note and still no supports. I intend to archive this in 24 hours unless this changes. Possibly you could nudge the various reviewers and commentators below to see if you can illicit a couple of overt supports? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

edit

Comments from Aza24

edit

Will leave some comments soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main source I'm basing this on is Jaffe, who writes: "Thus the fear of storms, common enough in children, may well have been deepened by his Calvinist sense of guilt. Later in life Curry's concern with violence in nature-animals fighting, thunder, lightning, and heavy rain depicted in his landscapes-may well reflect his attempts to control his early fears, sublimating them into aesthetic expression as in Tornado Over Kansas" The use of "may" in this analysis indicate that this was Jaffe's academically informed but not 100% confident belief, so I decided to add in a "seemingly". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually most of the infobox stuff is put into the lead; the size seems unnecessary as its not particularly big or small—what about the "oil on canvas" part?
  • Going along with my above comment, the first paragraph feels like it could be smoother. (Not sure if this is an improvement or not but what about: Painting in oil on canvas, it depicts a dramatic scene in which a family races for shelter as a tornado approaches their farm. The artist was influenced by Baroque art and photographs of tornadoes, and the work has thematic and compositional connections to Curry's earlier 1928 painting Baptism in Kansas ?
  • Completely optional, but repeat the alternate title in the description so the ref could be put there and not the lead?
  • "Namely, Tornado over Kansas illustrates a" maybe use "the painting" or "the work" here since the title was used in the previous sentence
  • Personally, I think the paragraph beginning with "An incoming tornado towers in the background as part of a dark storm" ought to be first in the description section, as it is pure description. Then perhaps the "Tornado over Kansas is described as an example..." paragraph as the last in this section—thoughts?
  • I've linked Kansas in the lead but am unsure, my thoughts were that our UK and Australian readers will probably not know the state, but feel free to unlink
  • I feel awkward to say I wasn't sure what "litter" meant (thought of the garbage meaning) perhaps it warrants a link to Litter (rescue basket)?
  • Now that I read the interpretation section, I'm not sure I see the "thematic similarities" (as the lead suggests) to the Baptism in Kansas—other than that they both take place in Kansas? I primarily only see the compositional ones, at least from the text presented
  • The Context section feels like it should be above the interpretation one, not sure though
  • Now that I'm reading the Reception and provenance section—I'm left thinking the lead could use some slight clarification. Particularly, "disliked by native Kansans... (maybe add here ->) for its choice of subject matter" ?
  • Tremendous work per usual. Happy to support—though, I agree with your confusion on introducing the painting's title later in the description. Possibly this could be resolved by having "Tornado over Kansas, sometimes referred to as just The Tornado, depicts an incoming tornado..." and later just "The work/painting is described..." Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support by Ceoil

edit

First impressions are good: 1913 words on a minor work seems sufficient (1200 is min for me for an FAC, and would not espically like to see this page padded out longer in wordcount than it currently is, as the scholarship just isn't there), and the sources are high quality (and properly formatted). Do see some prose gaps here and there, that may just tackle myself, with the proviso that the General can revert at will. Anything that's confusing to me will be listed here. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll perform a prose check in the near future as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think this is a quirk with the default citation format for magazine articles without known authors. Luce and Hadden are editors of Life and Time respectively, but their names are placed first in the citation template. Using the editors' names in the shortref did not feel right, however, so I went with the magazine titles instead. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made a first pass on prose. Lightweight changes only. Will revisit in four or five days.Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could be beefed up a bit. Would have at least three paras....(a)overview and description, (b)critical view, (b)provenance and place within Curry's canon. Or something like that. Have made a stab at structuring it like that, but needs additions. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contradiction here: lead: "The artist was influenced by...photographs of tornadoes, and his personal life", but then later although, according to his widow, Curry never saw a tornado himself, the artist was likely familiar with accounts of tornadoes' destructive power. "Accounts" is not equal to in "his personal life". Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more of an ambiguity than contradiction, since I meant to refer to Curry's fear of storms and God during his childhood. I reworded that sentence in my last pass over the lead to clarify. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The resonance of fear of storms and God during his childhood is far more interesting than than merely witnessing. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For co-ords, knowning Generals form; there is a lot of work needed still but expect to eventually support. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As update, still re-reading, making minor ce's etc, and no substantial issues found; still intending to support. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
given this has been open so long, giving Support - can fix my remaining quibbles myself, article is certainly FA standard. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor passing comments

edit
  • Pace Kroiz, the gate may "bar" the path - that is the function of a gate until it is opened - and it has a chain, but is not "chained", as in sealed shut. Rather, it seems clear to me a weight is attached as an automatic gravity-powered self-closing mechanism. We don't seem to have a relevant article, but this sort of ball and chain apparatus is sometimes known as a "cannonball closer". e.g.
  • The wording used in Kroiz is "chained", which is what I'm going to stick to as well. Even while zooming in on the painting, I find it difficult to see the "cannonballs" of the cannonball closer. Then again, I'm not an expert on this subject, since my knowledge of household/outdoor hardware is really bare. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, pace Kroiz. The gate has a chain, but it is not chained (as in "chained shut", and not just "has a chain"). Just as a door with a lock is not necessarily locked. If it is "chained" why is the other end of the chain attached to a short peg some distance away, and not wrapped around the gatepost? The scan is not entirely clear, and I haven't found a better one or seen the original, but where the chain hangs closest to the ground, there seems to be some sort of gear or machinery being used as a weight, rather than a cannonball. But whatever. Theramin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hackley Art Gallery was one of the many public amenities in Muskegon funded by Charles Hackley. On his death in 1905, he left the Muskegon Public Schools Board of Education a fund of $150,000 to buy art, now known as the Hackley Picture Fund. The Board added the Hackley Art Gallery beside the Hackley Public Library in 1910-12. It remained the Hackley Art Gallery for almost 70 years, but changed its name to become the Muskegon Museum of Art in 1980. Details here
  • My reading of the Muskegon Museum of Art catalogue page is that Kneeland offered to buy the painting from Curry in 1931, but instead it was bought in 1935 by the Hackley Art Gallery (as it was then named).
  • As a data point, perhaps worth saying one impression from the edition of 25 lithographs sold for $13,750 in 2020. Rare and valuable, but not millions. And then to show its notability, that inter alia the Met, NGA and Whitey each have an example. [49] [50] [51]
  • Thanks. Do any of the sources discuss the differences between the painting and the lithograph, which is not a direct copy or mirror image: it puts the people in somewhat different positions, and leaves out some details (such as the gate) and add others (such as a windmill)? Theramin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources talk about more the influence of this painting on his later works? For example, a tornado appears in the background of his mural Tragic Prelude.
  • Okay, unfortunately, Jaffe does not discuss explicitly any cause-and-effect relationship between painting Tornado over Kansas and Tragic Prelude, but Adams suggests a connection between the tornadoes in both, so I just added a mention of the Tragic Prelude in the Context section along with other tornado/natural disaster works by Curry. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at this article, and it presents similar ideas to the 1987 Jaffe article. Couldn't find any explicit link between the two paintings besides surface-level details like the inclusion of a tornado though. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it may be worth consulting the 1943 biography by Schmeckebier, which is mentioned in the text but not currently cited as a source.

Good luck. Theramin (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theramin: Thanks for the comments! Please feel free to follow up. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to support as it is: anything more is polishing. Theramin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

edit

References

  • #3: Life should be italicized.
  • #9: Time should be italicized.

Publications

  • Adams 1998: ISBN only partially hyphenated.
  • College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin: Month of publication missing. Also, "College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin" is probably best given as the publisher, not author.
  • Dennis 2006: ISBN only partially hyphenated.
  • Kroiz 2018: ISBN only partially hyphenated.
  • Marling 2000: ISBN only partially hyphenated.

Online

  • Swann Galleries: The date of sale could probably be used as the date of the source, but it's up to you.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism check

edit

Gog the Mild, do we still need a plagiarism check on this one since it's my second FAC? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source to text fidelity spotcheck is not a requirement other than for a first (successful) FAC nomination. That said, any editor may do any amount of such spot checks at any time, and less experienced nominators are more likely to be scrutinised. That is a decision for individual editors, the lack of this will not hold up a potential promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right thanks. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "painterly, technical errors". What is the difference between a painterly error and a technical error in this context? I can only find explicit reference to the latter in the main article, which the lead is supposed to be a summary of.
Ceoil? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art historian Lauren Kroiz". Preface with 'The', to avoid a false title.
  • "Namely, the work illustrates ..." To my eye this would be improved by deleting "Namely,".
  • "of modern European painting". Readers may find this easier to understand if you replaced "modern", perhaps with 'contemporary'?
  • On several occasions the closeness of the phraseology in this article cited to Adams is uncomfortably close to Adams own:
  • the first to clearly document a tornado's shape - the first to document a tornado's shape clearly.
  • complacent white chicken - complacent white chicken
  • noted that the artist's first marriage was in turmoil when the work was created - notes that the painting was created at a time when Curry's first marriage was in turmoil.

Individually each is just about acceptable, cumulatively less so.

Similarly the Muskegon Museum of Art web site:

  • according to his widow, Curry never saw a tornado himself - According to his widow, Curry never saw a tornado himself

Again minor on its own.

I suggest a mild further paraphrasing of these four examples and a check that there are not further examples from other sources prior to me carrying out a more detailed check.

Ah, the idea of a copyright check at FAC is not so much that a reviewer go through every cite, but that if there are qualms then the nominator carries out whatever checks they feel necessary to ensure that such a check would not undercover further qualms. If, after reassurances from a nominator that there were no further issues, a spot check revealed some, this would be reasonable grounds for opposing and suggesting that the nomination be withdrawn for further work to bring it to a FAC-ready status. (I am not saying that I would necessarily do this, just pointing out a common course of events.) So I await your assurance that you are happy that any similar issues during the writing process - and we have all done it, certainly I have, to my shame - have been addressed before I spot check.
  • "Art curator Henry Adams". Preface with 'The'. Similarly elsewhere.
  • "coulisse" → 'coulisses'.
Doesn't matter, unless it is a quote - even then one is allowed to correct obvious grammatical errors.
  • "coulisse". Either add an in line explanation of coulisse - per MOS:LINK "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links" - or use a different term.
  • "as they looking towards the father". "looking"?
  • "Adams views the scene as either a celebration or dismemberment of traditional American family values." That doesn't correspond to what he says in the source.
  • On page 124, Adams writes: "Despite the seemingly conventional technique of Tornado, its major idea is the possibility of explosion and dismemberment...Indeed, it is hard to tell whether the canvas is a celebration of traditional American ideals—the nuclear family, hard work, the farm, the manly man, and the feminine female—or a kind of dismemberment of these ideals to create a new system of order." I attempted to summarize this view in the sentence above, but am open to follow-up suggestions. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, rereading I see where you are coming from. Maybe 'Adams considers the scene to be either a'?
  • Link "dust storm".
  • "while it is regarded for its visual accuracy". Can I suggest 'while it is also regarded for its visual accuracy'.
  • "locals were did not want to "[expose their state] to opprobrium on account of a twister or two", especially by one of their own" doesn't really work, to my eye. Perhaps '... locals were did not want to see "[their state exposed] to ...'?
  • "Kansas Governor Henry Justin Allen". Lower case G.
  • The editors of John Steuart Curry: Inventing the Middle West should be given.

A fine piece of work and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of follow up comments above. If I have not commented further against a point, assume that I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 10 July 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 July 2021 [52].

Liberté-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a group of four French battleships built in the early 1900s, as part of a large naval program aimed at countering German naval expansion. They were nearly repeats of the preceding République-class battleships, but with an increased secondary armament to keep pace with developments abroad. One of them, Liberté, was destroyed in an accidental explosion in 1911, but the remainder saw action during World War I and were discarded in the years after. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All the images used are in public domain and are properly captioned. There are no issues with the images. Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has attracted little interest. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post some notices and see if I can't scare up any reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I'll review this. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as he correctly determined that their shallow belt armor would render them vulnerable to flooding from hits above the belt that could dangerously destabilize the vessels" - is there a way to move the clauses around? I'm presuming that it's the flooding that could destabilize the vessels, but the current phrasing suggests the above-waterline hits themselves did the destablizing
    • Reworded
  • "At an economical cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ships could steam for 8,400 nautical miles (15,600 km; 9,700 mi)" - is this range for normal or full load of coal?
    • That I don't know, Jordan & Caresse don't specify, unfortunately.
  • Infobox gives dates built as being from 1903 to 1908. Shouldn't the start date be 1902 because that's when Liberte was laid down?
    • Good catch
  • "Early on 25 September, while it Toulon, Liberté was destroyed by an accidental magazine explosion that killed nearly three hundred of her crew" - I think you're missing a word in here
    • "It" probably should have been "in" or "at" - Zawed fixed it already.
  • Sources all appear to be reliable

Anticipate supporting, this looks like it is in very good shape. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; did not check against others. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed

edit

This looks to be in fairly good order. I have only a few nitpicks for consideration:

  • Perhaps make it explicit that the first two ships of the six were of the République class? It's implied but may not get picked up by the casual reader.
    • Good idea
  • In the final sentence of the design section, the phrase "entered service" is used twice in relatively close succession, suggest rephrasing one of them
    • Fixed
  • In the 2nd paragraph of the general characteristics section, is the "foremast" the same as the "forward mast"?
    • Yes, switched the second to "foremast"
  • In the infobox, the Built field states 1903–1908, but the construction details in the Ships section, says Liberté was laid down in 1902.

As noted above, this looks to be in good shape. Zawed (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support. Zawed (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow

edit

Checked on the prose only. Looking good, only a few minor comments some of which might just be my personal preference, so feel free to disagree or ignore! - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • Is Fleet Law of 1900 worth redlinking as a realistic target for a new article? We have articles on the German laws
    • And the Naval Defence Act 1889, for instance. But I don't know about the French law; the British one is pretty widely recognized for its impact (setting the famed two power standard and ordering the first of the pre-dreadnought type battleships) and the German naval laws obviously played a major role in the Anglo-German naval arms race (which was a contributing cause of WWI). In the French case, however, I don't know that I've seen it discussed in a wider context, and it didn't really factor into German planning (Tirpitz was of course focused on the Royal Navy). All that is to say, I don't know that an article will ever be written on it, but I suppose a redlink doesn't hurt anything, so I could go either way. What do you think?
I tend to err on the side of adding redlinks in case it inspires somebody to have a go, but happy either way (and it's not really an FAC matter)
  • Seems a bit strange to say the class was required as part of the expansion of 1900 and then to talk about design beginning in 1897. Perhaps mention that the new class was based on a design Bertin had been working on before?
    • I dunno about this - in between the authorization and design work beginning is the bit about Bertin becoming the DCCN in 1896 and his advocacy before then. I suppose it makes sense to me that ships are generally designed and then the navy asks for money to build them. But I think even without that knowledge, it should be easy to follow the section, since Bertin is the one driving the process.
Fair enough. Probably just my ignorance of naval construction, I had assumed "authorised" meant "authorised to start any work on the class" rather than "authorised to put a design already completed into construction"

Machinery

  • "Coal storage amounted to 900 t (890 long tons) normally and up to 1,800 t (1,800 long tons) at full load. At an economical cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ships could steam for 8,400 nautical miles (15,600 km; 9,700 mi)" is that at the normal or full load of coal?
    • That I don't know, unfortunately - Jordan & Caresse don't specify
No problem

Armor

  • "The ship's main belt armor consisted of two strakes of cemented steel that was 280 mm (11 in) amidships" Presumably the 280mm is a combined thickness of the two strakes?
    • No, they weren't layered, one was above the other (because French armor manufacturers couldn't roll plate wide enough to cover the full height)
Oh, I see. You helpfully link strake, but I ignored it! No issue here
  • "Forward, it extended all the way forward to the stem" maybe just "forward, it extended all the way to the stem"?
    • Good idea
  • "The trunks down to the magazines were covered by 84 mm (3.3 in) above the main deck and 14 mm (0.55 in) below, where it was behind the belt." Do we know what this armor was made of?
    • Clarified

Service History

  • "Most notably among these visits was a voyage by the 2nd Division ships across the Atlantic to represent France at the Hudson–Fulton Celebration in the United States in 1909" is "most notable.." better?
    • Yes, I think so
  • "She participated in bombardment of Ottoman coastal fortifications there in November" perhaps "in the bombardment"?
    • Good catch
  • "The 2nd Squadron ships were then sent to Greece to put pressure on the neutral but pro-German government; they sent men ashore in December to support a coup launched by pro-Allied elements in the government, but were compelled to retreat by the Greek Army." This is December 1916 according to the lead but follows a sentence talking about 1915 so the reader assumes that year
    • Fixed

Lead

  • "The French ultimately intervened in a coup that overthrew the Greek king and brought the country into the war" The main body text only mentions the coup of December 1916, that the ships of the class participated in, which was unsuccessful. Though does state the Greek king was forced to abdicate in June 1917 the implication is that this was only under French pressure rather than direct action
    • Added a bit more detail in the body
Yes, this clears that up well. Thanks
  • "Following the Allied victory, Justice and Démocratie were sent to the Black Sea to monitor German forces as they demilitarized Russian warships they had seized during the war," the main text just says "to oversee the demilitarization of Russian warships that had been seized by German forces during the war", not that the demilitarisation was carried out by German forces
    • Done
  • "The other two ships remained in commission until 1920, when they too were deactivated" main text states that Justice was reduced to reserve in 1920 and decommissioned in 1921. It only mentions that Démocratie was struck from the register in 1921
    • Clarified (I think)
  • " All three were sold for scrap in 1921 and broken up in Italy." main text only states that Vérité and Démocratie were broken up in Italy and does not explicitly give a year for their sale.
Works for me
Support on prose - Dumelow (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

All the sources are reliable, and exactly what you would expect on a class of French pre-dreadnoughts. I haven't done spotchecks, but AGF given Parsecboy's long history at FAC. The only minor thing I could see was fn 17 should be pp. not p. A couple of details that might be worth adding are that the Danton class were a development of the Liberté class. Ref is French Battleships 1922-1956 by John Jordan and Robert Dumas, p. 9 [53] and that the Liberté class continued the general trend towards a heavier secondary battery. Ref is Navies of Europe by Lawrence Sondhaus, p. 123 [54]. Couldn't find anything else pertinent for a class article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM - the details about the heavier secondary battery is already mentioned (see the last para in the design section), but I added a line about the Dantons. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note II

edit

This could do with a prose review by a non-MilHist editor. I have put it on Urgents in the hope of attracting one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content review by Moisejp

edit

OK, I can do the requested non-MilHist prose review.

Design:

  • "the first two of which were the République". Should this be "the first two of which were the République and the Patrie"?
  • Yeah, something is missing there - either that or add "class" to the line (and I opted for the latter, to avoid the issue that it might not be immediately clear that Patrie was a member of the Republique class.)
  • "as he correctly determined that their shallow belt armor would render them vulnerable to hits above the belt that could cause flooding that would dangerously destabilize the vessels". Just double-checking that "correctly" adds value to the sentence. Does the sentence imply that before he was able to implement his plans, some vessels did become flooded due this flaw—and if so should this detail be added to the text? (Or if no vessels ended up suffering this fate, are we sure that he was correct?) Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, he was most certainly correct - the French battleship Gaulois was badly damaged by Ottoman shellfire in 1915 (and very nearly sank), and the French battleship Bouvet rapidly capsized and sank after hitting an Ottoman mine the same day, also a result of the stability problems Bertin identified. I don't know that it really needs to be mentioned here, as it seems to me to be a bit of a tangent.
  • If the reader wonders "How do we know he was correct? Was there an instance of this problem?" then that's distracting. Details in the text shouldn't result in more questions than they answer. My suggestion is if you just remove the word, the reader is left wondering a lot less. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose one solution would be to add an explanatory note - the question is answered without bogging down the narrative.
  • "13,600 metric tons" vs. "15,000 t". Also various mentions of "metric tonnes" vs. just "t" in infobox, General characteristics, and Machinery sections. Moisejp (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "t" is the abbreviation for metric tons, there isn't a US-specific one
  • Parsecboy, sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand they're the same, but if it were me I would have been consistent about choosing one or the other to use. I guess it's not a deal-breaker though, if you disagree. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's generally standard practice to use the full term first and then abbreviate afterward - this is the advice given at MOS:UNITNAMES.

World War I:

  • "The ships of the 2nd Squadron steamed to Algiers, escorted a convoy of troop ships carrying some 7,000 men until they were relieved midway to France by the dreadnoughts Jean Bart and Courbet." Should this be "and escorted" or possibly "escorted by" or "escorting"? Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something wrong there - changed to "Algiers, and then escorted..."

My only other comment is—and I'm not sure if this is usual for warship articles—the Design section seems to take up two thirds of the main text, but most of the section does not seem to be represented (summarized) in the lead. Maybe there are too many small details about the design, and it's therefore hard to summarize? Perhaps just a couple of sentences along the lines of "Features of the ship class included..." with a small number of examples could be one way to do it? Well, that's just an idea. If you have good reasons for not adding any more of this section to the lead, no worries, I'm happy to trust your judgment. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's more or less it - there's not a good way to summarize the technical material. There already are a couple of lines about the ships' armament (and what set them apart from the Republiques) - I suppose I can add a bit about their top speed.

I support but I have left two comments that I gently urge you to consider. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, just checking you've seen the source review and other comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was on vacation last week and didn't have the time to get to any of it. Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 26 July 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) 27 July 2021 [55].

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie

edit
Nominator(s): Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, a sequel film to the popular television series Breaking Bad. This thoroughly researched article discusses the lengths that director and writer Vince Gilligan took to revisit a story that he concluded six years beforehand, the ideas that he used and discarded for his script, the measures he took to keep the production a secret, as well as the means that Gilligan and his production crew took to capture a certain look for the film.

I had tried nominating this a year ago, but was unable to gather enough peer reviews to get the article promoted. I decided to wait a little bit longer and be able to complete the page with the appropriate sections and photos before nominating it again. At this point I do feel the page is complete, thoroughly researched, and well-sourced to the point that it deserves a second look to be listed amongst this website's best.

— Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Bilorv

edit

Alright, I thought this was definitely FA standard the last time and up to a couple of wording changes and nitpicks that I'm suggesting below, I think it has only improved—in some cases due to new information or developments. The new "Themes and style" section is a very good addition. "Production" now has more detail from more references, without going overboard—it's a long article (in WP:SIZERULE's liminal state with 45 kB of prose), but I don't believe it's too long.

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* "The film continues the story of Jesse Pinkman ... while the plot centers on the events that immediately follow Breaking Bad's finale" – This makes it sound like the "story of Jesse Pinkman" and the plot are two separate things. Maybe change it to "... throughout the series to become kingpins of an Albuquerque crystal meth empire; it centers on the events that ..."
  • Galbraith is described as "a vacuum cleaner store owner who relocates people running from the law and gives them new identities" – but it's not necessarily just people running from the law, right? Walter White wants his help initially more because of other criminals than law enforcement, if I'm remembering rightly. I guess you could say he relocates criminals or just relocates people.
    • Done
  • There's a few too many "would be" and "would" instances than I think is correct. I'd prefer at least the following to be in past tense (example given for the first one):
    • "The Alexa 65 would be used in conjunction" – just "The Alex 65 was used in conjunction"
      • Done
    • "The film's color palette would be graded with DaVinci Resolve"
      • Done
    • "As the Alexa 65 camera would be too large to carry while filming"
      • Done
    • "Cranston would indeed appear in El Camino"
      • Done
    • "representatives for AMC, Netflix and Sony Pictures TV would all decline to comment"
      • Done
    • "The livestream would be watched by over 3.5 million viewers"
      • Done
    • "Chemistry, the advertising agency behind the promotion, would later submit the campaign"
      • Done.
  • Would the sections "Cinematography", "Set design", "Exterior locations" and "Secrecy" fit as subsections within "Filming"? It's rare to see eight subsections (under "Production") with no subsections within that.
  • There are some reference formatting inconsistencies:
    • Netflix shouldn't be in italics in the first reference (mark it as a publisher, not a website/work). The same applies to Directors Guild of America, Producers Guild of America and International Press Academy in later references.
      • Done
    • Link the works (Screen Rant, The Hollywood Reporter etc.) on every mention (or alternatively, on just the first).
      • Done
    • Screen Rant should be written consistently as this, not Screen Rant.com like on the first occurrence.
      • Done
    • Penske Business Media doesn't need to be mentioned in the IndieWire references where it is, for consistency.
      • Done
    • "International Press Academy Editors" don't need to be in the "last" parameter—just remove the parameter. The title of this reference should also be rewritten in sentence case ("International Press Academy – The 24th Annual Satellite Awards").
      • Done.
  • Newsweek is not generally considered to be a currently-reliable source (see WP:RSP). I imagine others have commented on Jane being the deliverer of the final line, but if you can't find a substitute then referencing the film itself would be acceptable.
  • (No action needed.) Just noting that there's a Forbes contributor source, which are usually treated as self-published sources (see WP:RSP)—I see this particular contributor is a respected journalist for a number of uncontroversially reliable sources, so I think we can trust that the interview is not fabricated.

Hope these comments are helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now happy to once again support promotion to FA. — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: do you need to change the subheader as well to support (as opposed to "Comments by Bilorv"), and is that needed for if this gets promoted? Asking curiously. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the mods simply search for the word "support" in bold. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the co-ordinators read the comments and see what criteria they refer to (e.g. images, prose, sources) and how thorough they are (e.g. a "support" with no comments from a new user wouldn't count for much); it's promoted if there's enough support (usually including at least one review checking images/sources) and any opposition is countered by other reviewers supporting based on the same part of the article. But I might as well change the header to "Support". — Bilorv (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Horsesizedduck

edit

I would say that criteria 1a and 1b are fulfilled. Excellent quality, and leaves little to be added. Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horsesizedduck: does this have your support then? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support it. By the way, I didn't get notified of this ping at all, and my username was botched on the signature. What's the deal with that? Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horsesizedduck: Not sure of why you didn't get pinged, but the botched signature was a misstep of my finger. My apologies. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit
Addressed comments
  • I am not sure if this part, and centers on the events that immediately follow Breaking Bad's finale, from the lead is necessary. The first sentence already says that this film is an epilogue to the series so this feels unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Done
  • I am uncertain about "while" in this part, while Aaron Paul reprised his role as Jesse Pinkman. From my understanding, "while" is generally used as a transition to emphasize a contrast, and I do not see a contrast here between Vince Gilligan and Aaron Paul. I think a different word choice would be better.
    • Done. Replaced it with a semi-colon.
  • If possible, I would reword this part, making the film one of his final film appearances, to avoid saying "film" twice in such a close proximity.
    • Done. Replaced "film" with "it"
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance. I do not think "first" is needed in this part, Gilligan first began considering, as "began" already cover this so it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Done.
  • If Albuquerque is going to be linked in the body of the article, I would link it in the lead for consistency.
    • Done. I just removed the duplicate links.
  • In the "Themes and style" section, there is a sentence with four citations. I would avoid that if possible as it reads like citation overkill.
    • Done. Good point. Moved the other citations further down.
  • There are a few duplicate links throughout the article. It seems common to link character names in the plot summary, cast list, and on their first instance after that, but if items like Albuquerque and Chevrolet El Camino should be linked multiple times in the article. My main issue is with Albuquerque, which is linked at least three times in the article (i.e. in the plot summary, the "Filming" section, and the Cinematography" section and that seems like overkill to me).
    • Done. Removed the duplicate links. Let me know if you see any more.

These are my comments so far. I have only read through the lead thoroughly right now. I have a few comments on other parts of the article, but I have only done a quick read there. Hopefully, this is helpful. I just wanted to post at least something for now. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you. All of your suggestions have been addressed. Look forward to seeing your other edits. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this part, While El Camino's plot focused on Jesse Pinkman, should be in the present tense. The same comment goes for this part, the film was about Jesse transforming from a boy to a man. I believe they both should be in present tense as they are referring to what is happening in the film itself.
    • Done
  • Apologies in advance if this is super obvious. I have a question about this part, Breaking Bad was often categorized as a modern Western. What is the difference between a "modern Western" and a "neo-Western"? The lead identifies this film as a neo-Western, but later on in the article, it is described as a modern Western.
  • I would clarify the "many" in this part, Many noted the duel at the end of the film between Jesse. I am guessing that you are referring to critics, but it is always best to be as clear as possible.
    • Done
  • I would link neo-Nazi on its first mention.
    • Done
  • I would avoid using "flop" in this part, Gilligan stated that he likely would not have been able to had Saul been a flop, as it is far too informal for a Wikipedia article. I would go with something like "unsuccessful".
    • Done
  • This part, Upon pitching his idea to Sony Pictures Television, the studio behind both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, the executives, is not grammatically correct. If you read it literally, it says the executives are pitching the idea not Gilligan so it will need to be revised.
    • Done
  • For this part, and said that he had been "begging" Gilligan to release it, the "begging" quote seems unnecessary. I would instead paraphrase it.

These are my comments up to the "Music" section. Apologies for the piecemeal approach for my review and thank you for your patience. I am stopping here as it is a little after midnight for me now so this seem like a good place to pause and post further comments. Just for clarify, I will only be focusing on the prose as a source review for this FAC has already been done. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: second round is now finished. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid sentence structures like this one, with Porter citing the scenes with the compound, Ed Galbraith and Jane Margolis as examples. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I have received and seen notes in FACs to avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence structure completely.
    • Done
  • I would revise this sentence, Among other Hollywood tributes, the cast and crew of Breaking Bad paid tribute to him., to avoid repeating "tribute" twice if possible.
    • Done
  • The prose in the "Reception" section can be quite repetitive. For instance, a lot of the sentences in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection begin with X critic of Y publication. I would vary the sentence structure to keep the prose engaging. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is a good resource for this kind of thing.
    • @Aoba47: Done. This was the most difficult, and I removed some references since the reviews seemed repetitive. If you have any other ways to improve this section let me know. Aside from that, all your suggestions have been addressed. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Breaking Bad (season 5) article is linked twice.
    • Done

I believe this should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed above, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Great work with the article!

I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Some Dude From North Carolina

edit

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. If I do not post any comments in a week, please ping me. My goal is to either post my review over the weekend or at the early part of next week by the latest. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

#Accolades
The "award" column (see this example). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: gotcha. I have made the edits. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally suggest linking nominees every time they are listed.
    • Done
  • Could a "date of ceremony" column be added?
    • Done
References
  • Mark sources from Albuquerque Journal with "|url-access=subscription".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Esquire with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Forbes with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Time with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • Mark sources from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
    • Done
  • "Ddvid" → "David" and "|last=Matt Miller" → "|last=Miller |first=Matt"
    • Done and Done.
  • Wikilink Dave Itzkoff and sort categories in alphabetical order.
Great work – support. Thumbs up icon Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Article looks FAC-worthy to me. Only nitpick I could find is that the "e" in "Easter egg" should be capitalised.

Done. Thanks for the tip. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass
edit
  • All sources look okay.
  • Referencing style is fine
  • Spot checks: 26, 30, 68, 81, 94, 124, 137, 105, 155 - all good

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Looks sound comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 17 July 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) 25 July 2021 [56].

The Masked Singer (American TV series)

edit
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most popular TV shows in the United States right now, The Masked Singer. It is a really interesting read and I think very helpful to anyone wanting to learn more about the show. The core of the article was written in April/May last year, with edits and additions since then. In its current state, I believe it is one of the best television articles on Wikipedia and worthy of FA status. I look forward to responding to any comments you may have :)

This is my fourth nomination for the article. The first two did not attract enough reviews and I withdrew the third unceremoniously after a source review by Ealdgyth in which I felt dismayed. I don't want to dwell on that, but aside from AwardsWatch and The Playlist, none of the sources she inquired about remain in the article. Those two are niche awards/"For Your Consideration"-focused outlets and are interviews with the costume designer in which she discusses the costumes. I don't think it is unreasonable to include them as 100% of topic's coverage is not going to come traditional outlets. It is a miracle there is this much coverage about a reality show to begin with. Heartfox (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Card Carrying Parrot

edit

Although I will (likely) support this FA, I would like to ask that you decrease the amount of unnecessary words (eg. that, an example in the article would be "request that the host"). Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Card Carrying Parrot: Thank you very much for your comments. I have reduced the sentence and cut words from the rest of the article. If you note anything else in particular please let me know. Heartfox (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit
  • I cannot remember if I asked this before so apologies in advance if I did in a previous review. Do you think there are enough awards and nominations to create a separate list for them? Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is my only comment. Everything else looks good and I will be more than happy to reaffirm my support for the FAC. I will wait for you to answer the above question though before I do so. While I would imagine that the awards and nominations would likely be spin-off as a separate list one day, I am unsure if it would be appropriate to do it now (as I am not aware of the exact threshold if any in terms of number of awards and nominations). Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comment. I would imagine it will eventually be split. I'm not aware of any specific threshold for awards and nominations tables but it doesn't seem overly long to me at the moment from a visual standpoint. The article is currently at 43kb and 6,900 words, which doesn't really warrant splitting per WP:SIZESPLIT. I would also want to go through a talk page discussion with other editors before doing so. Heartfox (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I agree that it is not overly long at the moment and a talk page discussion would be the better format to discuss this kind of thing as it would be better to get a larger consensus. I only wanted to ask you as it was something that I had thought about while reading the article so I was curious about your perspective. I think there are specific thresholds for those kinds of standalone lists, but it has been a while since I have worked on lists so I could very well be misremembering it. Either way, I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it and I am glad you are sticking to it! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake

edit

Rather than having a ref in the infobox to verify the directors, shouldn't the roles of them both be written out in the body with the ref but keep the credits in the infobox too? Also, remove or replace Hollywood Life because that is definitely an unreliable source and cite publications as work/publisher depending on whether or not they are italicised accurately. --K. Peake 20:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed Hollywood Life.
  • I've added a sentence with Brad Duns in the "Performances" section and removed the ref from the infobox.

Thanks for your comments, Kyle Peake. I hope I have addressed them correctly. Could you provide a little more clarity as to your comment about citing/italicizing publications? Regards, Heartfox (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my first two issues and regarding the publications comment, check their articles to see if they should be italicised in citations, i.e. MTV should not be for instance; therefore cite as publisher. --K. Peake 07:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: I've converted some of the work parameters to publisher, but MOS:ITALICWEBSITE says "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". As MTV News is a news site with original content, I believe it should be italicized in citations. Heartfox (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the explanation and partial implementation... I now support this candidacy! --K. Peake 09:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If it's okay with you, I removed the collapse template as there isn't much to collapse. Heartfox (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

edit

Here's something to work with that doesn't involve prose. My only qualm with the image use (aside from not finding the logo in the currently used URL) is that it feels monotonous to have them all aligned towards the right. Moving some of them to the left would help provide diversity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
  • It looks the first paragraph of "Format" is missing sources (with only its opening sentence having a citation)
    • I will review the sources again and add them tomorrow.
  • Four digits are preferred for years as more complete and professional looking than two digits
    • I believe I converted everything.
  • I would expand on "Critical response" by adding Rotten Tomatoes scores for subsequent seasons
    • Regrettably there are no scores for subsequent seasons as there were not enough reviews and there is no overall score.
  • If an award organization doesn't warrant its own article, then it shouldn't be listed in the accolades table per WP:INDISCRIMINATE

These are admittedly pretty broad comments. Nevertheless, addressing them will improve the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I've hopefully addressed your comments except the first, which I will get to tomorrow. They have improved the article. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the additional references. In the meantime, does Metacritic perhaps have individual assessments of the seasons? It might be your next best option without separate RT ratings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic only has 10 reviews, and all of them are for the first season. There's no season-specific assessments. For a lot of reality shows, the vast majority of reviews are for the first episode/season and then nothing afterward. For context, the article currently uses about 24 reviews published at the time of the first season, 9 from the second, 9 for the third, 0 for the fourth, and 2 for the fifth. Heartfox (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I recommend replacing some season 1 commentary with reviews for the fourth and fifth seasons so it feels more balanced. The fact that you don't currently have any reception listed at all for season 4 is a glaring issue. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any I'm aware of. All of the ones in the article for those seasons are those that were published/relevant. There is not an equal number of reviews that were published during the broadcast of each season. Heartfox (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a shame. However, if that's as balanced/comprehensive as you can get with reviews without bloating, then I'll support the nomination since everything else I brought up was resolved. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNUGGUMS, I haven't added the refs for the format paragraph yet :P But yes, it is kind of unfortunate how there are little reviews for subsequent seasons. I would consider it as comprehensive/balanced as possible based on the scope covered (multiple angles of the show like the format, panelists, etc. not just one thing), as well as the numerous foreign sources, which can help provide a different perspective (which they do in fact; many of them felt the show's celebrities were higher-status than American publications did, for example). There are a few reviews that are excluded from the article, either because nothing the author wrote really fit in with the major themes or they just blabbered on and didn't really make their opinion clear. But I would say the reviews in the article are 90% of what's been published. Heartfox (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Flimsy pieces like what you've described with blabbering are certainly not worth adding. I don't blame you for such exclusions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vaticidalprophet

edit

Placeholder. Initial thoughts from a quick skim: nothing obviously terrible, but some things I'll have questions about. I recognize that this is a reality TV article, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. Vaticidalprophet 14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and reliability
edit
  • Is cite 268 (the tweet) necessary, considering a marginally better source exists to support the same rather minor information? If it's being used to support the date, is there an independent source that does so, as there was for the immediately preceding half-sentence? If not, what's the encyclopedic relevance? (I'm unconvinced about the sentence broadly; if we cut this half, considering the two halves are pretty tied, we shouldn't have either.)
    • Combined the sentence and removed the date information. There's no secondary source for the Zoom part.
  • There's a fair bit of primary, press release, and usually-marginal sourcing. As I mentioned, I understand this is a matter of what sourcing is available and won't harp on it. There are, however, some points where I'm concerned near-refbombing is used to 'prove' the encyclopedic relevance of fairly marginal information. Use of multiple cites on the ends of a single sentence or sentence fragment is routine. For example, I'm not sure what the relevance of middle school competitions is, nor that of Reddit.
    • Removed the first paragraph in the "cultural impact" section. Removed/replaced press releases with information already cited in secondary sources. Tried to cut down on as much three footnotes in a row as possible.
  • Relatedly, sometimes these citations seem entirely superfluous. For instance, with though those of "vocal legend[s]" such as LaBelle (placed 8th out of 16),[88] Dionne Warwick (14th out of 18),[183] and Chaka Khan (16th out of 18)[184] have been criticized for being premature.[185][186][187], I don't see the need for citing to the show itself the individuals involved when the refs in question discuss the phenomenon.
    • Removed the elimination order refs.

Vaticidalprophet 13:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: thanks for your comments and time reviewing the article. I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, I was just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting
edit

Seems fine, but nitpicking these things (as opposed to checking the reliability and verifiability) isn't a huge interest of mine, and so people more inclined to it may want to take a quick skim for anything glaring. All sources have sufficient information for verification. Vaticidalprophet 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks
edit
  1. 40: I'm not getting "the same" here. If anything, there's the implication they prefer somewhat niche names, rather than just treating them and major celebrities identically. The source also delves into the specific process of picking celebrities of different niches, which is absent from the article and could do with a mention.
Changed sentence to "In addition to "super big names", they prefer lesser-known celebrities because it is harder to guess them."
I think the sentence "Wade said producers' goal is to cast celebrities of varying ages, genders, and backgrounds to appeal to as broad an audience as possible" already applies to the process of picking celebrities of different niches.
  1. 41: Both uses verified.
  2. 51: Verified, but seems you could possibly add the additional detail that the locations are removed from one another (either in a different building or a different lot).
I believe the sentence "Each participant is escorted to and from their trailers outside of the set" in the previous paragraph explains this.
  1. 78: Verified, but took a while because it took me several reads to figure out what some may be unperformed if a contestant is eliminated meant.
Changed to "some will not be performed if a contestant is eliminated".
  1. 185: Verified.
  2. 201: Verified and, I suspect, direly underused. The article trends towards a pretty positive take on the reception; this is a cuttingly negative piece, and also brings up something I found a glaring oversight/"did no one ever talk about this?", which was that one of the host's biggest claim to fame is her vaccines-cause-autism obsession -- it struck me as pretty weird that some minor (indeed perhaps best unmentioned) controversy about statements that might kind of have been anti-Semitic and were quickly apologised for made it to the article as a controversy, but that, working from what the article represents, no RS has ever discussed McCarthy. Broadly speaking, much of the critical response section is more positive than what the actual sources in this section represent.

I'm leaving it there for now with a real note about 201 and about that section in general. As you note, the reception of this show is very mixed. I get the impression that the positive reviews are being overstated a bit, the mixed ones mostly leaned towards their positivity, and the negative ones downplayed. There's probably some use to tweaking that section for NPOV. Vaticidalprophet 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone this section so many times; stuff that happened to be negative isn't present anymore. I'll add stuff back in a few days, but it's only going to be a couple sentences as that's all there is. Heartfox (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Little seems to have happened to this article over the past ten days. Is this likely to change in the near future? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would, for what it's worth, rather pass the source review how it is than see the article withdrawn on it. Vaticidalprophet 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about McCarthy's vaccine views as the last sentence of the section, citing The A.V. Club and Vulture. The section is based on themes, so if there was one negative review of an aspect, and five reviews on a different aspect, but both aspects are discussed in the same article, I am going to exclude those that aren't also given by other sources, per WP:UNDUE. As there are at least two sources about it, it appears McCarthy's vaccine views and her relationship on the show was overlooked, so it is now included. @Vaticidalprophet: I appreciate your time with the source review and I apologize for the delay. If there's anything in particular you feel is missing please let me know. Heartfox (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pass the source review, with no worries on the delay. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2021 [57].

Veronica Clare

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a traditional 1940s film noir, but cast Lauren Bacall as the private investigator instead of Humphrey Bogart. This is how television critics described the 1991 Lifetime crime drama Veronica Clare. It was one of Lifetime's first original scripted programs and it represented the rising interest in female detective stories. The series was unsuccessful, being canceled after nine of its commissioned 13 episodes aired, and has largely fallen into obscurity. Despite this, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of coverage on it, particularly from academic sources.

I initially worked on this article back in 2018 and received a very helpful GA review from @J Milburn:. Earlier this year, I heavily rewrote and expanded the article with additional sources, and I put it through a very beneficial peer review with feedback from @Heartfox:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Homeostasis07:, and @Bilorv: Thank you in advance for any comments and suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected it in the article so it now links down the appropriate citation. For whatever reason, I had put the publication year as "1003" instead of "1993", but this has now been corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

edit

I might review the prose later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the media review. I have reduced the size of both the Laura Robinson and the Lauren Bacall images, but please let me know if they need to be further reduced in size. I hope you have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

edit

Hi Aoba. Nice article! I'm expecting to support. I'll probably have some small-ish comments, and will try to get to these in the coming days. Wow, I was surprised to find out from the Laura McKinlay Robinson page that she created the game Balderdash; I played that game a fair amount as a kid. Moisejp (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the kind words. Take as much time as you need with the review. Robinson has a very interesting career, and @GRuban: did a wonderful job with her article (and with helping me to get images of her). Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks.--GRuban (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • This is sort of a question and a suggestion, but when Americans hear "Chinatown" without any other context, do they immediately think of the one in Los Angeles first? I understand the one in San Fransisco is the biggest (and I thought I learned long ago that New York's was #2—though I could be misremembering or its ranking could have changed) so I would have assumed San Fransisco's was the most famous. I know there is a wiki-link to Chinatown, Los Angeles, but if there's any doubt about whether it's by far the most famous, would it be better to mention the city in the text? And regardless of which Chinatown is most famous in the USA, I wonder whether for readers outside the USA, mentioning "Los Angeles" could be even more important than mentioning "Chinatown". (Again, I realize there's a wiki-link, but I'm thinking from a point of view of the coherence of the text as it is.) I noticed after I wrote this that further down, in Story and characters, you do spell out "Chinatown, Los Angeles"; the fact that this precision is needed in the main text may suggest it would also be good in the lead. Moisejp (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good catch. I would image that American have different associations with the word "Chinatown". I could imagine cases where most think of either San Fransisco or New York City before Los Angeles. I agree that it is best to be as transparent as possible to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation. I have revised it to so the full wikilink is used here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics praised Bloom's script for "Veronica's Aunt" ". I suggest mentioning that it was the first episode. You may not even need to mention the name of the episode here in the lead, but I leave that up to you. Moisejp (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is another good point. The title "Veronica's Aunt" is quite meaningless on its own and is likely too trivial to mention in the lead since a reader would not have any real context. I have replaced it with "the first episode" per your suggestion as I think it is best. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Story and characters:

  • In the lead, Chinatown is wiki-linked, and it also is here in its first instance in the main text. However, Laura Robinson is wiki-linked in the lead but not here in its first instance in the main text. It'd be good if you could be consistent about this for everything that is wiki-linked in the lead. Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cases also focus on Clare's intelligence and intuition". Doesn't seem quite precise English to say "Cases ... focus on [her attributes]."
  • That is very true. It is certainly not the best wording lol. I have revised it, but again, I would be more than happy to revisit this part if further improvements could be had. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clare is characterized as a loner with few close friends[12][15] and lives alone in a hotel suite." Does this mean critics have characterized her as a loner? If so, I think you need to say this; and if you change the first part of the sentence, I think you will also need to rework the second part of the sentence so that the two parts of the sentence will flow. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is brought up by Robinson and a specific critic so I have tried to attribute both of them in the prose. I have also tried to adapt the hotel suite part to work better. I am not entirely certain about wording to both these parts as it feels rather clunky to me so any further recommendations would be greatly appreciated here. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I would wiki-link rare books, bartender, valet, or even loner, but if you feel these are important to wiki-link, OK. (It feels like overlinking to me.)
  • This may be personal preference (and I think I have seen someone before on Wikipedia saying the opposite of what I'm about to say) so by all means feel free to ignore this suggestion, but I find there are so many more interesting verbs that can be used instead of "said", which is kind of blah, and reduces the "engageability" of an article's writing; I mean, I might consider using it about once in an article if I'd already used lots of other verbs. Anyway, again, feel free to ignore this comment, but that's just my opinion. Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for bring this up. It is a good point. I have removed a majority of this from the article and retained the word for instances when someone was really saying something. I think my over-use of the word came from an experience I had in a college creative writing class. I remember for my very first draft, I had relied very heavily on a lot of different synonyms for "said" to the point that my professor and my classmates said it was distracting from the actual dialogue. However, with that being said, creative writing and writing on Wikipedia are two different things. Anyway, long story short, I agree with you. Just wanted to explain why I might have subconsciously over-used this word. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production:

  • "Veronica Clare was one of three original scripted programs Lifetime developed in 1991, along with The Hidden Room and Confessions of Crime." I feel like Lifetime should be the subject of the sentence here or in some way get a bigger introduction, and "TV network" should be included. This is Lifetime's first mention in the main text. Moisejp (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I have added "Television network" as a descriptive phrase and I have revised it to the sentence to more so focus on the network rather than the show. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an immediate suggestion but I wonder whether there is a good way to rewrite "examples include a female police officer in Lady Blue, a female physician in Kay O'Brien, and a female private detective in Partners in Crime" using "female" only once. If you can, it would be less repetitive (but if your attempts end up making the sentence awkward in other ways, it may be best not to).
  • I ended up just removing the repetition of "female" from the list as I believe that is already clear from the earlier part, "shows about women in traditionally male occupations". Let me know if further revision would be necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had difficulty pitching the series to networks, saying they did not accept dramas with a young female lead." I don't think "saying" works really well here. When he said it was obviously afterwards, but the way the sentence is written it sounds kind of like it happened at the same time. Moisejp (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. I have added to the prose that Bloom said this during a 1991 interview so hopefully, that adds further context, but let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before Veronica Clare, Robinson was typecast as the femme fatale." It'd be great to have more details about this if they're available. At the very very least, maybe you could mention some of her previous roles that may seem to follow typecasting, without explicitly saying these were what she was typecast for. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I have included one example where a critic explicitly described her role as a femme fatale. Robinson talks rather broadly about this, but I have included her speculation about it. If it helps, here is the quote from the source: "I never get the bimbo parts, but I have played a lot of baddies. I'm constantly asked to play evil women. Maybe it's because of my eyes and my voice. I also play femme fatales." Do you think I should also add "the villain" to the prose along with "the femme fatale"? I am uncertain since femme fatales are often cast in the role of an antagonist. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and according to Variety's Tone" I understand probably Tone goes by just one name, but it's a bit awkward in the flow of text. Possibly consider writing this sentence so that the writer's name is not mentioned ("a writer from Variety"?) so that the reader doesn't stumble over this part. Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point. I have double-checked the Variety source to just confirm that there was not a more formal name. I have replaced it with your suggestion, and I have adjusted later parts of the article accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender analysis:

  • "existing in tension with" This feels like an unusual phrase to me. Is there another way to say this?
  • Apparently, I felt like being fancy that day lol. I do agree that it is not good, particularly for a featured article, so I have revised it to hopefully be better, but I would be more than happy to look through this part again. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restrained, smolder sexuality" Should this be "smoldering"?
  • "while having the male supporting characters actually solve the cases" Can this be expanded on, and is it a legitimate observation (are there multiple citable examples of this) or is this just an outlier comment? If true, it seems like a big point that should be expanded on more in the article. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good question. From my research, it is very much an outlier comment. All the coverage around the show really focuses on Veronica Clare being a private investigator and her agency with this position. I was uncertain of what to do with the comment from this source within the greater critical conversation about the series. Unfortunately, Meehan and Byars do not elaborate on this. I cannot really speak on veracity of their statement as I cannot see any of the episodes aside from a small YouTube clip. What would you recommend to do with something like this? Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-though:

  • "Bloom explained that he had kept expenses low by hiring a small staff of producers and writers and not taking foreign investments" Is there a bigger interest rate on foreign investments or something? This part wasn't clear to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for bringing this up. It is a good question. I am having some issues accessing this source right now. I received via an email from an editor as for some reason, I cannot access on ProQuest via Wikipedia Library Card Platform. It is likely just an issue with my internet connection, but if that does not resolve itself by tomorrow, I will email the editor again to see if they can resend me the article. I honestly cannot remember if it provides any context about the foreign investments or if it was just a small part of a large quote. I will keep you updated on it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay with this. Thank you to Heartfox for the source. It turns out that my wording for this part was incorrect. The cited article is a discussion on how television shows at that time were increasingly using foreign investments and working with foreign companies to keep production costs low. However, Veronica Clare was an exception to this as Bloom refused to do that and instead used other methods to keep production values low. He does not explicitly say why he refused foreign investments, but if I had to speculate, it may be for creative control so he can choose the actors he wanted and stay true to his own vision. However, that is just speculation on my part. Let me know if this part needs further work. Thank you for your patience! Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be my last comment. I really like the overall structure of the Critical reception section. However, I find the fact that all four opening sentences are almost exactly the same length to become repetitive-sounding. If you could make just one of them (maybe the second or third one) twice as long, that would break up the repetition. You could do this by adding ", such as..." or ", including..." to the end of the sentence and then some kind of mini-mini-summary of some of the main points. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. That makes sense to me. It is important to vary sentence length to keep readers engaged. I have revised the opening sentences for the second and third paragraphs. Let me know if those are okay or if they require further work. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm ready to support. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bilorv

edit
  • It's a support from me: gave it another look over and I've no further comments after the peer review, where I found the references reliable, the coverage comprehensive and the prose professional. — Bilorv (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

edit
Initial comments
  • "who owns a rare bookstore" - would "a rare book store" be better? Current wording kinda suggests that it is the store which is rare..........
  • "although in 1989, the network acquired" - don't think that comma is needed
More comments
  • "shown as transitions before each episode's act" - reads as if each episode has only one act, is this correct?
  • What's a "nitery"? Never heard that word before........
  • "which was cheaper than network television shows" - wasn't this a network show? Should that read "most network shows" or similar? Apologies if this is me betraying my ignorance of the US TV market, we don't have TV networks in the UK so they are a slight mystery to me...........
  • That is a good question. To be honest, now that people are consuming more and more television on digital platforms like streaming, I would not be surprised if more and more people become unfamiliar with this concept in the future. Lifetime is a basic-cable channel so in the past, they could only be viewed after paying a fee. This is different network television which was available to everyone who owned a television. That is the reason why there are the Big Three television network in the US. In the past, network television usually had bigger budgets for their shows as they had larger audiences (and made more money) than the cable networks, which had smaller audiences since their content was not as widely available. I have included a link for network television in the article to hopefully clear that up. I hope this explanation helps at least a little. To be fair, I get just as confused about the UK TV market works. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attributed this decision to productions issues" => "attributed this decision to production issues"
  • "Lifetime still had an interested" => "Lifetime still had an interest"
  • "Lifetimes continued to broadcast" => "Lifetime continued to broadcast"
  • "would ever connect with audience" => "would ever connect with an audience"?
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. Apologies for some of those super silly mistakes that I made. I have tried to explain the difference between network and cable television in the US, but let me know if further clarification would be beneficial. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
  • Add filming time to the lead (BTW I'm glad you found details for that!)
  • Does "viewers would have learned more about her past in future episodes" mean there were plans to expand her story had the series ran for longer? If so, then I'd make this more explicit.
  • You are correct. According to the source, there were plans to explore more Clare's past in future episodes. I am not entirely sure how to make it more explicit. I would greatly appreciate any advice or suggestions for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cited" from "cited Veronica Clare as part of this strategy" doesn't read very well
  • "criticized subsequent episodes as rapidly deteriorating in quality" → "felt the show's quality rapidly deteriorated with its subsequent episodes"
  • I would note how reviewer Mike Hughes was writing for Press and Sun-Bulletin
  • I attributed Hughes as writing for Gannett News Service since that is in the article's by-line. I am somewhat uncertain about changing it to Press and Sun-Bulletin as I was under the impression that Hughes' article was published in that newspapers (as well as others) and not specifically written for that one alone. This clipping directly identifies him as a "Gannett News Service columnist". Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, this looks very well compiled. It isn't far from being FA-worthy! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them, but one. For some reason, I am uncertain on how to change that one so I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for that. I will think on it further. My mind is not really working right now for some reason. I always appreciate your comments and I hope you are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem. I just made a bit of a copyedit here for the aborted idea of expanding on the protagonist's past, and can now support the nomination. My bad on Hughes; I somehow missed the Gannett News Service bit when he was first mentioned and initially thought his name was just brought up out of the blue :P. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostastis07

edit

Support from Tintor2

edit
  • There is not much I can ask after seeing this review. It's hard to ask but is it possible to add material about the compilation film? Then again, it must be really hard to find.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support. From my understanding, the compilation films are just episodes from the sow put together to be film-length. I unfortunately could not find further information about them. One of the sources, Susan White, briefly mentioned her confusion with the conversion of episodes into films, but I do not think that really has a place here. I would not be surprised if Lifetime did it since their original movies had higher ratings than their shows so maybe they were trying to bring more popularity to this, although that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tintor2: Apologies for the ping. I was curious if you would be able to do a source review as I believe that is the only thing holding this FAC back from promotion. I completely understand if you do not want to, but I just wanted to ask. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

@Aoba47: No problem. I'm already used to your nominations so I'm pretty sure I can make it pass:

  • The infobox and lead section are not references per wp:lead
  • Every paragraph is properly is sourced, especially when quoting
  • I used Archivebot to test and everything was archived. Only three references lacked archiving but they were added as I used the bot.
  • Citations are consistent
  • Every citation mentions the original source with a wikilink so every article is WP:Reliable source from what I gather.
  • As a result I pass this source review. If anybody feels there are other issues that I failed to find remind me.Tintor2 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 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) 23 July 2021 [58].

Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977)

edit
Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC), The Rambling Man[reply]

This article is about a dramatic football match which took place at the end of the 1976-77 season in English football's top division. Both of the two teams were in danger of being relegated down to the second division, along with Sunderland, who were playing a simultaneous match up at Everton. Well, almost simultaneous... due to traffic congestion the Coventry game started late, which meant it ended up finishing five minutes later that the Sunderland game. And because Sunderland lost their game (a result the Coventry chairman displayed prominently on the scoreboard for the players to see), Coventry and Bristol both knew that the 2-2 draw was enough for them both to survive. So they spent the last five minutes in a "good-natured kickabout", leaving Sunderland relegated. And their fans are still livid about it 44 years later!

This is a co-nom between myself and The Rambling Man, and we'll endeavour to fix any issues you guys find in a speedy fashion. Thanks in advance for your time.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Support from ChrisTheDude

edit
Comments

Support and comments from Jim

edit

Not much to snipe at here, now I've recovered from the trauma of reading about Spurs being relegated. More to show I've read the article than any real concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in media—perhaps in broadcasting might be more specific?
  • better run of form.[7] By early December, they had risen to 10th position.[8] A run of poor form —avoid repeating run of form
  • many of whom were delayed as they travelled to Coventry.—the lead says by traffic, but you don't have that here
  • who scored into the far corner of the Coventry goal—"into" sounds wrong to me, "in" I think.
Jimfbleak thanks so much for reading, commenting and supporting. I've addressed your comments above, hopefully to your (and Amakuru's) satisfaction. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Passed

edit

References

So when I get the link, it's https://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER2/0FFO-1977-MAY20-017?legacy=no&crop=2351+243+2300+6688&scale=0.4&format=jpeg which still appears to be an issue without subscription? If you want to change this, perhaps you can do it for me? Is this approach recommended in any FAC guidelines by the way? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it requires a subscription—you should be able to open it in a different browser or private mode, even if you aren't logged into Gale. For future reference, a couple comments about the URL. "legacy=no" can be deleted. "&format=jpeg" can frequently (but not always) be deleted. Here, however, doing so downloads the image. "&scale=0.4" can also be deleted or changed, which alters the size of the image. And playing with the crop numbers ("&crop=2351+243+2300+6688") changes which portion of the newspaper page can be displayed. Here, I would render the URL as https://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER2/0FFO-1977-MAY20-017?&crop=2351+243+1150+1950&format=jpeg, and have edited the article accordingly. As to guidelines, see WP:Citing sources. Among other guidance included there, "A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source", "it is helpful to include hyperlinks to source material, when available", and "green open access links are generally preferable to paywalled or otherwise commercial and unfree sources." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

This version looked at. Looks pretty good overall. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique cheers, all addressed and/or responded to! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique hi, it's been nearly a week, are you good to pass this source review? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, sorry for the delay. A couple comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique I've fixed a couple more and left one response above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm signed off. The Rambling Man, I left a comment above re: Gale. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique hey, that's great, can you just confirm if the source review has passed by adding a note in the heading of this section please? Thanks for your diligence. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, done. Good call, I think I've made it confusing for Gog the Mild to figure out sometimes. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique, I confuse easily. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dweller

edit

Well written, densely referenced. I didn't know about this incident, and it's very well described. Great work on the legacy section and I was going to suggest linking the infamous World Cup match, but you even got that before me too. Support. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and support, glad you enjoyed it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: with three supports and passes on images and sources, can I now nominate another co-nom FAC? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Sounds interesting, I'll have a go at it.

  • "As a result of many Bristol City supporters being delayed in traffic as they travelled to the game, the kick-off in the Coventry–Bristol City game was delayed by five minutes, to avoid crowd congestion. " Do we need the reasons for the delay to appear on both sides of the delay?
  • "Sunderland made a complaint about the incident, and the Football League conducted an investigation, but Coventry were eventually cleared of any wrong-doing." And what happened to Bristol City?
    @Wehwalt: I've scoured all the sources and I can't see a single one that mentions anything about Bristol City's conduct. To be honest I don't have a whole of detail on the whole "investigation" at all to be honest, including what exactly it looked at, other than the sources saying Coventry were cleared. Re Bristol, I would guess that nobody really blamed them because they'd always known from the outset that a drawn game would be enough for them. So they had little reason to seek a win with or without the scoreboard announcement, given that Coventry were also not trying to win. That's just conjecture though, obviously! Happy to hear any advice on how you think we should phrase this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "striker"?
  • Similar, a "defender"?
  • It might be more clearly stated at some early point what a team must do to avoid being relegated.
  • "They had been promoted from the Second Division as champions the previous season," This is at least implied if not explicitly stated in your discussion of Bristol City.
  • "Coventry and Bristol City had played each other twice in the 1976–77 season." Is the "had" really necessary? You are solidly established in the run-up to the match you discuss.
  • What is a "shot"? Is it similar to a "shot on goal"? Does it have anything to do with a "goalkeeper"?
  • You say that Stoke City were confirmed as relegated. While it was overwhelmingly likely that they were, could they not have avoided it had both Sunderland and the loser of the Coventry/Bristol City match each lost by a very unlikely number of goals?
  • Good question, there would have needed to have been a twelve-goal turnaround I suppose, which was not going to happen, but the source there is verifying the claim. Perhaps Amakuru can re-check the wording. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt and The Rambling Man: thanks for highlighting this one, I hadn't noticed it before. The source for the table and the situation going into the game is my book by Jim Brown, which does simply state that both Tottenham and Stoke were "down". In fact, Stoke would not just have required a twelve goal turnaround, they would in fact have needed Sunderland to lose by 18, and for either Coventry to lose by 13 or Bristol to lose by 14, given that their goals-scored tally was also inferior. Even one of those two results is unlikely, but both of them? Anyway, I have revised the league table and prose to indicate that they weren't actually mathematically relegated, but with a source indicating how hopeless their situation was in practical terms. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Everton/Sunderland match also played on that date as the result of a postponement?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Approximately 10,000 Bristol City supporters " could it be stated at some point how many home supporters were in attendance?
  • " Bristol City continued to seek the equaliser which would guarantee their survival." I might add "if the game ended in a draw" or similar, given they sill had to play the remainder of the game.
  • Why was no complaint made against Bristol City, and why were they not included in Sunderland's grudge? They certainly joined in the collusion to ensure there was no result.
  • "but he eventually had to receive a police escort for his safety.[46]" I would guess that this happened at the same match, which seems a short period of time to justify an "eventually".
  • "Coventry and Sunderland were involved in another last-day relegation battle 20 years later, at the end of the 1996–97 season." In what league?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt I think all your comments have been addressed and/or responded to above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt before you vacation, would you be able to let us know if there's anything left of concern? Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 23 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2021 [59].

Weardale campaign

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another of Edward III's military campaigns, his first. One which left him weeping with frustration. I believe that I have it there or thereabouts, but feel free to point out all of the areas where I have misjudged this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Hi there, Gog. A while back you asked me for a review, but university was in the way. University is no longer in the way. I'll do the source review & spot-checks for you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)

I'll spot-check 15% of the article's citations (6). If everything is good, then I'll support; if not, I'll do a further 15%.

  • Fn 35 (Aftermath). Page 177: "Edward II was held in secure custody until his suspiciously timely death in September of the same year." Pass.
  • Fn 24 (Notes). From Wikisource: It might be prudent to mention that monarchs, exercising their royal prerogative, decided who could have fun in the park. Just a suggestion, though. Pass.
  • Fn 13, 14, 15 (Background): I can't access the Rogers text, but can confirm the same information appears variously in other books (including Ormrod 2014). Pass.
  • Fn 42 (Aftermath): Page 8: "Balliol and a small force defeated the government’s army at the Battle of Dupp- lin Moor in July 1332. [...] However, civil war and repeated English invasions would continue to wrack the nation for years. It would take a Second War as well as the start of another major conflict – the Hundred Years War – for the Scottish King- dom to finally secure its independence." Pass.
  • Fn 26, 27 (Campaign). Page 86: "A large group of Scottish mounted infantry (soldiers who rode from place to place, but fought on foot in pike phalanxes called schiltrons", and "The English host found the Scottish schiltrons deployed in an unassailable defensive position, across a swift river (the Wear) and atop a steep hill, without enough room between the water and the slope for the English to form up". Pass.

Easy pass on the spot checks. Sources all look good; nothing is malformed, and the pedigree of authors is quickly confirmed by simply Googling their names. Support! Always fun to see some Scotland at FAC ;) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ImaginesTigers, much appreciated. I have tweaked your section title to help out the coordinators, and tweaked some of your copy editing, which you may wish to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a prose review, so I won't be quibbling further! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit

Support A very few comments.

  • "his main counsellor, Hugh Despenser, was declared a traitor and sentenced to be drawn, hanged, disembowelled, castrated and quartered;" I gather you are mentioning the sentence, rather than the actual execution due to the historical doubt as to whether he was castrated; still, saying he was sentenced without mentioning an execution may leave the reader wondering whether it was carried out.
Good point. I have added the fate of his head, which I think clarifies that he was very dead, but without over-interrupting the flow of the prose.
  • "all round defence" should there be a hyphen connecting the first two words?
There should, there should. Done.
  • "guy ropes" Link?
Have you read the article guy rope links to? The omission was not accidental.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, short and sweet. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

edit

Another page-turner from Gog. Clearly FA material, but I have a few minor points:

  • Lead – "James, Lord Douglas, Thomas, Earl of Moray and Donald, Earl of Mar" – do we need their Christian names here? I momentarily lost count of the cast of characters, and if it would be OK to say just "Lord Douglas and the earls of Moray and Mar" it would be more instantly clear. I don't press the point. Regardless of that, the first of these gentry is Lord Douglas in the lead and Lord of Douglas in the main text.
The usual, MoS encouraged, approach is to name in full at first mention. That said, no one recites nobles' full titles in articles, so let us do as you suggest and see if there are complaints.
Fixed.
  • "While assembling the Hainaulters" – Though, as you know, habitually sparing with commas whenever practicable, I think you might add one here after "assembling", to avoid the fleeting impression that the Hainaulters are the object and not the subject of the verb.
Hmm, done.
  • "the eye witness chronicler Jean Le Bel" – the OED makes eyewitness all one word.
Done.
  • "The English stood to arms all night, anticipated a desperate Scottish assault" – I pondered this: is "stood" used transitively (as in "I stood the vase on a table") or intransitively (as in "I stood there")? The former may be a technical military use unknown to me and if so, fine, but then it needs a comma before "stood". If it's the latter there is an "and" missing before "anticipated" (or "anticipated" should be "anticipating")
I hadn't realised that it was such a specialised term, I have added a Wiktionary link. Add, yes, the last of your suggestions - "anticipating". Done.
  • "On the night of 2/3 August" – not sure the slash is in line with MoS diktats – might be worth checking.
You are, as usual, quite correct. Changed.
  • "the main English force in the region was unable to venture out of their base" – singular verb with plural pronoun.
Corrected.
  • "5-year-old David II" – we usually give numbers under ten as words, rather than numerals
We do. And I now do too.
  • A more general point: I got to the end of the main narrative wondering why Robert Bruce vanished between the Background and Aftermath sections. It might be instructive to say where he was while this fighting was going on and why he absented himself, particularly as his opposite number, the English king, was there.
Good point. "Bruce was immobilised with an unspecified illness during 1327" added.
(Sounds like a note from his mother asking for him to be excused games.) Thanks for adding that - definitely helps the reader understand what was going on.

That's all I can find to quibble about. I enjoyed this article enormously. – Tim riley talk 22:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, and thank you for another thoughtful review. I am pleased that you enjoyed the article. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased to add my support for the elevation of this fine article. Tim riley talk 20:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former is now added, there seems no obvious place to add the latter and reading it, I don't see that it adds anything for a reader. There are other articles around this usurption which don't get a mention, eg Siege of Bristol (1326), but so what.
  • Worth adding to the map caption what the red castle-looking things signify?
Done.
Oops. Done.
  • Harv no-target error is flagging for me: short citation is for Barrow 2005 while the long citation is for Barrow 1965? Maybe missing a reprint date in the long citation?
My typo. Fixed.

Excellent article; anticipate supporting once these are responded to. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, thank you for picking up after my sadly-not-unusual sloppiness. All done, but see point one. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive support - I see nothing that runs afoul of any of the criteria here, and AGFing based on nominator's past history that there are no copyvios. Hog Farm Talk 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

edit

Overall, this is a typically well-written article, which is particularly good in detailing the military actions in an accessible manner. I have made a few edits to the article, and have a few queries below, but nothing major.

Yes: premature senility.
  • It feels odd that Jean Le Bel is introduced twice; in Note 1 during the Prelude, and then in the main text in the Campaign section.
It seems odd to me too and wasn't in the original. But I suspected that if I left it at just the note, which comes first, someone was bound to complain. Introduction in main text removed and complainants will be referred to you. I have kept "Le Bel" as you seem to prefer it, although a majority of the sources I have accessed prefer le Bel.
I have no major preference, but figured it should either be "Jean Le Bel" and "Le Bel" or "Jean le Bel" and "le Bel", and given you'd used "Jean Le Bel", I changed the other. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.
  • "On the night of 2–3 August.." but later "On the night of 3/4 August.." MOS allows either an endash or a slash for an overnight span, but be consistent. (Personally I prefer the slash for this, but whatever.)
Tim riley suggested that the MoS did not permit the / and I couldn't find that it did. I then missed the second"/". Reverted to / if it is preferred.
For reference, it is the seventh major bullet point in MOS:DATERANGE, which says:
  • An overnight period may be expressed using a slash between two contiguous dates: the night raids of 30/31 May 1942 or raids of 31 May / 1 June 1942.
Or use an en dash: (unspaced) raids of 30–31 May 1942;  (spaced) raids of 31 May – 1 June 1942.

Anyway, all sorted now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England and Scotland were soon at war again: in August 1332 Edward Balliol and his English supporters, backed by Edward III, won the Battle of Dupplin Moor and began the Second War of Scottish Independence." I mean, I guess that is just what it is called, but the phrasing of this seems odd: the English starting the Second War of Scottish Independence almost makes it sound as if they were fighting for Scottish Independence, but I guess there isn't much that can be done.
Good point. Sure it can: tweaked. See if that works better.

As I say, really nice work on the whole, and just me being picky. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias is back, let joy be unbounded. Your pickiness is much appreciated, and all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not call it a comeback just yet, but it's a start! Baby steps, and all that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boo!

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: , Ian Rose, 4 supports - 2 from non-MilHist editors - source and image review passes, been open for 11 days; can I nominate another. It looks to me as if my other nom - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treaty of Guînes/archive1 - is done; other opinions may be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, this ping didn't seem to appear on my alerts but Jim's below just did. Anyway let me take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, yep, now that I've closed your other one, pls go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: , Ian Rose, piggy-backing on this, I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abberton Reservoir/archive1 in a similar position, and would like to run Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 7 July 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) 23 July 2021 [60].

Namco

edit
Nominator(s): Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They may not possess the same level of recognition in the Western world as Nintendo or Sega, but Namco is undeniably one of the video game industry's most important, valuable, and beloved developers. The makers of many genre-defining classics, from Pac-Man to Xevious to Ridge Racer, Namco set itself apart from other companies through its unique corporate philosophy, forward-thinking, and ability to adapt in a constantly changing market. This article covers the entirety of Namco's 50 year history, from its origins as an operator of rocking horse rides in the 1950s to its 2005 merger with toymaker Bandai.

This article has been the focus of my editing for the past two years now. A GAN, two peer reviews, and hundreds of edits later, I believe it is finally able to be bestowed the honor of being one of Wikipedia's best articles (Sega's probably getting lonely in there). At over 131,795 bytes, it is certainly the biggest article I've ever worked on. Trying to summarize a company with a 50 year history was certainly a challenge, and underwent at least three rewrites. Due to the lack of "big" anniversaries for the foreseeable future, I am not interested in having this be featured on the main page on a specific date.

The article in its current state wouldn't have been possible without the help of Red Phoenix and Indrian, who have both been incredibly helpful with the writing and sourcing. I greatly thank them for helping get this page into the state it is in now. I also dedicate this to the hundreds of editors that have maintained it for so many years now. Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your comments. Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I already had my say during the extensive GA review process, so this is not just a drive-by support. I feel this is the finest article on a video game company on Wikipedia, and that even articles on companies not involved in that industry could take some pointers on how it not just describes what happened but also why those things happening was important. It's truly well done! Indrian (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Striking per my assumption of the nomination. Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

The amount of work invested into this article should not go unnoticed. This is probably one of the best video game company articles i've seen on Wikipedia and it has my highest support vote! Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

The article seems to be exceptionally well-written, and is among the best video game articles I've seen on the site. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. From the merger sections:
The business takeover, where Bandai acquired Namco for $1.7 billion, was finalized on September 29... Namco Bandai's impatience to move forward with the merger and clashing corporate cultures between both parties resulted in a ¥30 billion deficit.

Can this be clarified? I looked at both pages of the referenced source, [61] , but Google Translate is hot garbage at Japanese sometimes. Deficit compared to what? If the two companies were each running a 15 billion yen deficit before, nothing really changed, as an example. An explanation would be nice but "impatience" is not really a sufficient reason for such a deficit to occur. Like, was Bandai impatient in that they overpayed for buying out Namco's stock and paid a higher premium than they really needed to? And when did this deficit show up, anyway? Normally it takes a bit of time for clashing corporate cultures to even "matter", unless the first thing Bandai did after the purchase complete was massive employee buyouts or the like. Has a native Japanese speaker reviewed that source? It have any more details? This sentence raises more questions than answers as written currently. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire: That was a mistranslation, which I've since corrected. Bandai Namco experienced a financial loss of ¥30 billion, not a deficit. Google Translate thought it was specifically a deficit for whatever reason, and I never bothered to look into what a deficit actually is, so I put it into the page. Sorry about that, I've fixed it now. Namcokid47 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed, looks like I already did that a while ago but left a few behind.
  • Images are missing alt text
    • Added
  • Some of the captions warrant citing - for example, that Pac-Man was their mascot from 1980
    • Sourced
  • File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • It's hard to pinpoint when specifically this image came from, all we know is that it's an official Namco image and was taken in 1955, meaning it meets Japan's copyright law regarding public domain images. It should still be usable, but I can try finding an earlier instance of this image.
      • Can you clarify why it is believed to be PD in Japan? The given tag states photos taken before 1947 or published before 1955 - this would need to have been published, not simply taken, at that time. Plus then we need to look at US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality
  • File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg is incorrectly tagged - it's a character rather than a work of art. Also the FUR needs expansion.
    • Added tag and tried expanding
      • Needs more, or else why not simply use File:Original_PacMan2.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't know what else I'm supposed to add. The FUR is taken from File:Sonic 1991.png from Sega since it's being used for the same exact purpose, so I don't know how else I can expand it. Chose not to use the Pac-Man image above as I don't think it does a good job at actually representing the character in the context of the page.
          • The Sonic design hasn't changed significantly over time, and has always been of a level of originality sufficient to warrant copyright protection. Neither is the case here. If you believe the non-free version is better in this context than the free one, then explain why in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg: what's the copyright status of the graphics?
    • Looking at it again, I'm not sure. Part of me is starting to think this is a derivative work as it's just a picture of the machine. I'll check with some folks on Commons.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikkimaria: Responded to comments. Namcokid 47 01:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria, could I get a read on where we are on this image review? If you have not been checking in here, I have assumed this nomination from the original nominator, who left for IRL reasons. I am almost done chipping away at the source review, so now I need to confirm what still needs to be done to pass the image review. Indrian (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still need a rationale for File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg to be PD in Japan; File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality; File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg needs a better FUR; and File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg needs to identify the copyright status of the graphics. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indrian? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have made steady progress week to week. Most of the work is done. Just a little more. I know it's been going a long time, but I did take this over unexpectedly, so it's not like I had blocked off time for this. Plus I was coming to grips with sourcing and tracking stuff down in real time since I was not a major contributor to the article. I fully expect to take this over the finish line. As you can see by the wealth of supports on prose, it is deserving. Just a few more sourcing things and a couple of images to clear up and we should be set. Indrian (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg. I do not believe the image is in the public domain as currently claimed, because it definitely was not taken before 1947 and there is no evidence that it was published before 1957. The file should probably be removed from Wikipedia entirely. The original Nakamura Seisakusho logo is sufficient to illustrate this portion of the article, and looked cluttered in its original location, so I moved it up. I realize that a proper fair-use rationale still needs to be carved out for that one, but I will address that down the line. Indrian (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Okay, I have attempted to address all of these issues, though I have not worked with images on Wikipedia really at all, so its possible I will need further guidance on some of these.
  • First, as indicated above, I did remove File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg, for which I could not find any real justification and is not strictly necessary in the article.
  • Second, I reuploaded File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg to Wikipedia itself as File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_Co._logo.svg because it should not have been on commons as a non-free image. I then added what I believe is a pretty standard FUR relating to company branding.
  • Third, I did my best to strengthen the FUR for File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg and tried to more explicitly tie it into the "contextual significance" rationale. If this does not cure the problem, I would apprecaite more guidance on how this problem can be resolved, or if you think the image needs to be removed altogether.
  • The rationale currently claims that no free depiction of the character can exist; that isn't true, as there are depictions (eg Original_PacMan2.png) that fall short of the threshold of originality. If there is a reason that this specific depiction is necessary for reader understanding of the article in general and the section it's in in particular, that would be good to clarify. If there isn't, then why use it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I took the path of least resistance for File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg and just deleted it. I then moved down the picture of a Namco arcade to this section. The arcade picture did not really fit the section it was in and was pretty cluttered up there anyway. I think there is still a good balance of images in the article without that arcade cabinet.
So that's it. Please let me know if the images need anymore work. Hopefully we are just about done with this part of the review. Indrian (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I went ahead and replaced the Pac Man image with the sprite art. I think an argument can be made that the free image does not properly convey the image of Pac Man as he is identified today and that there may still be a FUR that justifies the more modern artwork, but the image selection of this article, which was not mine to begin with, is not a hill worth dying on. I am happy to go with the more straightforward image from a copyright perspective. As for the Nakamura logo, I added some more language about its historical significance. Please let me know if you think the FUR needs more work. Unlike a couple of the other images I readily discarded, I really don't want to lose this one because we need something to illustrate the early history of the company. Indrian (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Red Phoenix talk

edit

Don’t expect me to move fast; I’ve been deficient at editing in the last couple of months, I know. That being said, I wouldn’t miss this party for the world. Expect me to, at the very least, contribute a source review, since I know that’s usually the part others don’t want to do, and expect it to be thorough and detailed to satisfy the FAC criteria. Red Phoenix talk 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for FAC coordinators, I have previously provided feedback for this article at my talk page, and Archive 5 of that page has my previous comments. That, however, is the extent of my past involvement in the article. Namcokid47 has done quite a good job with this article.

Now, onto a cursory look at the sources:

  • Taking an overview over the references, there’s a lot of work to be done to meet WP:WIAFA criterion 2c - consistent citations. Don’t worry, that’s to be expected and part of what we’ll nip at through this process. We’ll detail through them as I get time, but I would definitely start now with looking at consistency. You will save yourself quite a bit of effort if you start now.
    • For instance, all internet sources should have the article title, website name, article author if available (“Staff” is not necessary), the date it was published if available, and naturally the URL. For fields such as access date and publisher, these need to be all or nothing - either every source gets them, or none of them do. Be extremely consistent in your source formatting across the whole article.
    • In the same vein, all books should be formatted the same, and all magazines the same. Reference structure naturally varies between reference types, but all references of the same type should be the same.
    • Linking to articles for websites, books, or authors should also be consistent. Personally, I would link all of them whenever possible for the ease of the reader.
    • All books need to have page numbers; this includes the Kent and Horowitz books, as well as They Create Worlds. If all the references are in just a few pages for one source, you can use a small range of pages. If it’s spread out, you’ll want to break that up - I’d personally recommend the method used on Sega, where repeated footnotes of the same book but different page numbers use an abbreviated format that links to the original reference above.
    • Although I know the kind of research you have done, and I commend your efforts greatly, I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence if I didn’t evaluate SandyGeorgia’s comments at the peer review. While I don’t always agree with her, I will review when I go in detail and perhaps suggest some sources if I have concerns. I will let you know if I share her concerns or not when I have had time to review appropriately.

I hope to return soon with a more detailed look. Red Phoenix talk 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give this a start at a more detailed look. Expect this to take a while, as well as several passes as changes are made. To ensure that when I refer to a reference by its number it's the same for you as it is for me, I'll note this first pass is for revision id 1017821592:

  • With 1 and 2, just be mindful of consistency with access dates and publishing locations, respectively. They're okay if every source of the same type has them, but not if we have a location for this book but not that one, and so on.
    • I have added retrieval dates to five web sources. I think they all have retrieval dates now, but there are a lot of them, so if I missed one, let me know. Likewise all books should now have a publication location with the exception of two for which this data does not exist: The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers and Galaxian Genesis -Kazunori Sawano Den-, which are both self-published works. I own both of them and can confirm no publisher location is given in either. There is also no publisher location information for either one on Worldcat.
      • I'll confirm that I'm good with this aspect, that if a location is not provided in the actual book that it can be missing and doesn't require all of them to be struck. That is still consistency as far as the criterion is concerned. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all eight citations to 2 on the same page?
    • I only have a partial copy of this book, so this may take me a little bit to track down. I can tell you that several of the citations do all come from that page, but not all of them do.
    • Okay, so Supercade, while it has some general history in it, is more of a look back at classic machines than a real comprehensive history. Therefore, I removed it as a source for all the general historical claims and replaced it with other high-quality sources already found in the article as needed. I left one citation in, which does, in fact, point to the page in question. This defect should now be cured.
  • I'll just point out that 3 is a perfect use of publisher when a website is an official site of a company or something. In this case, you don't need the website name if you use the publisher and it's the company's official website. Thumbs up!
  • 4: I'm not sure I'd go with cite news for this one if Game Machine is a magazine and is the name of said magazine, which it appears to be. Game Machine wouldn't be the agency, it would be the publication's name, and thus should be italicized. I'd personally go with the cite magazine template, but you could also do cite journal if you prefer. Just make sure all magazines use one or the other, as they do format citations slightly different.
    • This was a problem with several magazines, not just Game Machine. I believe I have switched all of them over to the cite magazine format.
  • 5: Same as 4, though I would ask what kind of publication this is, as it's a bit unclear to me.
    • Likewise changed. Its a trade publication, which basically makes it a magazine for our purposes here.
  • 6: Page numbers are the biggest deal here; see my note above. I don't think a link to Google Books is necessary as the citation is the book itself. I highly doubt the OCLC is necessary unless you're going to provide OCLCs for every book source, and another decision will need to be made on whether or not to hyphenate ISBNs, as 6 is hyphenated but 7 is not.
    • Addendum: When I specified a link to Google Books is not necessary, it's because the link only provides more info about the book. It's not to a preview of the text copy. Red Phoenix talk 16:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our style guide prefers full hyphenation for ISBNs. I have therefore hyphenated them all in the XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X format. I also replaced the only ISBN 10 with the corresponding ISBN 13. On this specific source, I also removed the OCLC number and Google Books link.
    • I have added page numbers for this source and split it into multiple citations accordingly.
  • 7: See 6 above.
    • Page numbers added and references split.
  • 8 and 9: Again if these are actually books, page numbers will be needed. 9 would also need an ISBN.
    • 9 is a book, but it was self published in Japan and never assigned an ISBN.
    • The Maeno book I did not have access to, so I removed it and replaced the cites with other high-quality sources already found in the article as necessary. I added page numbers for the other book and split the citations accordingly.

That's all I have time for at the moment, but we'll continue later. Red Phoenix talk 00:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep going, shall we? Numbers as of revision 1019357606:

  • Indrian, for the moment I won't comment on inclusion/exclusion of publishers since you're taking over the review, and for all I know you may come to a different conclusion than Namcokid47 on whether or not to include publishers in which kind of sources. The important thing is to be consistent on when we do include and when we do not, to meet criterion 2c. 10, for instance, struck me as odd having a person listed as the publisher, given it's the chairperson of The New York Times Company.
    • I have eliminated the publisher field from all web cites. For cites where there was only a publisher field and no website field, I converted the publisher field to a website field. There are 123 web sources in the article, so if you notice one I missed, let me know.
  • 13, in line with the necessity for page numbers mentioned above, needs page numbers and in this case the two citations are quite a distance apart in the book. I would split these, as suggested. Since I have this book, I can give you these numbers: the note about Torpedo Launcher/Periscope is on pages 7 and 8; the Namco offer to buy Sega is on pages 253 and 254.
    • Source split and page numbers added.
  • 14: Link Play Meter since we have an article. It's going to be Volume 3, issue 1, and the actual title of the article is "Projection Racing: Conversation with Masaya Nakamura, Inventor of F-1", and it's on page 12.
    • Play Meter linked, proper title and page number added, and volume and issue number added to the citation. Note that while the article starts on Page 12, the information in question appears on page 13.
  • 17: Though the source is good and can be kept, the link to Shmuplations will have to be removed. It's an amazing site, I agree, but there's no evidence permission was granted to translate and re-publish the material, so we have to err on the side that linking to the text is linking to a copyright violation. On the plus side: Here's the original source, at least as on the Wayback Machine. It looks like this starts on page 32 in the book.
    • Shmuplations removed and cite taken back to the original source. Per my comments below, I have included Shmuplations site owner Alex Highsmith in the cite as the translator, but without making mention of the website or linking to the article.
  • 19: RePlay is the name of the magazine, so should be italicized, with the capital P in the middle. Page numbers (28-30) should also be added.
    • Name capitalization corrected, volume, issue, and page numbers added. Note that the proper pagination is Atari 28-Atari 30, as this was a special section of the magazine numbered as such. There were also plain old pages 28-30 in the issue.
  • 21 and 23: Need consistency on "Cash Box" or "Cashbox" - they're used differently between the two. Personally I usually go with Cashbox, but it's your call.
    • These should now be consistent. You are correct that there is inconsistency on whether its "Cash Box" or "Cashbox," which I think is because the spacing between the words is very small on the cover. The space is present, however, and a space can be more clearly seen between the words in the text of the publication. It also seems to appear with a space in most library catalogs, including the LoC, so I went with that.
  • Similarly to publishers, ISSNs also need to be all or nothing for consistency in magazine sources - either identifiers are included, or they are not. It's probably easier not to include any, but you're welcome to try and hunt them all down. I just don't see them as necessary in this case.
    • I concur that ISSNs are not worth the trouble. They should all be gone now.
  • 22 and 24: Likewise, books need to either have publishing locations, or not at all. Book publishers are important, but the locations are not as important as consistently having them or not.
    • As above, all book publishers should now have location information except for the two books for which this info does not exist.
  • 26: Not sure if a citation template is being used here or not, but JoyStik is the name of the magazine and should be italicized. If there's not a cite template being used here, I certainly recommend one to make life easier.
    • For some reason, this was done with the cite book template with JoyStik as the publisher. Changed to cite magazine and added the volume and issue number as well as the actual publisher.
  • 30: Link Gamasutra as the website.
    • Done
  • 33: Call me crazy, but I don't see the direct correlation between a repair manual for a Pac-Man arcade cabinet published in December 1980 establishing that Pac-Man was a North American release of the Japanese "Puck Man" game in December 1980. Surely there's a better source for this?
    • You're crazy, but not because of this. =P I believe the logic was that since the manual has a December 1980 publication date and was likely made available at the same time as the game, then this date would also be the release date for Pac-Man. I agree that logic does not hold up, however. According to Cash Box, the game was officially available in November 1980. Its possible the first units did not reach locations until December, but with coin-op games, I think availability date is the best we can do. So I have changed this to November 1980 and swapped out this source for Cash Box.
  • 34: I'd like to see such an impactful statement sourced better. This is a press release, so it implies a bit of bias for claims such as "a fixture in popular culture", and to a lesser extent, "multi-million selling media franchise". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not factual, only that such a claim would be better sourced to a true third party source.
    • Red Phoenix. Pinging you so I can get a read on this one right away. I think the press release is okay for "multi-million selling media franchise" because this is just a factual statement. Companies will manipulate figures and twist words to make market performance sound more impressive than it actually is, but they don't outright lie about this kind of thing. Now "fixture in popular culture" is obviously more subjective and not something that I would take the word of the company about. I have found what I believe is a good source for the pop culture aspect of this claim and added it to the article. I propose keeping the press release to cite to the sales only. Let me know what you think. Indrian (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Indrian: It’s really only the “fixture in popular culture” I have an issue with, as that is not something that can be objectively quantified, so a primary source shouldn’t be used to cite it. The phrase about being a multi-million selling media franchise is more questionable, but I wouldn’t object to using the press release to cite it as fact. Red Phoenix talk 17:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 35 and 36: IGN is a website, and as such, should be italicized.
    • This fixed itself when I converted all IGN mentions from "publisher" to "website."
  • 37: I see this is the cite journal template formatting. As mentioned above, all magazines could be either cite magazine or cite journal, but they need to be consistent and use one or the other.
    • Fixed along with (hopefully) all the others.
  • 38: IGN is a website, but 1Up.com during this time was owned by IGN Entertainment, IGN's company. If you choose to keep publishers, which I recommend against, make sure it's "IGN Entertainment" to avoid confusion with the website.
    • Oh I definitely got rid of that pesky publisher field. ;)
  • 41: Note that this book is in Japanese. I'd also not use all caps for the title. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with the publisher (recognizing this is a Japanese publisher), and would be curious to verify this claim.
    • Added language field, the original title in Japanese, and a more accurate English translation title. Note the original title is in a mix of Japanese and English and the capitalization is found in the original. The capitalization is also present in Worldcat. In this case, I think that's the official way the title is rendered.
      • As long as the community is okay with this, I am. I've not found anything in the MOS that says otherwise on all-capitalization for this particular instance, only in other uses in the encyclopedia, so I'm good unless someone else objects.

I'm liking the progress so far. I'll try to continue on this weekend - I know my schedule is not the greatest anymore, and for good IRL reason, but that's why I'm glad we're starting this now. I will do my best to be timely. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep going. As of revision 1020893203:

  • Still more instances of websites with and without publishers inconsistently as we go. Again, I won't note them all, just nudge that a decision still needs to be made there.
    • Hopefully all those pesky publishers have been purged.
  • 21: Cash Box, as a publication, should be italicized. I'm presuming it's in a "publisher" field and not "magazine", which is why the error?
    • This was using the cite book template for some reason. Changed to cite magazine.
  • 47: Same as 17 above, I'm concerned about linking to Shmuplations, which likely does not have permission to reprint a translation. Furthermore, it's not the true source of this information. It appears the original source for this particular quote is a 2003 interview from the "GSLA", if you have any idea what that is. Perhaps it could be converted to a cite interview to make this work?
    • I do not believe this is a correct interpretation in this instance. Shmuplations is not reprinting material found elsewhere; it is providing English-language translations of other material. The original source is not the source, because we are not citing to the Japanese text, we are citing to the English translation, which is a derivative work of the original text. While Alex Highsmith may not have permission to translate the original text, the translation is his original work. While you are correct that his translation of this material without the authorization of the original copyright holder is a violation of US copyright law, its up to those rights holders to issue any DMCA takedowns, which they have not done. As such, there is no reason to pretend the Shmuplations translations do not exist. Indrian (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this instance on the grounds that this does not meet WP:FACR 1f. WP:COPYLINK, part of the Copyright policy, is pretty specific on this and in a Featured Article it's even more noticeable than what I'm presuming is a high number of said violations across Wikipedia. The translation isn't really "his" original work, as derivative works such as translations are still copyright of the publisher in the original language, not the translator. Just because no DMCA takedown has been issued at this time doesn't mean it's okay to link to a copyright violation. I'm not saying we have to pretend Shmuplations doesn't exist, but that it should be a tool to explore other reliable sources and not a source itself. However, if you still disagree with me, I'm more than happy to ask for a second opinion from an experienced source reviewer, such as FAC coordinator Ealdgyth or FAR coordinator Nikkimaria. Red Phoenix talk 01:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see the confusion here. I am absolutely fine with removing the link to Shmuplations, which as you correctly note is required by our copyright policies. I thought you were also requesting I cite to the original Japanese source instead, which I do not believe is required nor helpful. A translation is a derivative work, which is still an original creative expression, albeit one that is still beholden to the original copyrighted work and to which the original copyright holder automatically acquires the rights to. The act of translation is its own creative process that does not involve just a literal word-for-word transliteration. As the shmuplations translation is the version being used, this is the version that needs to be cited to, just without the link. It's not our job to police copyright, only to make sure Wikipedia is not a contributory infringer. Linking would make us one, citing to the information does not. Sorry for the confusion. Indrian (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Red Phoenix Okay, so here is what I have done. There were three sources that cited Shmuplations: 17, 47, and 88. For 17, I cited to the original source, made no mention of or link to Shmuplations, and listed Alex Highsmith (the Shmuplations guy) as the translator of the source. Source 47 cannot be treated the same, however, because GSLA is not the original source, but is itself actually a copyright infringer. It is a website that posts Japanese video game developer interviews, but it does so without attributing where the interviews came from. Therefore, it is impossible for me to trace back to the original source. This source is used for only a very minor point about the influence of a single game, however, so I have just removed the claim and the source. Doing so does not harm the comprehensiveness of the article in any way. Source 88, I have not touched yet, but I believe I have a solid English-language source that can be used to substantiate the same claim, so I plan on replacing it when I get there. Once that is done, all the Shmuplations defects should be cleared up. Indrian (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the point seems to be moot with regard to the Toyama interview at least: up until November, the source was apparently cited for the claim that Shigeki Toyama led the robotics division, but that claim no longer appears in the article, and I can't find any other information in the relevant Wikipedia sentence that is verified in the Shmuplations page, let alone the Japanese original. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll just note that as long as “source 88” (now 87 as of the most recent revision) is cleared up, I approve of this solution. I see no harm in noting who translated the material for this interpretation of the source. Nice catch on what was 47; that just sounds like a mess of copyright entanglement. Red Phoenix talk 15:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The final Shmuplations source has now been replaced. That should completey fix this issue.
  • 50: The author for this particular section is Stuart Campbell.
    • Added.
  • 54: (No action needed yet. I am unclear on formatting of YouTube references, but believe this is incorrect. I need to research to verify this and what is the correct format, and will come back to this one later).
  • 57: (No action needed here at all. I want to note, for any reviewers who may come to challenge this one on the basis this is a self-published book, that this was written and published by established video game journalist John Szczepaniak, who I know has previously written for Retro Gamer, and therefore I have no doubts about its suitability as a reliable source).

*60: Forgive me for asking, but what makes Kill Screen a reliable source? I did see the author claims to be an established video game historian, but it's not someone I'm familiar with.

  • 61: If we are keeping magazine publishing locations, just "United Kingdom" seems a little vague. Is that what the magazine says?
    • Not sure why this one Edge reference had a publishing location listed when none of the others did. It's gone now.
  • 62: Granted I don't know a lick of Japanese, but I'm struggling to find the author name in the source.
    • I can see where those words appear, but I don't see how they could be seen as referring to an author. I took this out.
  • 63: In contrast to the magazines, is this actually a journal? It uses cite journal, but I'm not sure what kind of source this is. Likewise, if 63 is a journal, surely it would have a doi and other identifiers as well like 64 does?
    • Good catch. No, this is definitely a magazine. Switched it over to the cite magazine format.
  • Still need to decide how to consistently hyphenate ISBNs.
  • Should also make sure we're using the language parameter consistently with all foreign language sources.

Took a break here. Continuing:

  • 79: Who is this interview with? It's not clear from the citation. Perhaps consider adding the name/s of the interviewee/s to the title of the citation, or use the cite interview template.
    • It's a roundtable interview with a lot of people. The title Namcokid chose does make it sound like its just talking to one person. I put in the actual Japanese name for this entire project and also provided an English translation.
  • 91: Just some future thinking here as we tackle the page number issue that 57 and 91 are the same source, and as such how we choose to handle 6, 7, 8, and 9 should be handled consistently here as well. As it stands, we have spelled out the full citation in 91 with the separate page numbers.
  • 93, 94, 96, 106, 108, etc.: As noted above, consistency with the language parameter. Game Machine cites should note they are in Japanese. I've stopped listing them after 108, just check them all.
    • All the Game Machine cites should have the language parameter now.
  • 97 and 98: So far, we have utilized publishers with magazine cites. These two don't have them, however.
    • Fixed
  • 111, 142, 152, 156, etc.: IGN should be a website, not a publisher. Numerous occasions as you go, so I won't list them all.
    • Should all be fixed
  • 112: Link Digital Spy as the website.
    • Done
  • 113, 148: Link Siliconera as the website. Also in 148, Siliconera should be italicized.
    • Done
  • 121, 124: Link Edge (magazine)
    • Fixed. I even added a link to a GamePro cite appearing between them at no additional cost to you.
  • 141: Why is Famitsu the website and IGN the publisher? These two don't add up.
    • No idea what happened here since I am not the original editor on all this, but looking at the source, its clearly an IGN article. Fixed.
  • 144, 151, 161: Remove Namco.co.jp as the website. Namco as the publisher alone suffices here.
    • Fixed
  • 153: Wait a second, so SoftBank News isn't published by SoftBank Group? There are other occurrences above as well where there is no publisher noted for this website, but again, however you choose to deal with this is up to you as long as it's done consistently.
    • Publishers are gone, so this is now moot.
  • 166: No website listed.
    • Fixed.
  • 186: Same as 38 above
    • Good thing we dropped those pesky publishers, eh? ;)
  • 192: Again, drop the website if it's just a URL. Publisher alone would suffice.
    • I think in this case, we are looking at an article on the Famitsu website, so I believe keeping this webstie would be the right call.
  • 205 and 206: GamesRadar or, as Wikipedia's article calls it, GamesRadar+?
    • This content predates the rename from GamesRadar to GamesRadar+. However, since the content is still live under the new name, I think its appropriate to just add the "+."
  • 209 and 210: A bit odd here - Next Generation is the magazine, and should be in front of Imagine Media and italicized. Presuming this might be another bad use of the cite news template? Same with 210 and The Wall Street Journal.
    • The Next Generation article was indeed using the cite news template. Changed to cite magazine. The Wall Street Journal cite was using the right template, but the newspaper was listed as the agency instead of the work, so that is fixed too.

That concludes a first pass of the sources. There is a lot to be done here, I know, but no one ever said consistent citations were the fun part. I can try and jump in to give you a hand if time allows, but it's been tough lately for me to find available time. After you have made some decisions and set to fixing, I'll do a "final pass" to catch stragglers and any loose ends. I'll also check for any additional sourcing inconsistencies and conduct a few spot-checks, as this would have been Namcokid47's first FAC and those are usually mandatory for an editor's first. Red Phoenix talk 03:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the thorough review! I will keep chipping away at these this week. I have done my share of academic publishing, so I am no stranger to the importance of proper source formatting. I appreciate everyone's patience as I continue to plunge deeper into this FAC that is not of my own making. I remain confident I can carry it over the finish line! Indrian (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Red Phoenix FYI, I plan to do a big push in the second half of the week to hopefully knock out the rest of these. I really appreciate everyone's patience as I have worked through this unexpected (for me) nomination. Indrian (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indrian, are we to expect any progress on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Red Phoenix, I believe I have addressed all your concerns with the exception of the page numbers with the books. The reason I have held off on doing so is that this is going to cause several new citations to appear, which is going to completely change the footnote numbering. I thought you might want to confirm that all other concerns are addressed before I do so, as that will make it far easier to check. If you would prefer I fix the page numbers first, I can do that, but I thought I would present the option. Just let me know. Indrian (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian:} Looking very good. On a quick second pass, I do see a couple of minor quibbles, but I'll tell you to address these lightning fast and then go on with the page numbers with no need for another check from me, as I trust you'll have them handled. A couple of these I may not have caught on the first pass.
  • 103 and 104 appear to be from the same website, but one uses the website field and one uses the publisher.
  • 115: Link Variety (magazine) as the website, as that's actually their website.
  • 162 and 179 include website publishers, whereas we're going without through the rest of the article.
  • 202: Link 1Up.com as the website
Red Phoenix talk 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indrian and Red Phoenix, I think this might be all we're waiting on? Like to get this closed off as soon as practicable... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Had no time to work on it this week. I should have it wrapped up next week. I appreciate your patience in these unusual circumstances. Indrian (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indrian. any progress? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, These four points have been addressed. I am also hopeful the last two images are resolved, but need to wait on feedback for one. The final, final thing to do is split the book citations and add page numbers. That is my priority number one in life tonight and tomorrow. I think we are going to make it. I again thank you and all the other coordinators for the extraordinary patience you have shown as I have done my utmost to find the time to do the original nomination justice. Without your forbearance, this would not have been possible. Indrian (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Phoenix, I have now added page numbers to book sources, and I believe our massive source review is finally finished. It is a lot, however, so if I missed something, be sure to let me know. I would just like to thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the citations. No offense to the original nominator, who did fantastic work on the article, but this is one area where he did leave me a mess. Without your dedication, it would have been far more difficult to bring these all in line. Gog the Mild, assuming Red signs off on the sources, this means we are just waiting to hear back from Nikkimaria to see if they still have any issues with the one image that still needs final approval. After that, we can finally bring this review to a successful conclusion. Indrian (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on source formatting and reliability. You have your signoff from me; very well done. I don't blame Namcokid47 for the sources, as even I didn't really come up against this until a year or two ago, and I only recently began to understand its importance. You've done a great job taking over the nomination and seeing it through, and I certainly know I didn't make matters easier for you, but we made it there with an article all the more professional in nature. I'm only crushed for Namcokid47, as I peer-reviewed this article a few times for him prior to his GA nomination before this FA nom and was really hoping he could get to see this one through. In any regard, awesome work as always, Indrian, and hopefully we'll have the chance to collaborate again soon. Red Phoenix talk 01:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Red Phoenix. I really could not have done this without your patience and thoroughness. I, too, am sorry for Namcokid and hope he is okay. We actually ran in some of the same video game preservation Discords before he disconnected from everything, so while I cannot say I know him well, I have actually talked to him in voice chat more than once, not just interacted on Wikipedia. He did a brilliant job making this a poster child for how to write a video game company featured article, and I did not want that work to go unrewarded. It took awhile to work through everything since I had not exactly planned my life to block out time for this review, but I am pleased and humbled that I could carry this over the finish line. Gog the Mild, I believe the source and image review are now complete. I don't know if you need a more official affirmation of support from Nikkimaria, but my understanding based on our latest exchange (and they can correct me if I am wrong) is that I have addressed all their concerns. If you need anything else from me, let me know and I will act on it immediately. Indrian (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator discussion

edit

I've subheaded this discussion aside so that it does not get convoluted with my comments. I hope that's all right. Red Phoenix talk 15:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@FAC coordinators: : I'm really concerned about irl stuff right now, so I've chosen to retire likely for good. I'd like to have this FAC closed since I won't be here to address any comments or questions. I hope you can understand. Namcokid47 05:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame but RL must take precedence and I just hope all goes well for you, Namcokid. This hasn't been open too long but seems to be travelling pretty well; there is precedence for other editors stepping up to take over the nom in such circumstances, I might leave this open a bit longer and see if there are any takers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a stab at it if that works. Obviously, I would withdraw my support. I was the GA reviewer, but I assume that is not a conflict of interest. I am incredibly knowledgeable about the topic (above and beyond just doing said review) and I would hate to see all this hard work go to waste. Indrian (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just throwing out my 2 cents that I support Indrian's offer. I can vouch for his knowledgeability based on past work with him, and I don't see a conflict of interest in him being willing to take over the work. Red Phoenix talk 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: So can we move forward on this basis? I don’t know what needs to happen procedurally. Indrian (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indrian, you can indeed. Prior to becoming a coordinator I once did this myself - including "responding" to my own review, which was a little strange. Shout if you encounter problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I will start responding to comments, including the first round of source review, tomorrow. Just did not want to step on any toes. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be great, I would just add yourself as a co-nom at the top (co-nom so Namcokid still gets credit for their work starting it off) and, as you say, strike your support because you're now taking over the nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panini!

edit

Thank you, Idrian, for picking this one up. Namcokid put a lot of work into this and I would have been dissapointed to see it go to waste. Wanted to pop in and say Support on prose, however. It's a good read! I might come in with further comments in the future, but this is where I stand. Panini!🥪 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment, not super-important

edit

I'm a little concerned about The name Namco, an abbreviation of Nakamura Manufacturing Company (and the related matter of the English name of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company"), which looks suspicious on its face (why would they take the first two letters of the first and third words but not the second, and in Japanese ナ ム コ looks more like an abbreviation of なか　むら　コンパニー) and a quick Googling brought up this tweet from Bandai-Namco's official Japanese Twitter account that directly contradicts it and would seem to make more sense to begin with. The claim appeared in the article before the accompanying Kotaku source was produced,[62][63] which makes me suspicious of WP:CITOGENESIS (I have in the past seen Kotaku articles both obviously get their information from Wikipedia and present historical and Japanological research that is some below the standards of Wikipedia). I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", given that even now many Japanese companies seem to have no idea what their official English name is supposed to be, but if we are going to prioritize one over the other I kinda feel like it should be the one that the company itself says is the origin of the name our article uses as its title. Granted, sources, especially English-language ones, are difficult to find to support the existence of an English translation of an old name for a defunct company, especially because of the aforementioned CITOGENESIS, but it seems very likely that offline sources about this company from the pre-wiki days can be found if the above tweet is insufficient. (Unfortunately, when I tried doing an image search to see if old Pac-Man machines had English copyright information printed somewhere, the closest I got was to find out that apparently the company's US patent for its game machine was granted to "Kabushiki Kaisha Nakamura Seisakusho".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for brining this up. Right now, there is no good evidence that Namco ever went by the name Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing. I would not consider this tweet to be a high-quality source on the matter, for as you say, Japanese companies are often confused by their own Western names and the current Bandai Namco is a bit removed from the original Namco just because of the merger. If we look back over older sources, Namco's own corporate history timeline on its English-language website pre-merger stated the company was founded as the Nakamura Manufacturing Company and never mentions "amusement" as being in the name. Likewise, a 1985 article in English by the Japanaese trade publication Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry written by a Japanese author and based largely on an interview with company founder Masaya Nakamura, refers to the original company name as Nakamura Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Most English-language sources from the 1960s and 1970s just use the official company name of the time, "Nakamura Seisakusho Co., Ltd. While "Seisakusho" does not literally translate to "manufacturing," that is usually how the word is translated into English in this context, and it certainly has nothing to do with the word "amusement." Nor to my understanding could the Japanese characters that spell out the company name, 中村製作所, ever be translated to include the word "amusement." In summary, there is zero evidence in contemporaneous sources that the company ever referred to itself in English as anything but "Nakamura Manufacturing" or "Nakamura Seisakusho," and the Japanese name does not contain any characters that would refer to the word "amusement" or any concept similar to amusement. I think a low-level PR employee just whiffed on this one. Indrian (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Western name" and "English name" are very different: English is a de facto official language in Japan, with it being the original of the Japanese constitution, it being universally studied in the education system, and it being increasingly used by businesses for a growing proportion of their internal communications, but not a lot of people actually speaking or understanding it, which results in various inconsistent "Japanese English" names used by the same company within Japan, oftentimes all equally official unless the company has an official, publicly available, English version of their articles of incorporation; "Western name" implies a name used by western media, which in this case is a little tricky since most of the earlier stuff is unlikely to be available on the Internet. a 1985 article in English by the Japanaese trade publication Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry written by a Japanese author and based largely on an interview with company founder Masaya Nakamura, refers to the original company name as Nakamura Manufacturing Co., Ltd. This is really interesting, but it would be a good idea in the future to provide a link or a specific article title: I Googled the title of the publication and the name "Masaya Nakamura" and got no exact matches before realizing that the title had an ampersand and found this. This does indeed prove that the English name "Nakamura Manufacturing" (which is indeed a literal translation of 中村製作所, and therefore the one most likely to be employed by an author writing after the fact based on an interview that was likely conducted in Japanese) was attested before Wikipedia, but as I said confusion within Japanese companies, let alone among third parties, already made this a near-certainty, and the article (which, to be fair, I skimmed to find the use of the name "Nakamura Manufacturing") doesn't seem to indicate a connection between the precise wording "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and the then-current name of "Namco" (halfway through the second paragraph on the second page, the author just starts referring to the company as Namco without comment), so the source can't be used for the claim that the name "Namco" is an abbreviation of anything in particular. Meanwhile, while "製作所" does not mean "amusement manufacturing", that is a pretty intuitive translation for a company that was primarily active in the amusement park industry rather than, say, steel manufacturing, and while it's possible that the employee who wrote the tweet was duped by a hoax on Japanese Wikipedia's article on Masaya Nakamura, given that the tweet doesn't mention him it seems more likely that if he/she was looking at a Wikipedia article it would have been this one, knew or heard from someone else within the company that this was incorrect, and tweeted the correct information accordingly.
It might be worth noting that I've just now noticed that Japanese Wikipedia (unusually for that site...) cites sources for both of these statements, with the claim about Namco being an abbreviation of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" being attributed to 「超発想集団・ナムコ」PHP研究所、p.119、1984年、ISBN 4-569-21327-8 while the claim that it is an abbreviation of "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company" is attributed to 「新明解ナム語辞典」日本ソフトバンク、1987年、ISBN 978-4-930795-86-1 I'm loath to trust Japanese Wikipedia over a GA-class article on our own site under the best of circumstances, but it does strike me as odd that we cite the former claim to a Kotaku article and the latter source. I'll see if I can get to a library and check both of these (mid-1980s) sources out over next weekend, but given that both of them are old and obscure enough that neither is available in any form on Amazon, it seems unlikely that the Osaka public libraries will have them on-hand...
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, unless someone can confirm the contents of 新明解ナム語辞典, I think we should assume that the Japanese-speakers on Japanese Wikipedia interpreted it correctly and either (a) change the content to read The name Namco, an abbreviation of either Nakamura Manufacturing Company<SOURCE> or Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company,<SOURCE> was introduced in 1971 as a brand for several of its machines.<SOURCE[S?]> or (b) remove the 新明解ナム語辞典 citation. At present I'm leaning (b) since adding content based on an assumption that another Wikipedia article has accurately represented its cited source's contents is borderline WP:CIRCULAR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I really appreciate you looking into this, as we certainly want the history to be accurate. Its interesting that the 1984 book is by the same author who wrote the 1985 article. The 1987 books seems from what I can tell to be something of a fan publication more focused on game center culture, though the author did apparently have some official contact with Namco and had the original version of this dictionary published in Namco's own magazine, which lends it an aura of credibility. It also has its own Japanese Wikipedia page for some reason. As you say though, I would want to see the actual text to confirm it actually makes this specific claim as opposed to being another amorphous translation issue. A couple more Western sources that refer to Nakamura Manufacturing Company include this article in Cash Box from 1967 and this deposition of Hideyuki Nakajima, who is a Japanese native who seems to have an okay, but not flawless, grasp of English at this time. Neither of these sources speak to what the acronym means, but just in terms of seeing if anyone ever referred to the company as Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing, I am still not seeing it. That 1987 would sure be great to get a peak at though. Just because I am skeptical does not mean I am not keeping an open mind. I do want to be accurate. Indrian (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a further point of comparison, Hijiri 88, how would you translate this passage: 中村製作所（ナカムラセイサクショ）は続く F-1( 76.10 ) での成功を受けて社名を変更するが、ここで初めてナム コの略称が使われた。これは海外に対して『ナカムラ・ 7ニュファクチャリング・カンパニー』と名乗る事もあった ので、その英話名称を縮めてナムコとしたもの。これは 同社の企業ブランド戦略のl慌矢となった? This is from a book length oral history of Kazunori Sawano that also goes into general Namco history. I take it to be saying that the company name was changed to Namco because the Western name was Nakamura Manufacturing Company, but I do not speak Japanese and would appreciate your input. Indrian (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an opinion on the general reliability of 新明解ナム語辞典, but if you don't mind, could we remove it just to be safe? I do have opinions on Kotaku, but I suspect I'm in the minority of Wikipedia editors, and the article seems to have passed GA review with the Kotaku citation intact, and the Kotaku source seems to support all the content of the sentence by itself, while 新明解ナム語辞典 probably contradicts it.
Well, there seems to be a mojibake or some such problem on the first letter of マニュファクチャリング, but yes, that is in line with the "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" sources, but the full quote reads Nakamura Seisakusho, with the ongoing success of F-1 (October 1976) changed its company name, and this was the first time the abbreviation Namco was used [emphasis added]. This was a shortening of the English name that the company sometimes used overseas, namely "Nakamura Manufacturing Company". [Then something about this becoming the l慌矢(?) of the company's corporate brand strategy.], which, while supporting the root of the abbreviation currently cited in our article, but seems to contradict the date. It's theoretically possible to ignore the explicit wording used in the quote (ここで初めて○○が使われた) and interpret it as meaning that the official name change happened in 1976 by using an abbreviation that had been introduced in 1971, but that's not what the source says -- I was originally going to say it might be an idea to replace 新明解ナム語辞典 with this source (title?), but if it contradicts the other information in the sentence that can't be used.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thank you for engaging in this incredibly helpful dialogue. I am good with removing the 1987 Japanese book. As to the rest, I would like to loop in Red Phoenix since they are doing the source review. Are you okay with Kotaku being the source for Namco being a contraction of Nakamura Manufacturing Company? Any one who has interacted with me for any period of time on Wikipedia knows I am the last person to ever just assume a generally reliable source is correct in a particular instance. For what’s it’s worth, though, I think the totality of the evidence shows Kotaku got it right this time, and as a subject-matter expert I can also say with authority that this name origin story predates Wikipedia, so I don’t see a citogenesis problem here. If you are uncomfortable with the source after this discourse though, Red, I can look for alternatives. Indrian (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. (Sorry if I seem a bit gruff/sarcastic in these interactions; it's not intentional, but I've been rushing these responses to get back to the other two discussions on en.wiki and one discussion on ja.wiki that I found myself dragged into without honestly being that interested in any of them and being busy IRL.) Are you okay with Kotaku being the source for Namco being a contraction of Nakamura Manufacturing Company? (I'm assuming that only your final sentence is directed at Red Phoenix specifically and not me or "the room".) As I said above, no, but I'm willing to agree to disagree if the consensus among other editors is that Kotaku is reliable for this kind of information. I don’t see a citogenesis problem here My view is that citogenesis is always a problem with pop culture topics (like video games) that touch on slightly less pop-culture-y topics (like the pre-1980 corporate history of any Japanese company) and we need to be super-skeptical of sources like Kotaku in such circumstances. Even in cases like this, where I believe you that the "NAkamura Manufacturing COmpany → Namco" story predates Wikipedia, it may well be the case that prior to Wikipedia there was an equally viable "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing COmpany → Namco" story that has since been suppressed as a result of English-language pop culture sources copying Wikipedia, which may not technically be citogenesis (which implies a completely made up statement that subsequently spread to other sources) but it's pretty close. Personally, I would prefer if the source you quoted above replaced the Kotaku one, but as long as I know that such a source exists (as I now do) and others are happy with the Kotaku citation, it's not something I see as worth fighting over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm very sorry it took me a while to make it here, but that's just the way IRL has been treating me lately. Anyway, Indrian, here's what I would tell you: normally, I'd say yes. According to WP:VG/S, Kotaku is considered a reliable source for all news articles after 2010, though this isn't exactly "news". They do tend to do well with retrospectives, however, and I've used them with some caution before. That being said, let me poke another hole in this one. In doing some searching on "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", I didn't find that, but I did find several occurrences of "Nakamura Amusement Machine Manufacturing Company". And here it is again in the Wall Street Journal, which is listed at WP:RSP, and at Gamasutra. There are actually many more I'm finding, and they're all tied to obituaries of Nakamura. At least one contradicts Kotaku by saying the initialism happened after a 1977 rename, whereas Kotaku claims 1971. As it stands, I'm trying to find a more period-based source that might help us out, but I think there's enough here to poke a hole in this particular claim to this particular source given that we have disagreement in other, similar sources also considered reliable. Red Phoenix talk 03:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add here (since I don't think it came across well above) that I'm confident that all these variations (Nakamura Manufacturing Company, Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company, Nakamura Amusement Machine Manufacturing Company, and possibly others) "exist" and were at one time or another officially recognized by the company themselves. The problems as I see them are (i) which of these can specifically be called the origin of the abbreviation "Namco" and (ii) when the abbreviation was coined. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: A look through the sources I reviewed suggests the same. The when and what specifically also seems to be in dispute in modern sources - ergo, my desire to try and find a period-based source, maybe in an old issue of Cashbox or so. Red Phoenix talk 11:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's been one of my points. Other than possibly one 1987 book for which we cannot currently verify the contents, no older source I am aware of in English or Japanese ever refers to a "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company." English language sources from the 1960s through the 1980s use either the original official name, Nakamura Seisakusho, or the translation of said name, Nakamura Manufacturing. While this is not proof in the sense that these sources don't say what Namco stands for, it would be odd for it to be shorthand for a name the company never used in another capacity. Indrian (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s an interesting one, supposedly from an old issue of Cashbox circa 1976, though I’d have to find the exact issue. It does call the company “Nakamura Seisakusho”, but says “call us by our familiar initials NAMCO”. Maybe it’s not short for anything in English at all? Red Phoenix talk 16:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe it didn't occur to me to check until now, but Googling "Nakamura Amusement Machine Company" ("Nakamura ... Company", despite some statements above to the contrary, being a fairly reasonable translation of "Nakamura Seisakusho" by itself, with "Amusement Machine" being a description of their key product) in quotes brings up a few Japanese pages of seemingly varying levels of trustworthiness, which mostly seem to go back to this. This, like "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company" seems, at least to me, like a more likely source of the abbreviation "NAMCo" than "Nakamura Manufacturing Company", and I'm not exactly seeing the flood of pre-web English-language sources that all uniformly refer to the company as either "Nakamura Seisakusho" or "Nakamura Manufacturing (Company?)" alluded to above -- seemingly one unattributed quotation and one article in the Journal of Japanese Trade & Industry that use the latter and at least one patent application that uses the former. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so important that we have the exact abbreviation to the word? We could either specify that sources differ on precisely what it's short for, or just mention that Namco came about as an abbreviation of the company's name and not specify exactly how. Perhaps that would not be so precise, but it would be accurate and still based on an appropriate review of reliable sources. Red Phoenix talk 01:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with either of those solutions. But in-line citations should be to sources that give different origins, because with only "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" sources (or one obscure Japanese print source from the 1980s and one "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" source that is both online and in English) someone might inadvertently restore some version the present text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I will absolutely fix this so that the sourcing lines up well with the claims, and I am incredibly grateful that you brought this issue to my attention on the FAC page. I am not sure, how much of the nom you read through, but I am not the original nominator of the article nor the person that did the majority of the work on the article, so I have been coming to grips with some of the nuances at the same time as everyone else. (I did the GA review, but that does not require the same level of engagement with the sources as we demand from a full FAC source review). As to your specific factual concerns, I am still just not seeing them. It's wonderful that you appear to have tracked down the modern source for the claim of the Nakamura Amusment Machine Company name, because it provides some more clarity on why this claim is suspect. Simply put, I would not expect a PR rep at Bandai Namco, a successor in interest to the original Namco, to have any idea how Namco itself translated the word "Seisakusho" into English. They are quite far removed from the original name change, which was almost forty years before that source was written. I do perhaps take slight umbrage at the "flood of sources" comment. I provided you what I felt were some of the most pertinent examples, but I never had any intention of citing to every mention of Nakamura Manufacturing/Seisakusho in the English-language coin-op trades. I will give you two more, however. Here is an ad Namco itself placed in the English-language coin-op trades announcing the name change. As you can see, the official name of the company was Nakamura Seisakusho in English. As for how to translate that into English, here is Namco's own corporate history, pre-merger, rendered in English by Namco corporate itself on its own Japanese website. Again, it does not say what Namco stands for, but it does clearly show what Namco itself considered the English translation of the "Seisakusho" in its name to be at a time when its founder was still the chairman of the company. It stretches all credulity that Namco is derived from an English name (Nakamura Amusement Machine Company) for which there is as yet no evidence Namco itself actually used in its dealings in the English-speaking world. Indrian (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are interesting sources, but all they do is verify what I said up above (I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as A, B, C, etc.) without shedding any light on the origin of the abbreviation, and the latter actually just clouds the dating issue even further by showing that as of 2003 Namco's English website said that the "[u]se of [the] Namco brand name [began]" in 1972 (given the preponderance of other sources, I suspect this is either a typo or a factual error). I don't think we're going to solve the mystery with the resources we have at present, so why can't we just do what Red Phoenix suggested above and say either that different sources give different etymologies (and cite at least one source for each, without necessarily listing them in-line) or that the name "Namco" was originally a brand-name based on an abbreviation of the company's name (without actually stating what said company's name is)? I didn't think it would be an issue so I didn't mention it up above, but is the problem that the latter solution would lead readers to assume that the correct origin was "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" because said name is cited elsewhere in the article? I don't see that as an issue, and I seem to be the one who's most sceptical of that origin, so I don't see why anyone else would see it as important. Anyway: there is as yet no evidence Namco itself actually used in its dealings in the English-speaking world This is a little problematic, as it depends on what you consider to constitute "the English-speaking world" -- English has been a de facto official language of Japan since before Nakamura Seisakusho was founded, and while even today very few Japanese companies are careful to maintain uniformity in their English branding, it goes without saying that some form of English branding could have been in use even within Japan, let alone in the company's dealings with other parts of Asia where English is used as a lingua franca, even if such would not have appeared in publicly available materials in those countries at the time or now. Even if you reject Niconico News as a source and take "Nakamura Amusement Machine Company" to be either a hoax or an error, there are still three options, all attributable to reliable third-party sources, one of which (Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company) is attributable to a recent first-party source but possibly contradicted by the fact that there are a larger number of old sources that refer to the company (but not the origin of the brand name) as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company". I would think it qualifies as OR to take a bunch of sources that all refer to the company as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and claim (in the article space) that this is the origin of the brand name "Namco", especially when multiple reliable sources explicitly say otherwise, and I really don't see why it's still an issue worth arguing over: we should just remove the potentially problematic part of the sentence and change the citations (or insert a WP:COMMENT) so no one misinterprets it in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

edit

Lead:

  • ""company renamed itself to Namco" - "to" is wrong here, it should just be "company renamed itself Namco"
  • Pipe "home console" to Home video game console
  • "led Namco to producing games" - another problematic "to" - it's either "led to Namco producing games" or (my preference) "led Namco to produce games"

History:

  • "them longer and expensive" - need a "more" for expensive
  • "Because other manufacturers had exclusive rights to do so, the company was unable to place its machines inside stores" - swap the "to do so" and "place its machines inside stores". Having "to do so" first leads readers to say "to do what?"
  • "approached Nakamura in early 1974 in regards to having his business" - this could be trimmed to just "approached Nakamura in early 1974 to have his business". Expressions like "in regards", "in order to", etc. are generally superfluous
  • "It was released in North America by Midway Manufacturing, the video game division of Bally, where it became one of its best-selling titles and formed a relationship between it and Namco." - "it" is doing a bit too much heavy lifting in this sentence, referring to the game and Bally (or just Midway? I can't tell for certain) interchangeably. I'd be clear with the last "it"
  • Link cartridges to ROM cartridge
  • "considered of high quality" -> "considered to be high quality"
  • "decision in creating" -> "decision to create". That sentence is also fairly long and probably should be split at "for the console. Namco signed a five-year...[and was given]"
  • "Tadashi Manabe replaced Nakamura as president" - do we know why? Did Nakamura resign? Or was he forced out for some reason?
    • We don't have details, but he would not have been forced out. As the founding chairman of the company Nakamura retained great power and stepped right back in as president two years later. My guess is he wanted a more experienced administrator to run the day-to-day as the company grew larger. This is something that happened at several Japanese coin-op companies in this period. The founder of Konami also briefly stepped aside as president for a more experienced man, for example. Obviously, I am not putting any of that in the article because it is speculation, but I don't see him being forced out. Indrian (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Namco's R&D divisions finished development" - was there more than one R&D division?
    • Possibly. A lot of these Japanese arcade companies had multiple R&D teams. That said, its really not worth trying to clarify, so I just took out the term "R&D Divisions" entirely. Indrian (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As his anxiety disorder prevented him from properly running the company, Manabe" - this presents it as though we all know Manabe had an anxiety disorder.
  • "The System 22 was put to use with Ridge Racer, a racing game, in 1993" - this is awkward; first, I don't think the definite article is needed, and it would be smoother to say "System 22 was put to use with the racing game Ridge Racer in 1993."
  • "helped it outperform Sega's game in popularity" - this assumes the reader knows Virtua Fighter" is a Sega game
  • "widely-successful" - drop the hyphen

General comments:

  • There are instances where refs are not in order (i.e., they appear as [1][3][2])
    • These should all be fixed.
  • There are multiple figures given either in yen or dollars; it'd be nice if we could convert one to the other, but I realize this is fairly difficult to do for a given currency at a given point in time - if the sources provide conversions, it'd be good to include them.
    • I have expressed all the monetary figures in both dollars and yen save the revised sale agreement between Atari and Namco for Atari Japan, as those figures came from an internal Atari document and were therefore only provided in dollars.
  • There are several duplicate links throughout the article - if you don't happen to have a checker, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is the one I use.
    • Fixed.

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jaguar

edit

While I've come late to this FAC, it does not take away the fact that it is well-written, comprehensive and impeccably sourced. I can't pick anything out which hasn't already been addressed, other than the fact that it is undoubtedly an exemplary article which faithfully represents all the facets of an influential video game company. Well done to Namcokid for his fastidious efforts, and Indian for taking the reins. ♦ jaguar 22:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

edit

I could nitpick the prose, but this article already far exceeds the standards of a WP:FA. The research is excellent, and it is very thorough. Perhaps too thorough, if there was such a thing, but it never goes too deep into a tangent. Great work to Indrian for keeping this one going. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:30, 18 July 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) 22 July 2021 [64].

Mosasaurus

edit
Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be the first article about a mosasaur (or any extinct marine reptile apex predator) to receive a FAC. It is about the type genus of the mosasaurs, which is one one of the largest marine predators in history. It is also quite culturally significant. The stories of its fossils are historically and culturally significant in the Netherlands and France, and they stood alongside the mastodon and Megalosaurus as the pioneering fossils that helped develop concepts like extinction and the precursors of evolution. Thanks to films like Jurassic World the genus today is among the most iconic prehistoric creatures. In addition, we know a substantial deal about the biology of the animal, which I've summarized the spectrum of breadth of in this article, covering just about every published literature that touches on the genus. Given that Mosasaurus is not the only mosasaur with such a depth in history and scientific knowledge, starting with the most famous of them all can set a great model for how others can be written. Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lythronaxargestes

edit

I left extensive comments on this article in a peer review and I was fairly happy with it the last time I looked at it. I'll take another look through next week given the recent revisions for and after the GA, but I expect to support once I've done so. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to have stabilized so I'll make good on my commitment this week. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some follow-up comments to my PR, in light of recent changes...

I don't think I've ever reviewed the lead, actually. My bad.

Lead
  • "The earliest fossils known to science": of Mosasaurus.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered at around 1780": Just "around" should suffice.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and transported to Paris": This doesn't strike me as a particularly important detail.
Replaced with "seized by France" for context. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I'm not sold on how you've incorporated the Classification section into the lead. Yes, the position of mosasaurs relates to the early confusion over the identity of Mosasaurus, and yes, the alpha taxonomy of Mosasaurus is relevant to its morphology, but neither of these connections is made very well. For the latter, I would probably move the last sentence first, e.g. "Each of the currently-recognized species can be distinguished based on anatomical characters, but ambiguity over the diagnosis of M. hoffmannii led to historical confusion", etc.
General format suggestion done. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second works better now. Something like "Although Mosasaurus is agreed to be a reptile, its exact affinities remain controversial"... for the first? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skull of Mosasaurus, which was either broad or slender depending on the species": I'd take the species-level discussion out from here.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paddle-like fluke that bent downwards": I think "fluke" would include the soft tissue fin, right? The downturn is restricted to the caudal vertebrae.
Swapped wording to remove context confusion. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unclear diagnosis of the type species": A brief parenthetical note like (description of distinguishing features) might help, for the anti-jargon crowd on here anyway.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and another five species still nominally classified": Sentence is getting too long so probably put a break just before this.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each species was variable with unique anatomical features differentiating them": Too verbose and kind of redundant.
Simplified. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientists believe that": I might have missed this previously, but I'm a bit allergic to the word "scientists". It has the same kind of air as "boffins". Personally, I would substitute "researchers", but I'm not beholden to this change.
Changed to "paleontologists." Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cephalopods": Link.
Fixed.
  • "faunal assemblages": Link.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several discovered fossils illustrated": I'm not sure "illustrated" is the right word because they record the aftermath of an attack rather than the event. Maybe reword to something like "suggested that some Mosasaurus individuals were deliberately attacked..."
Changed to "document." Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research history

Good summary of your original text. Some minor points:

  • I feel like there's room for a sentence or two about "M. dekayi".
There's already a note about M. dekayi. Do you think there should be more? Macrophyseter | talk 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's of historical interest, so at least another footnote in this section would be helpful. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Macrophyseter | talk 20:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are broad, flat, and form a paddle": Break run-on sentence here.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collection of sculptures of prehistoric animals on display at the Crystal Palace": This goes for your spin-off page too - maybe de-link "at the" and have a separate link for Crystal Palace (Park).
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more.

  • Typo in ref 7: "Halle" P. Street.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Ikejiri and Lucas on the M. conodon skull": Suggest rewording to "skull of M. conodon", this makes it sound like there's one.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "evidence of a walking ability": Suggest dropping "a".
The "a" was intentional as "walking ability" is intended as a noun. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"an ability to walk" then? Reads awkwardly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as suggested. Macrophyseter | talk 02:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The model was deliberately sculpted incomplete": "as" incomplete?
I think the original is still grammatically correct. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inaccurate, even at the time": "for" the time?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW POINT - Some refs out of order... at the end of both paragraphs in §Discovery and identification.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "derived mosasaur, a latecoming member": Might want to add an "or" in there - not clear that "latecoming" is intended to clarify "derived".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a streamlined body, elongated tail": "an" for grammatical parallelism.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the ratio from Russell (1967) was applied": Clearer to say "they applied the ratio..."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their skulls typically measures": "measure".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have not been recorded in scientific literature": "the" scientific literature reads better.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In M. hoffmannii, this rostrum is blunt": The word "rostrum" is not defined before now, only linked. Suggest adding parenthetical note to "snout".
Replaced everything with snout. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are of a pattern": "form" a pattern?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the top margin is slightly curved upwards": Clarify that this is the dentary (?)
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is also so": Suggest "also the case".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "21–24% of the skull length": "skull's length" reads less awkwardly.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than in all other mosasaurs except Goronyosaurus": If it can be done concisely, clarify the condition in Goroynosaurus.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can differ by species": Suggest dropping "can" - they do differ.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "serrate-like features": "serration-like"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "scientists have expressed likeliness": "the likelihood"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely consistent in size and shape with only minor differences throughout the jaws": This is linked to heterodont. Suggest adding the word "homodont" in parentheses and linking there. Otherwise it gets confusing.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the most complete skeletons": Suggest "Mosasaurus skeletons". I know it's clear from context but it's awkward.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs out of order for the same sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another similar point for Research history above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "The number of caudal vertebrae is not fully certain": Is that just the preceding species or does it refer to all Mosasaurus? (It would seem to not gel with M. lemonnieri.)
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which soft tissue evidence": "in" which?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The life restoration of M. missouriensis has a significantly larger tail bend than the text would suggest. Not a deal-breaker but maybe some of the WP:PALEOART folks can help out on this one.
Posted a request in Paleoart review. Macrophyseter | talk 01:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a fix if anyone wants to have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that bends near the middle of the tail": Should be "bend" for grammatical parallelism.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a pair of distinct articular facets": Maybe clarify the bones these are intended to articulate with.
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported with four sets of digits": supported "by"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some new issues but also some that I missed previously. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification
  • "19th century scientists did not give Mosasaurus a proper diagnosis during its first description": A "first description" would presumably have a fixed set of authors, no? Or do you mean "initial descriptions"?
Clarified with the latter. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to become wastebasket taxon": "a"
I'm suprised I overlooked this. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "therefore not yet formally valid": Suggest "is not yet", awkward otherwise.
I think "therefore" should be kept, as the context is a product of Article 8, not a separate understanding that the suggestion might unintentionally imply. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, I mean "therefore is not yet formally valid". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What determined your choices of whether to punctuate footnotes with full stops or not?
It's based on whether the footnote represents a complete sentence or not. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I thought I saw inconsistencies but it's good as of the current version. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who proposed that Mosasaurus evolved": Run-on sentence, split here.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three instances of out-of-order citations in the paragraph "Bell's study served as a precedent for later studies..."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This led to a number of issues": Clarify that this is the reliance on Bell.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been behind the genus's unnatural status": Not clear what this means to me.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on soon... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiology
  • Misplaced period in first sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its reconstruction was largely based": Clarify this refers to musculature.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the nature of muscle scarring": "nature of" feels a bit redundant?
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly to allow the animal": Should be plural?
I think singular might be better because the context seems to specify a single skull for a single animal. But maybe not? Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a grammatical parallelism issue: "In modern lizards... possibly to allow the animal". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not too lengthy, maybe add something about the specific skeletal differences that resulted in one less pivot.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was relatively unimportant when hunting and feeding": Clarify, e.g. "to its hunting and feeding"; "when the species was hunting and feeding", etc.
Going for former. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used jaw adduction to assist in hard biting": Does this mean that adduction was only used for when it was biting hardly and not softly? Maybe clarify a bit.
Removed "hard." Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enormously powerful bite forces": Is the superlative necessary?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best seen today in mackerels": Similarly, not sure "best seen" is the right word choice - maybe something like "exemplified by".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an enhanced ability of rotating the flippers allowed by modified joints": For parallelism, maybe reword to "modified joints that allowed an enhanced..."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the bone's head from the rest of the bone": "of" the bone's head.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between the leatherback sea turtle and the ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs": A bit hard to understand. Probably better to restate in terms of higher or lower than.
Attempted clarification. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "that of the leatherback sea turtle and that of ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs" would work better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but alternatively allowed excellent processing": "nevertheless" might work better?
They are implied to be somewhat mutually exclusive; a three-dimensional focus doesn't view its side surroundings as well as a two-dimensional focus. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would comment on "virtually nonexistent" but I see Jens also did so.
Addressed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cranium of Mosasaurus skulls": Should be plural (crania), right?
Fixed for now. But do you think going plural might erroneously imply that one individual had multiple crania?
I might just drop "skulls" (maybe qualifying "crania" with "fossil"). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which control the function of smell": Specify "both".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lack a number of components": Any sense of what they do functionally?
Doesn't specify in the source. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that M. hoffmannii lack": Should maybe treat the species as a singular as you do elsewhere.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dated about 75 million years old (Ma)": First - not sure "dated" is needed. Second - Ma only abbreviates "million years", not "old".
Removed Ma because it's not brought up again. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of other large mosasaurs like Prognathodon [...] coexisting with M. missouriensis": Could simplify to "The coexistence of other large mosasaurs..." Also, you have a formatting error.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the nautiloid would have been facing": Probably clarify that this is the soft parts? Otherwise a bit hard to define directionality.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alternate source of prey": Perhaps say "viable" instead? Unless the source makes a claim about the genus' main foodstuff.
"Alternate" is how the source puts it. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "giving the possibility that attacks on smaller, weaker individuals": "Giving" seems like a non-standard word to use here. "Leading to"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out-of-order refs for following sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the individuals may have had an efficient process of immobilizing the fracture": If this is not a behavioural mechanism but rather a physiological one, I wonder if it would be appropriate to remark on it at the genus level?
Going with "species." Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reduced to abscess": Plural?
The wording of the phrase is supposed to be similar to "reduced to dust." Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avascular necrosis has been reported by many studies": Refs out of order for this sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the appearance of such conditions as being due to non-adaptation of the animal's anatomy": I don't get the reasoning for this. If they have well-adapted eardrums, it stands to reason that there would be other deep-diving adaptations to mitigate the bends, right?
The entire passage of the source is worded a bit confusingly:
"It is parsimonious to presume that non-adaptation is the original state and that the animals with disease were deep or repetitive divers without appropriate physiological or behavioural adaptations. Vaughn and Dawson (1956) have described calcified tympanic membranes in Platecarpus, Tylosaurus and Plioplatecarpus. They probably had thick cartilaginous eardrums, filling the external auditory cavity, in place of a simple membrane, for better protection under undue pressure of the water in deep diving. This condition has been interpreted as an adaptation to deep diving by protecting the eardrums from the large ambient pressure and prevented the stapes from being driven forcibly inward during rapid increase in the external pressure (Vaughn and Dawson 1956). Decompression illness seems to have been common in the mosasaurs."
Specifically, it's unclear which definition of "parsimonious" is used here between "frugal" or "the simplest explanation." Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My takeaway from this text is that the vast majority of mosasaurs (including Mosasaurus, excepting the named ones) did not have specially-adapted eardrums and were susceptible to the bends. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the source also notes invariable avascular necrosis for all genera explicitly mentioned to have the developed eardrums, which indicates that it doesn't address the condition. As a nominal fix, I'll say that the author considers non-adaptation as the most likely reason but also note that they were still adapted to a degree. Macrophyseter | talk 02:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange. I'm OK with this fix. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "previously thought but no longer recognized to be present in": Probably add an "is" before "no longer" for clarity.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "basal mosasauroid Carsosaurus": Mosasauroidea isn't introduced before this point, and so there's limited context about phylogenetic position. Drop qualifier altogether if too hard to explain.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not exhibit the bone mass increase": Should be present tense following your other text?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are solely shallow ocean deposits": "solely" in the sense of "all"? Better to be direct.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paleoecology
  • "ecologically diversified throughout the seaway. [89]": Space before ref.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, there is some inconsistency between past and present tense. You should probably stick with one.
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use present tense for any description that can be tangibly observed right now (i.e. description of bones that still exist with their characteristics preserved) and past tense for about everything else. Do you think I should simply put everything as past tense instead? I've made a few tense corrections, but I'm not sure where there are more inconsistenties. Macrophyseter | talk 02:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. I mostly meant this section. A few examples that stand out to me involve dominant taxa. Unless it's dominance in terms of fossil abundance only, I would say that these should be past tense:
  • The two mosasaurs Mosasaurus and Prognathodon appear to be (have been) the dominant taxa
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • other Mosasaurus species such as M. lemonnieri have been found to be (have been) the dominant species in certain areas
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
  • the confirmation of paleogeographical affinities extends (extended) this range
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biogeography of the region was (has been) generally subdivided into two Interior Subprovinces
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Known fossils of Mosasaurus were typically (have typically been) recovered
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related point while I'm here: "In recent studies, the confirmation of paleogeographical affinities" should be cited with author and/or year given MOS:RELTIME. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mediterranean Tethys during the Maastrichtian stage": Link stage here (as opposed to "faunal stage" later). Also in lead.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Halisaurus arambourgi and Platecarpus ptychodon were also the common mosasaurs": Drop "the". What does "also" mean? In addition to Globidens?
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bordered around modern-day Kansas": First two words are redundant to each other.
If I cut one of the two words, it would imply that the provinces border Kansas when the context is supposed to be that the border between the two provinces are located in Kansas. Attempted clarifying in a different way. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a faunal stage known as the Niobraran Age": Add "during" before.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and many genera of fish including": Drop this. This list item is ostensibly about chondrichthyans and does not cover all fish.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deeper water deposits": Add dash, "deeper-water".
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Changing temperatures": What does this mean? Seasonally?
That's how the source puts it without explaination. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should tie back the discussion about δ13C and habitat to the last section by noting this as another explanation.
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the average δ13C values between the two species were generally different": The average is one value so "generally" doesn't make sense. "On average"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicative of a diet specialized in softer prey": Comma before.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction
  • "at a height of evolutionary radiation": "the height of their evolutionary radiation"? Unless there was more than one "height" (which I don't think there was?)
Fixed.
  • "the amount of available habitats": I wonder if this should be singular. Otherwise replace "amount" with "number".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in southeastern Missouri": Move to the start of the sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vertebral fossils from the layer": Referring to M. hoffmannii vertebrae? Or vertebrate fossils?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deposition of the layer itself was likely a tsunamite": Is the layer itself not the tsunamite? Something like "The layer was deposited as a tsunamite"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formed as a result...": This clause is hard to parse. Suggest breaking sentence here and rephrasing; in particular, "formed as a result... as direct consequences of" is awkward.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One enigmatic occurrence is of Mosasaurus sp. fossils found in the Hornerstown Formation": Also awkward. Suggested rephrasing: "One enigmatic occurrence of Mosasaurus sp. fossils is in the Hornerstown Formation".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strong impact event such as a tsunami": I assume "impact" doesn't mean "extraterrestrial impact" here. The overloading of the term is confusing, suggest rewording.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were forced out by... was subsequently refilled": Grammatical parallelism.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the article body. I'll take a pass through refs once JJE is done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE has not replied so I will go ahead with a pass through refs in two or three days' time. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I got distracted by other things. Feel free to make your pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of some outstanding points above. In the meantime...

References
  • I'm running the citation bot.
It didn't work. I'll run section-by-section later, or you can run it yourself if you prefer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reference format is occasionally inconsistent. Most of it is full first name, except 48, 56, 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 50, 60, 80, 84, 88, 99, and 115 (but I acknowledge that it's not given by the journal for all but the first two).
Fixed. There are some authors whose first names I can't identify because they go by their middle name instead. Macrophyseter | talk 18:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need spaces between initials in 43, 83.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 05:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 does not italicize Mosasaurus. Also book title is not appropriately capitalized.
Fixed. Italicization, although I had it unitalicized because of [sic]. Macrophyseter | talk 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent about full dates for web articles: missing on 18, 20, 35, 49, 53, and 59. Also, I think convention is to cite the last updated date instead of the original creation date (much like you'd cite the updated year for a new edition of a book).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 43 should use {{cite conference}}. Also not appropriately capitalized and dashes should be em dashes (—).
Fixed cite conference and em dashes, but I don't see how it's not appropriately capitalized. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:TITLECAPS I would suggest "5th Triennial Mosasaur Meeting– a global perspective on Mesozoic marine amniotes" -> "5th Triennial Mosasaur Meeting—A Global Perspective on Mesozoic Marine Amniotes". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51 lacks volume information.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Would another citation type (like {{cite act}}) be more appropriate for the ICZN (58)?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 59, Notes on should be italicized.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 63 missing year.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Konishi's proposal (81) been published anywhere? If not then I wonder about the appropriateness of its inclusion.
I didn't realize that his same proposal is also briefly mentioned in the Science article. Added. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86 should have an en dash (–) in place of an ampersand.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you miscited 90. 2002 probably refers to the year. Likewise for 99 and 100.
I always thought that some journals put their issues as years. Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some definitely do but I don't think that's what's going on here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 92 has a typo in Russell.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 102, Peritresius should be italicized.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 111's volume details look all over the place.
It's weird. I don't think there's much that can be done with that. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess that's genuine. Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119 should cite Holtz's name. Also consider {{cite speech}}.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for refs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In principle there is nothing stopping me from supporting - it is a fine article. But I've marked a few unresolved points above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Macrophyseter, have these been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet; I've been extremely busy the past few days so I've only been able to do a little at a time the past week. Since it's the weekend now I'll try to spend today burning out the rest of the remaining points after I'm back from work; there shouldn't be too much left to do. Macrophyseter | talk 16:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes I've finished responding to all the remaining comments I can find. Lmk if there are still some that I overlooked. Macrophyseter | talk 20:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I marked one point that we both missed. After that, I will support. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a fantastic article, good work! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IR by Buidhe

edit

Page size is 14434 words / 91 kB readable prose. IMO this is against length criterion (see Article size); in general, many FAC reviewers are looking for articles no longer than 10,000 words. I strongly suggest splitting the article or trimming on the order of 1/3 to 1/2 the content. One possibility for a spin off article might be Research history of Mosasaurus. This is a lot to do over the course of FAC so I would suggest withdrawing and re nominating once that's done. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Buidhe. Heartfox (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on trimming prior to FAC; I also was hoping if an exception could be made given the sheer scope the article covers like in the case of Maya civilization. I've lowered the prose count to around the 10k range; I don't think being a few hundred above exactly ten thousand would be problematic, but I can try to trim more if so. Macrophyseter | talk 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The condensed summary in the article right now fits awkwardly. You should have a paragraph, however brief, mentioning the other species by name so that the rest of the article has context. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the size, my calculator script says "Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10361 words) "readable prose size"", which I think is within acceptable range. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded Research history to summarize all other confirmed species. Size-wise, my script says 10775 words, which I think remains acceptable. Macrophyseter | talk 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image licensing is good. I do think there are still some parts of the prose that go into a lot of detail, and might be better moved to sub-articles, but paleontology isn't the focus of my editing so I'll see what others have to say. Without the research history section it's a lot more manageable. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Screen Shot 2021-05-28 at 7.35.35 AM.png
Jumping in here, I saw a comment about too many images on the right, which was then turned into a gallery, but what guideline is that based on? Aesthetically, it looks much better to fill out the white space left by the current cladograms, as it doesn't break up the text (like the current gallery does), just fills empty space. I've never seen such a suggestion before (having made similar white space filler in several FAC articles), and I do think the former version looked much better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like FunkMonk comments faster than I do, lol; the way the images in "Phylogeny and evolution of the genus" were clustered before your (Buidhe) edit was an intentionally planned format as a way to present the diversity of species without interrupting the prose read. Is there a reason as to why that would not be an appropriate format? Macrophyseter | talk 14:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some FAs have imagery which consist entirely of a row of right aligned images, such as the recent Ring ouzel, so I'm not sure what the problem is. As long as there isn't WP:image sandwiching, I don't see what the guidelines would have against this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was that it's wrong to have three right-aligned images in a row, but that the images were in excess of the text (see screenshot). According to MOS, the solution to excess images are use less images or combine them somehow (multiple image template, gallery, etc.) so as to avoid leaving a lot of whitespace. (t · c) buidhe 14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another formatting option is to combine all four images in the section into one vertical multiple images template, which would not leave much whitespace. (t · c) buidhe 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, doesn't look like that on my screen, it just fills up the white space. There is a way around this that we've used elsewhere, Lythronaxargestes or IJReid I think might know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the same issue here[65], buidhe? I think it can be solved by making the cladograms less wide. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Depends on exactly how wide the browser window is. It either looks like this (just fine) or this (because the topology + image together are too wide for the window, they separate). Different viewers will see one or the other depending on browser settings. (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is how I see it[66], and how it was intended. It is odd that in your screenshot, the text associated with the cladogram doesn't reach the images, yet it still creates the white gap. Pinging Jts1882 too, who might know something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some investigation and that situation only appears when the window displaying the article is scaled to a certain small width range due to the cladogram blocking the images (narrower, and the text fills up the white space; wider, and the cladograms stop blocking the images). The same situation exists for [67], and probably any image that appears side-by-side with any cladogram. Moving the images up a few paragraphs (like to the second) fixes this issue, although some might see the resulting narrow spacing between the left image as a borderline sandwich. I'm still against a gallery format because it distracts from the content of the text. Macrophyseter | talk 15:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative way could also be what I've done at quagga (by the cladogram and under description), where multiple images are collected horizontally on the right, without disrupting the text like a gallery. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with that is the image dimensions are very different, so you end up with a tiny square-ish image and a gigantic rectangular image in the cluster. Do you know if there are any formatting solutions to that situation if I go with the quagga example?Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No sandwiching if all images are aligned on the same side. (t · c) buidhe 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had a fourth image in the row once, maybe it could help with balance? It can be a pain unless you find that sort of stuff funny (which I do), but I just experiment with different layouts and numbers of images, as in Cimoliopterus or Dilophosaurus I've been working on lately. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth image was the hoffmannii skeleton that's now in the taxobox. It was there because I originally had a picture of another skeleton in the taxobox, but I had to take that down because the CC license was incorrect. Macrophyseter | talk 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping. It's a bit difficult to comment as the page has changed as the discussion progresses, with the images now in a gallery. I assume the two cladograms were put in a table that was set to a maximum of 75% screen width to allow images to be floated to the right. The problem with this is it is it needs a wide screen. If the images don't fit in the 25% left for them, the cladogram gets moved down leaving white space. This also leaves the cladograms slightly scrunched even when there is white space to the right. One solution would be to float the two cladograms so they are displayed vertically on narrower screens (not ideal for the comparison, but maybe OK in portrait mode on a phone). {{clade gallery}} is responsive (e.g. Neoaves). I've made this edit (now reverted) to show the cladograms in a responsive gallery with the images are floated to the right. The side by side comparison only shows on relatively wide screens, with the cladograms displayed vertically on narrower screens. Given the side by side comparison is useful, the image gallery seems preferable, although I thought these were discouraged in FA articles.
Looking good to me, but I'll of course lets others decide. This is how it looked "originally":[68] FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demo looks great, I think that format would be the best choice as it preserves the original format but also fixes the spacing issue. Added.Macrophyseter | talk 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit
I disagree with the former since it's not the name of an individual. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason is that genus names are always used without article. It is "Mosasaurus", not "the Mosasaurus". I don't think a formulation such as "identified it as an Ichthyosaurus" is common in the literature for this reason. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally used to hearing genus names at times being used with an article, although I will admit that I've only heard it used by those who aren't in the field. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The type specimen of M. missouriensis was first described in 1834 as a snout fragment – "described as a snout fragment" somehow seems weird. Also, link type specimen.
This one's a bit tricky since the type specimen consists of two different cataloged specimens. Since they're both the same individual, they would be the holotype. Rearranged the wording if that works. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the rest of the skull was discovered earlier by a fur-trapper – would remove the "but", and maybe "had been discovered earlier"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this species was reidentified as a Mosasaurus – "as a species of Mosasaurus"? Or simply "as Mosasaurus"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't usually put attributes like nov. sp. ("new species") in the reproduced cladograms, I think because this can be misunderstood in a way that the new species is defined in this very Wikipedia article.
Substituted with quotations around taxa to preserve distinction that these are proposed and not official names. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most complete skeleton of Mosasaurus, whose species-level identification is debated – maybe the detail on this specimen that follows could be moved to Research history of Mosasaurus, with some more information on its discovery if this is available? It would be very relevant in that article. But in the "description" section, information on where this specimen is on display are just not the right place. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources and apparently its not as clear about the completeness of the fossil. The skeleton had some restoration, although the degree to which isn't clear, but given the full vertebral formula is known the skeleton probably is complete in vertebral representation. I don't have access to the thesis that described the fossil in detail, so there's not much I can work with at the moment. Also, there are some fossils that are probably more complete, but none of them have been described in whole yet. So I've reworded the passage for now. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • thirty-eight dorsal vertebrae (which includes thoracic and lumbar vertebrae) – the explanation implies that thoracic and lumbar vertebrae can be differentiated in Mosasaurus, but I don't think this is the case. Maybe just "dorsal (back) vertebrae" is enough as explanation.
I'm pretty sure they can be differentiated by presence/absence of ribs, but apparently scientists don't appear to have the need to differentiate them when talking about vertebrae although it's been done at least once. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All species of Mosasaurus have seven cervical vertebrae – This contradicts what was said earlier, that one species is only known from isolated teeth. I think it needs re-formulation.
The article never said that M. beaugei is only known from isolated teeth, but that the type specimen is only isolated teeth. It's also implied in sections like Size that more complete remains are known, and its a bit more explicit in the Research history article. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rib cages of Mosasaurus – would use singular: rib cage
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which implies Mosasaurus – should be "indicates" I think.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • et al. is an unnecessary technical term, can be replaced with "and colleagues".
Fixed, but kept when an inline citation is used (i.e. Polycn et al. (2014)) Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why some information on the species is found in "History of taxonomy" and not under "Other species". For example, M. conodon is discussed a lot in the latter section, but the quite relevant bit that it was moved to a different genus by one study only appears in the "History of taxonomy" section, so there is some disconnect, making it hard to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The situation regarding M. conodon is from a PhD thesis rather than a peer-reviewed study, so it's not really formally valid yet (It's still important to mention because its currently the only modern research that attempts to clean up the entire genus taxonomy; caveats are noted to point out the thesis case). I don't want to provide so much weight of the thesis on the article, hence why I didn't incorporate its information in Other species. I could as an alternative move History of taxonomy to Research history, but that would put distance between the discussion of the thesis and the cladogram that visualizes it. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it has been pointed out that measuring δ13C levels may not be the most accurate method of determining the preferred habitat of Mosasaurus and As a result, isotope levels can misrepresent the actual habitat preferences of Mosasaurus – I think both sentences say basically the same, and one of them could be deleted without loss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the "Research history" is, from an encyclopedic point of view, the most important section. Yet, the paleoecology ection is three times as long. What do you think about moving that section to "Paleoecology of Mosasaurus" and leave a summary here, and make the history section slightly longer again? Not sure if "Paleoecology of mosasaurs" would be the better title for such a sub-article, but that might require more work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it may be better off to simply swap the spin-off article statuses between Research history and Paleocology? In other words, bring back much of everything from Research history and move much of paleoecology to a separate article. It seems that most FAs have pretty skimmy Paleoecology sections anyways, so perhaps inbalance won't be a problem. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there maybe existing articles about formations, other taxa or similar that some of the paleoecology info could be spun off into? I also noted at the PR that it goes very much into detail about the lifestyles of different taxa, which is interesting, but probably also the first that should be cut, since it's not about the subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think that, if you bring back the History of research full-length, you will have difficulties keeping the article below 10,000 words again. Paleoecology is still important and needs to stay a decent section, though it could be reduced by over 50% at least. Regarding the "Distribution, ecosystem, and ecological impact" section, maybe FunkMonk's suggestion is best, though I wonder which articles that info could be moved to. An alternative might be to have a section on paleoecology in the Mosasaur article and move the info there; this would require some additional text because of the broader scope of that article, however. For the "habitat" and "interspecific competition" sections, I would try to formulate them much more concisely (overall, you tend to be quite wordy in this article). Let me know if you need help with this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just trimmed it a bit further, and we are below 10,000 words of prose now. I think it is OK to leave the entire section in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what is now modern-day Alabama within the Southern Interior Subprovince, most of the key genera including the mosasaurs – does "key genera" only refer to mosasaurs? If so, it should be reformulated accordingly. If not, than I doubt that Mosasaurus could possibly replace all kinds of key genera in a given ecosystem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped placement of sharks and mosasaurs to remedy potential confusion of context. Macrophyseter | talk 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the text you variably give full author names (e.g., T. Lynn Harrell Jr.) or just the surnames, and sometimes use the attribute "paleontologist" but sometimes not. This should all be consistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be better to refer to everyone by first and last name w/o occupation or just inline citations (i.e. Konishi et al. (2014)? Macrophyseter | talk 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. "Konishi et al. (2014)" still sounds too technical to me, I would go for "Konishi and colleagues (2014)". In one of my FACs, people told me that they dislike having the years in brackets, and since then I write "Konishi and colleagues, in 2014,". In recent FAs, we often provide full names at first mention + occupation and nationality, e.g. "The British paleontologist … argued that". But I see that this might be overkill for such a central article like this. Only giving the occupation ("paleontologist") doesn't make much sense to me, since one would assume that most are anyways. Maybe just first and last names? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it mentioned prior? Perhaps it was within one of the parts I removed for trimming... Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Like all mosasaurs, Mosasaurus had four types of teeth", so this makes clear that all mosasaurs had pterygoid teeth. Yet, you go on to, again, state "a feature present on the palate of all mosasaurs", which just repeats what was already said. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another minor nuisance: Make sure to put "|sp=us" into the unit conversion templates throughout, because right know you have a mixture of the British English "metres" and the American English "meters". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the knowledge on the musculature and mechanics of the head of Mosasaurus are largely based on Lingham-Soliar's 1995 study on M. hoffmannii skulls. – Since this is sourced to that very study, it is borderline WP:synth. I would just remove this sentence.
Replaced with something more objective, since I still needed to establish that this is specific to M. hoffmannii. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly to allow the animal to better position them and prevent deflection (the positioning of a prey in a way that increases its chance of escape from a predator) when hunting. – Since this is not even about Mosasaurus in particular, can we just write "possibly to allow the animal to better position them to prevent their escape"? The technical term "deflection" seems unnecessary here, and "when hunting" redundant.
Shortened to simple "prey escape." Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which indicates that its jaw mechanics were different than modern lizards; – this doesn't add anything; the reader will already know they are different, and now needs to know in which way.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explain "adduction" in a gloss.
"Adduction" was removed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • allowing it to swing forward and backward – allowing "them"?
Wording altered from a different point. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather, M. hoffmannii likely swallowed its prey whole – but with ratchet feeding, you also swallow the prey whole?
There was a term I may have looked over when I first wrote this; replacing with that term. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The swimming style was likely of a sub-carangiform swimming style – I think you can remove the second "swimming style", just reads repetitive.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • pronation – perhaps explain in a gloss? I wonder if you could just say "counter-clockwise rotation of the flippers", would this be correct?
Changed to "rotating the flippers" and wikilinking pronation. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • significant separation damage from the bone's head from the stem – I can't follow this bit; are these technical terms that can be linked?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the powerful forces – Use "however" sparingly, I think it does not make much sense in this instance.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs – "the" seems a bit odd here.
It's to maintain the distinction between a group A (turtles) and a group b (ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs). Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To keep up with its high metabolic requirements, Mosasaurus was likely endothermic – This does not makes sense to me. High metabolic rate equals endothermy, and it had high metabolic requirements because it was endothermic.
I wrote that for the sake of a transition, but I guess it's not as necessary as I used to think. I cut it entirely. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • where three-dimensional environments are virtually nonexistent. – But water is always three-dimensional … is there a possibility to formulate this better?
The source uses the terms "three-dimensional" and "two-dimensional" to differentiate reef and surface habitats. I guess the interpretation is meant to be that you need a three-dimensional understanding of a reef to navigate through and process all the complex rocks and plants, while an open ocean at the surface is simple enough for an animal to fully process its surroundings without seeing it in 3-d. But this isn't explained in the source. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather concerned with the formulation "virtually nonexistent", which seems odd. What about "but alternatively allowed excellent processing of a two-dimensional environment, such as the near-surface waters inhabited by Mosasaurus"?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the inner ear of Mosasaurus was described from an incomplete fossil from Mosasaurus sp. – "of Mosasaurus sp."?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inner ear is an important structure that plays a significant role – Either "is an important structure" or "plays a significant role", but not both, which is just redundant.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • very similar with modern monitor lizards – "similar to"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph of the inner ear is based on a self-published poster presentation. From my understanding, the citable source would, if anything, be the respective conference abstract. I am not sure if we should cite conference abstracts in the first place, since they are practically irrelevant in scientific publishing as well (they do not need to be cited), also we did in some articles. At the very least, you should indicate in the text that the information is coming from a conference abstract and not a paper. Yet, the paragraph does not really tell us anything apart from the size and preservation of the canals, but it apparently can't say anything about the biology, so I wonder if you loose much when you just remove this paragraph.
Removed then. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • made from the cranium of Mosasaurus skulls – "cranium" seems redundant here. Does this formulation imply artificial endocasts? Pipe-link "brain cast" to endocast?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several implications for δ13C levels in the feeding ecology of mosasaurs. I suggest to drop this sentence, it just does not seem to add anything.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • coexisting with M. missouriensis strongly suggests that the species – I guess you mean "M. missouriensis" when you mention "the species", but this is not completely clear. Maybe use "the latter" for extra clarity?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly suggests – "strongly" is a bit much when talking about paleobiological implications like this. Would remove this word.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You usually introduce the authors you are referring to, but not so in the last two paragraphs of "Feeding". Here, I think it is especially important to mention that these are suggestions/speculation made by a single study. If you don't explicitly mention it, the reader might assume it is the scientific consensus. Just write something like "A 2014 study by Kauffman suggested that" to make this clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple other Mosasaurus skulls show signs of severe injuries, some likely fatal or leading to infections. and There are a number of M. hoffmannii fossils with severe physically-inflicted damage. – These are basically the same sentences, just differently formulated. So we have a structure problem here: The second paragraph of "Intraspecific combat" is already paleopathology. Maybe combine both sections ("Paleopathology and intraspecific combat" or something like that)?
I still want to keep them separate in some way because while the two sections converge on the subject (i.e. the skulls), their focuses are different (inferences on intraspecific behavior based on pathology and description of the pathologies themselves in details unrelated to intraspecific behavior (i.e. infections)). I've made some edits to make this distinction more clear. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006, Schulp and colleagues published a study describing a fossil quadrate –> "In 2006, Schulp and colleagues described a fossil quadrate" for brevity? Also, you don't need the word "fossil" here; I would take this for granted.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a extensively damaged quadrate bone and and an estimated 0.5 liters (0.13 U.S. gal) of bone tissue destroyed – again, repetitive, you don't need the first one.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • massive chronic infection and severe bone infection is repetitive. Maybe combine the first two sentences like this: "In 2006, Schulp and colleagues described quadrate bone of M. hoffmannii containing multiple unnatural openings and an estimated 0.5 liters (0.13 U.S. gal) of damaged bone tissue."
Fixed. But I'll keep the wording "destroyed" because much of what should be the tissue is gone; the paper estimated the amount destroyed based on the volume of the resulting cavities. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Squamata
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Russell used a primitive method of phylogenetics since cladistics had yet to be widely established. – First, I think "primitive" is not a word to use (instead "early"?). And I wonder if "Cladistics had yet to be widely established" is true; cladistics is just the branch of phylogenetics concerned with naming groups. I don't think he used phylogenetics at all.
Russell explicitly called his method phylogeny, so I think calling it a primitive or early form suffices. Amended the statement on cladistics. Macrophyseter | talk 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. Also, Bell explicitly calls Russell's method phylogeny, his own method specifically cladistics or "modern phylogenetics," and distinguishes between Russell's and his. Macrophyseter | talk 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a number of issues. – With this, and the following sentences, I fear about neutrality. Maybe use author attribution: Do not state "This lead to issues", but point out who's opinion this is.
Reworded to a more objective sentence. Macrophyseter | talk 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a number of issues. – also seems to be misguiding: I would read your text in a way that it is the basal placement of M. missouriensis that lead to issues (this is what your "This" seems to be referring to), but you are criticising the methodology of the studies instead. Needs reformulation to make clear what the sentence means.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rewording following sentence to "lower-order classification" (which would have been my overall suggestion). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! Macrophyseter | talk 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go, please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning, and jot queries below. Am aware of article's size and will think about how to deal with this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mosasaurus was first discovered in 1764 in a subterranean chalk quarry... - why "subterranean"?
Removed. But the quarry was subterranean (i think 90 feet below the surface) Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a shortening attempt due to word count. Bringing back the original wording. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skull of Mosasaurus is conical and tapers off to a short and snout that extends a little beyond the frontmost teeth - something missing here...or remove the "and"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given size constraints, I would move the whole Relation with snakes or monitor lizards subsection to a higher taxon page (such as Mosasaur) as it is about placement of the whole family/suborder not the genus. Maybe leave one sentence but not sure how/which, and append onto previous section.
Macrophyseter has already moved much of this section. Maybe the first paragraph could be mildly shorter still though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as that section is germane to the family/suborder and not the genus. And given the size of the article it is the most obvious thing that can be moved. This is an encyclopedia of many parts and it is better placed at a more appropriate page as it is still too detailed for here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Casliber. Since we are below 10,000 words now, removing this section would allow you to bring back some much more important bits of the original history section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added it because given that Mosasaurus is the type genus of the mosasaurs and also a common representative of the group in public recognition, so I thought it would be helpful to add something a bit broader but still relevant to the genus. Do you think it would be okay to maybe reduce the entire section to one sentence or two under Systematics and Evolution, as well as move the See also spinoff under that? Macrophyseter | talk 03:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I was suggested anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mosasaur inner ears have been studied in the past, but exclusively with non-mosasaurine species. - could lose this I think. Try reading it without and see if any meaning lost
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is little direct evidence of the feeding habits of Mosasaurus, paleontologists generally agree that it was likely an active predator that preyed on a variety of marine animals - err, not surprising given it's been extinct for a long time. I'd trim to "Mosasaurus was likely an active predator that preyed on a variety of marine animals"
Direct evidence includes stomach contents, and the only thing we have for that is a fish, which doesn't really prove that its an apex predator. But I cut the first half. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last 3 sentences of the first para of the Paleopathology section reiterate the material in the previous section, so can be removed or trimmed somehow
Trimmed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are not sure the species in Antarctica belong to Mosasaurus, maybe this section can be trimmed or removed...?
It's never stated that Mosasaurus was specifically doubted to exist in Antarctica in that paper, and the article text cites "incomplete" fossils, which would be a step above the isolated teeth that the Kaikaifilu scientists think warrant doubt. Macrophyseter | talk 14:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the rest does look pretty integral. I think it might be still slightly wordy in places so I will have another read-through. Otherwise comprehensive and interesting. Almost all of what is left is integral so I don't mind it being a bit over 50kb prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be helpful to request a second copyedit at the Guild to minimize verbosity? Macrophyseter | talk 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Macrophyseter: I'll have another lookover now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay looking good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Slate Weasel

edit

Since there's been some talk above about possibly splitting off/relocating/condensing various parts of the article, I'll start my review by going through the description section, as it doesn't seem as though there have been any suggestions to significantly change that.

  • "Mosasaurus was a type of derived mosasaur," - Is there any particular reason why the link isn't limited to just "derived"?
I think it is easier for the reader to grasp when worded as original. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally go for "derived mosasaur" as the linked article doesn't discuss mosasaurs and this technically doesn't change the wording, but I'm ultimately okay if you want to keep it as is, as it's a very minor thing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "elongated tail that ended with a hypocercal downturn that supported a two-lobed fin," - As hypocercal is used to describe caudal fin morphology, can a downturn (as opposed to the fin) be described hypocercal? It might also be good to explain what hypocercal is briefly.
The word "downturn" explains the term anyways, so removed the term. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "would have measured 11 meters (36 ft) or more." -> "would have measured 11 meters (36 ft) long or more."
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dollo estimated that M. lemonnieri grew to around 7 to 10 meters (23 to 33 ft) in length." Is this hypothesized maximum size or the typical size range?
It's unclear; probably typical size range in my guess. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "while in M. lemonnieri it is sharp" -> "while in M. lemonnieri it is pointed" I worry that sharp might imply that it is pointed like a tooth, but it's quite possible that I'm overly concerned about this.
"Sharp" is how the sources says it, but I see where you're coming from. Changed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The disparity is also reflected in the dentary, the lower jawbone.[27] But all species share a dentary that is long and straight." - I think that this might flow more nicely if turned into a single sentence.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The external nostril openings" - A bit of a nitpick, but I'd personally go with "The external nares (nostril openings)" as "external nostril openings" could refer to the actual nostrils themselves
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and nearby bones of other processes" - Should "processes" and "bones" be reversed here?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The neurocranium housed a brain that was narrow and relatively small compared to other mosasaurs. In contrast, the braincase of the mosasaur Plioplatecarpus marshi provided for a brain around twice the size of that in M. hoffmannii despite being only half the length of the latter." - I feel like "in contrast" should instead be "for example" here, as P. marshi having a larger brain than M. hoffmannii supports the statement that the latter had a small brain for its group.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the smallest in the Mosasauridae family" - Perhaps this could be condensed to "is the smallest among mosasaurids"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tympanic ala" - Is it customary to italicize this?
I think some sources italicize certain anatomical terms and some don't. I'll just de-italicize it. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully these comments are helpful! Sorry that some of my above comments may make the prose a bit lengthier. I'll try to review the other half of the description section soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgot to mention this above: "Artist's impression of M. hoffmannii" - I'd change "Artist's impression" to "Life restoration" and link that to Paleoart.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prism-shaped enamel circumference" - While this is explained later in the paragraph, it might be good to try and explain this here briefly, as I found it to be confusing out of context (but to make much more sense when explained).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two opposite cutting edges, and a design specialized for cutting prey." - Perhaps move the mention of a prey-cutting design to an earlier place in the sentence, as "opposite cutting edges" presumably would be part of a design for cutting.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus teeth are considered to be large and robust" - Could "considered to be" be dropped here?
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "The cutting edges of Mosasaurus can be serrated depending on the species." -> "The cutting edges of Mosasaurus teeth can be serrated in some species." Alternatively this sentence could just be dropped entirely, as specifics are discussed immediately afterwards.
Changed to "can differ by species." Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In each jaw row, from front to back, Mosasaurus had: two premaxillary teeth, twelve to sixteen maxillary teeth, and eight to sixteen pterygoid teeth on the upper jaw and fourteen to seventeen dentary teeth on the lower jaw." Since specific counts are given after this, I feel like this sentence could be condensed into "All species of Mosasaurus have two premaxillary teeth.". The order that the teeth appear in could be transferred to the start of the paragraph when it's outlined which bones bear teeth.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "The number of teeth in the maxillary, pterygoid, and dentary positions" -> "The number of teeth on the maxillae, pterygoids, and dentaries"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. hoffmannii had likely up to thirty-two dorsal vertebrae and ten pygal vertebrae" - The footnote states that "The number of caudal vertebrae is not fully certain but at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail and completely unknown in M. hoffmannii." which seems to imply we have no tail vertebrae of M. hoffmannii, so how can we estimate the number of pygals for this species?
It says caudal at the beginning of the sentence. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it seems that I misunderstood that pygals aren't considered to be caudals (it's been a while since I dealt with mosasaurids in detail). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail and completely unknown in M. hoffmannii." -> "at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail while none are known in M. hoffmannii." - Current wording either implies "at least ten vertebrae are completely unknown in M. hoffmannii" or that it's unknown if 10 caudals of M. conodon were present in M. hoffmannii.
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rib cage of Mosasaurus are unusually deep and form" -> "the rib cage of Mosasaurus is unusually deep and forms"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rather than fused together" -> "Rather than being fused together"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which indicates Mosasaurus enjoyed a high range of aquatic adaptation" - Not sure if "enjoyed" is the best word here. Perhaps "possessed" instead?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neutral buoyancy seen in cetaceans" -> "neutral buoyancy as seen in cetaceans"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "of which soft tissue evidence for a two-lobed tail was first reported in 2013" -> "of which soft tissue evidence for a two-lobed tail is known"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centra should probably be glossed.
Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus also has large haemal arches located at the bottom of each caudal vertebra" - I think that this should be "Mosasaurus also has a large haemal arch located at the bottom of each caudal vertebra" but I'm not entirely certain.
It'll stick with the original, as the context I got was: Mosasaurus has many haemal arches in total. Each of them are at the bottom of each vertebrae." Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "twice as long than it is wide" -> "twice as long as it is wide"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five sets of metacarpal and phalanges" -> "Metacarpal" should be pluralized.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That clickable skeletal diagram is great fun and also potentially quite helpful for non-specialists seeking information on anatomical terms!
Thanks! Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through the description, a lot of the comments are pretty minor and grammar-related. I'll try to review another section tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified one or two of my points above, but otherwise, all of the changes look good! I've posted some comments on the paleobiology section below; it's quite a large section, so it may take a few days for me to read through it all. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Much of the knowledge on the musculature and mechanics of the head of Mosasaurus are largely based" - I think that "are" should be changed to "is" here (not totally sure though).
This sentence was removed per another point. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't in paleobiology, but "extant" should probably be linked to extant taxon on its first mention.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the positioning of a prey" -> Can there be "a prey"? I'd change it to either "prey item" or just "prey".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "This rigid but highly shock-absorbent structure of the cranium likely allowed a powerful bite force during prey seizure." - Bit of a nitpick, but "during prey seizure" could be removed as it presumably still had the potential to deliver a powerful bite at other times.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like all mosasaurs, the lower jaws of Mosasaurus were capable of adduction, allowing it to swing forward and backward." - I'm not totally sure if I'm reading this correctly, but wouldn't capability of adduction allow mediolateral movement instead of anteroposterior movement?
Removed the scientific term. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, especially compared to that in M. lemonnieri, the pterygoid teeth in M. hoffmannii" -> "However, especially compared to those in M. lemonnieri, the pterygoid teeth in M. hoffmannii"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14
36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The magnus adductor muscles, one of the muscles" - It's a bit jarring that the term is pluralized but the definition is singular.
Reworded. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paddles' steering function was supported by large muscle attachment" - I think that this should either be "a large muscle attachment" or "large muscle attachments". I wonder if "enabled" might be better than "supported" here, though I'm not totally sure.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pronation" currently links to Pronation of the foot, but since this refers to (presumably) both the forelimbs and hindlimbs, wouldn't just pronation be a better target?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maintained a constant warm-blooded temperature" - I don't think that a temperature can be warm-blooded, perhaps change to "maintained a constant body temperature"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studies on the biochemistry of related endothermic mosasaur genera such as Clidastes" - perhaps specify "potentially endothermic mosasaur genera" here (based on the footnote) or select another genus as an example and move the footnote to the end of the sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "foraging in larger areas" -> "foraging across larger areas"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus had relatively large eye sockets[36] with large sclerotic rings occupying much of the sockets' diameter,[27] which is correlated with eye size" - Are these both correlated with eye size? It's a little unclear right now.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "was described from a fossil by Grigoriev (2016), but the remains are incomplete" -> "was described from an incomplete fossil by Grigoriev (2016)"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rear and middle semicircular canals, which helps control the sense of balance" - Should be "which help"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "a Mosasaurus of ~14 meters (46 ft) in length" -> "a Mosasaurus of about/around/approximately 14 meters (46 ft) in length"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which species is the inner ear fossil from?
Specificed as Mosasaurus sp. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientists believe that larger members of the genus would have been able to handle virtually any animal" - Perhaps "capable of attacking virtually any animal" might be better here?
"handle" is how the sources word it. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Handling animals usually refers to (safely) holding them in humans, which is why this phrasing struck me as odd, but I suppose that we may as well just stick with what the source says. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The relationship between δ13C levels in mosasaurs and their trophic levels are found to be negatively correlated; mosasaurs with lower δ13C values tended to occupy higher trophic levels." - Perhaps the first part of this sentence could be cut, the second part says pretty much the same thing but in a way that's easier to understand.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of other large mosasaurs like Prognathodon, which specialized in robust prey, coexisting with M. missouriensis strongly suggests that the species likely specialized more on prey best consumed using cutting-adapted teeth in an example of niche partitioning." - This feels like information that would belong more in the paleoecology section.
Something like this is also mentioned in Competition, but I also had some here because it was directly relevant to diet. The mention in Competition focuses on evidence of niche partitioning. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph seems to really be jumping to conclusions about what happened to that nautiloid, although if the source states this hypothesis, then there isn't much that can be done about this.
Removed the conclusion jump. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the statement that the former hypothesis was more likely was removed, but that wasn't what I was referring to here. What struck me as odd is that the paragraph makes it seem as though the study didn't consider it possible for Mosasaurus to catch a healthy nautiloid, or that the two mosasaurids were competing instead of cooperating. I unfortunately don't have access to the study, so I can't verify whether or not this is the case. If the study didn't, then there isn't really much that can be done (sometimes studies do do strange things, like estimating the length of Argentinosaurus to the decimeter). Oh, also Argonautilus could perhaps be linked. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about the taxobox: Why is M. lemonnieri in the synonyms list of M. conodon? It's also listed as a valid species, and the article seems to treat it like this.
I was confused about this too, but was told this was the convention so I just shrugged and ran with it. Undoing. Macrophyseter | talk 23:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now M. conodon is listed as a jr. synonym of M. lemonnieri, but since the former has priority, wouldn't this be impossible? Also, the article treats M. conodon as a valid (though possibly incorrectly assigned) species, and it's listed as a valid species immediately above. If the synonymy is debatable, then the name can be marked with a "?" at the end. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm used to a taxon listed as a synonym being that the current valid taxon used to be called whatever the synonym is. So it's not saying that the valid taxon M. conodon is a synonym of M. lemonnieri, but that M. lemmonieri used to be called M. conodon. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we only include jr. synonyms in the synonym list, as we don't list Chuanjiesaurus anaensis as a synonym of Analong chuanjieensis, for example. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some scientists have speculated on the possibility that Mosasaurus may have even occasionally engaged in cannibalism" - If this is the result of one study, then I'd specify who hypothesized it, if instead it's widely accepted, I'd add some more citations to the end.
Specified the source in text. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is likely that Mosasaurus was viviparous (giving live birth) like modern mammals today" - This is a minor quibble, but I'd add "most" in front of "mammals".
Can't forget the platypus! Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Microanatomical studies on bones of juvenile Mosasaurus and related genera have found their bone structures" -> "Microanatomical studies on bones of juvenile Mosasaurus and related genera have found that their bone structures"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the "Intraspecific combat" section might fit as a subsection of "Paleopathology", as the former extensively discusses pathology while the later has multiple mentions of combat.
I do want to have a topic on intraspecific combat as a distinct stand-out like other sections, though, due to the implication of behavior. Perhaps maybe a single section with subsections of intraspecific combat and paleopathology? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, as this topic does cover both behavior and physiology. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "IRSNB R25 preserves a complete fracture near the sixth tooth socket." - What exactly is a "complete fracture"?
Wikilinked. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one has almost fully healed" -> "one had almost fully healed"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an estimated half-liter (0.5 kg) of bone tissue destroyed" - It's somewhat odd that metric volume is converted into metric mass here. I'd recommend providing conversions for both, if this is correct.
Changed to gal conversion. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "which progressed to the point that a large portion of the quadrate" -> "which progressed to the point where a large portion of the quadrate"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have either been habitual deep-divers or repetitive divers" - Don't these mean the same thing?
Elaborated. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agnete Weinreich Carlsen commented that it would be frugal to consider the appearance of such conditions as being due to non-adaptation of the animal's anatomy" - Frugal seems to be a bit of an odd word choice here. I can't tell if it's arguing for or against this being due to a lack of adaptations (since frugal means "sparing", I'm not sure if I should interpret this as "simplest explanation that fits all the evidence" or "too/overly simple").
The original wording used in the source is parsimonious, but I thought it doesn't seem like the context relates to Occam's razor as it then explains adaptations in mosasaurs for handling deep diving, so I ran with the alternative definition of "stingy." The given paragraph is as such:
"It is parsimonious to presume that non-adaptation is the original state and that the animals with disease were deep or repetitive divers without appropriate physiological or behavioural adaptations. Vaughn and Dawson (1956) have described calcified tympanic membranes in Platecarpus, Tylosaurus and Plioplatecarpus. They probably had thick cartilaginous eardrums, filling the external auditory cavity, in place of a simple membrane, for better protection under undue pressure of the water in deep diving. This condition has been interpreted as an adaptation to deep diving by protecting the eardrums from the large ambient pressure and prevented the stapes from being driven forcibly inward during rapid increase in the external pressure (Vaughn and Dawson 1956). Decompression illness seems to have been common in the mosasaurs."
What do you think? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I can't figure out if that paragraph is arguing for or against a lack of adaptation against DCI. If so, then perhaps "commented that it would be frugal to consider" could be changed to "considered it likely that"; if not, then it could be changed to "considered it unlikely that". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, since it's unclear what the author is meaning by "parsimonious" given the context. Maybe simply being literate and saying something like "commented that it would be "parsimonious" to consider" and leave the word up to interpretation? Macrophyseter | talk 20:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the best option. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through the paleobiology section; I've re-addressed a few previous comments above. I'll probably go over either classification or paleoecology next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC) I've added some comments on paleoecology below. I'll try to add some more later today. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Mosasaurus was a transatlantic mosasaur with its fossils having been found in marine deposits on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. These localities include" - I think that this could be shortened, perhaps just "Mosasaurus had a transatlantic distribution, with its fossils having been found in"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geographic terms should be linked on first mention.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multiple oceanic climate zones encompassed the seaways including tropical, subtropical, temperature, and subpolar climates." - I'm pretty sure that there should be a comma after "seaways".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tropical, subtropical, temperature, and subpolar climates" - These climatic zones should probably be linked.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern Tethyan margin was located around the paleolatitudes of 30–40°N, consisting of what is now the European continent, Turkey, and New Jersey." - Perhaps this could be moved down to the next paragraph to match the style of the third paragraph in the Mediterranean Tethys section?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where its occurrences greatly outnumber that of other large mosasaurs" -> "where its occurrences greatly outnumber those of other large mosasaurs"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "found in the European side" -> "found on the European side"
I think the original is better in this context. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Located around what is now Africa, Arabia, the Levant, and Brazil, seabeds bordering the cratons in Africa and Arabia provided vast shallow marine environments." - It feels a bit odd that its specified the seabeds were located near Africa and Arabia twice. Perhaps something like "Seabeds bordering the cratons in Africa and Arabia and extending to the Levant and Brazil provided vast shallow marine environments." could be said.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These environments were also dominated by mosasaurs and marine side-necked turtles." - Not sure if the "also" is needed here, as the environments were just introduced and the pleurodires hadn't been mentioned in the article before.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus coexisted with bony fish such as Xiphactinus, sea turtles like Protostega and plioplatecarpine mosasaurs in North America." - Why not specify the plioplatecarpine genus shown in the image?
The specific genus is Platecarpus which the text implies was among the fauna that went extinct as a result of the turnover that introduced Mosasaurus. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "brought in vast amounts of sediments" -> "brought in vast amounts of sediment"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a period known as the Niobraran Age" - I'd personally prefer "time span" to "period" here as a "period" refers to something else in terms of geologic time. Also, is the Niobraran Age a faunal stage? It might be good to specify this so as to differentiate it from the Campanian (same goes for the Navesinkan).
Specified to faunal stage. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crocodilians such as Deinosuchus;" - Did Deinosuchus actually inhabit the pelagic zone?
Was thinking of a comparison with the saltwater croc, but since it seems like it's not really a preferred habitat, cut. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saw shark Ischyrhiza;" - I'd prefer either "sclerorhynchoid Ischyrhiza" or "sawfish-like Ischyrhiza;" as sclerorhynchoids are not sawsharks
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sea surface temperatures may have dropped below freezing and forming sea ice at times" -> "sea surface temperatures may have dropped below freezing and sea ice may have formed at times"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Other marine reptiles included elasmosaurid plesiosaurs like Aristonectes and another indeterminate elasmosaurid." -> "Other Antarctic marine reptiles included elasmosaurid plesiosaurs like Aristonectes and another indeterminate elasmosaurid."
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These three mosasaurs converged in a diet on on similar animals such as marine reptiles." - Should this be "converged in diet on similar animals"? Alternatively, you could say "These three mosasaurs all preyed on similar animals such as marine reptiles."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was hypothesized that these adaptations reinforced resource partitioning between the two mosasaurs." - "Reinforced" implies that the two species were already ecologically separated, but this is the first time that their ecological relationship is discussed.
Changed to "help maintain" Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "T. bernardi was the only known coexisting animal likely capable of such damage" -> "T. bernardi was the only known coexisting animal likely capable of causing such damage" I'd also add a comma after damage.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "robust projectile-like elongated rostrum" - What exactly does "projectile-like" mean? A projectile could be a missile, an arrow, or even a stone.
Changed to "arrow-like." Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through paleoecology. I'll probably review the extinction section next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: "reducing the number of available habitats for Mosasaurus." -> "reducing the amount of available habitat for Mosasaurus."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event that also wiped out the dinosaurs." - A bit of a minor quibble, but I'd specify non-avian dinosaurs.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in extinction, but it's not actually yet been stated what the extent of the Maastricht Formation is in the article
Mentioned its age in Interspecific competition. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional - "The deposition of the layer itself was likely a tsunamite, alternatively nicknamed the "Cretaceous cocktail deposit", formed as a result of a combination of catastrophic seismic and geological disturbances," - "Cretaceous cocktail deposit", which formed as a result of a combination of catastrophic seismic and geological disturbances,"
I prefer the original. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to starvation from a total loss of prey structure" - I'd just use "prey" instead of "prey structure", or mention the collapse of the food web more directly.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "This does not mean that Mosasaurus and its associated fauna may have survived the K-Pg extinction." -> "This does not mean that Mosasaurus and its associated fauna survived the K-Pg extinction."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does winnowing not count as reworking? Also, the lag deposit article seems to imply that it's an example of winnowing.
The source words the two concepts as different apparently. Clarified a bit in text? Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through the extinction section. I'll probably review classification tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC) I've started to add some comments on classification below. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: "nomenclature rules" -> "nomenclatural rules"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "M. glycys" is a nomen nudum, shouldn't it be put in quotes and not italicized?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Relationships between living squamates remains controversial as scientists still fiercely debate on whether the closest living relatives of mosasaurs are monitor lizards or snakes." - Should this be "Relationships between mosasaurs and living squamates"? "between living squamates" implies that this is only about how to classify modern lizards. Also "remains controversial" -> "remain controversial"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the earliest relevant attempts at an evolutionary study of Mosasaurus was done by Russell (1967)" - I'd change this to "by Russell in 1967" as this is immediately followed by "who"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not address M. maximus being a junior synonym of M. hoffmannii
Must have removed the explanation during spin-off. Added a footnote. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "which is one of the most completely known in the genus" -> "which is one of the most completely known species in the genus"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These problems were addressed in Street (2016), who also performed an updated phylogenetic analysis." - Since Street (2016) is a study, I'd change this to either "These problems were addressed in Street (2016), in which an updated phylogenetic analysis was also performed." or "These problems were addressed by Street in 2016, who also performed an updated phylogenetic analysis."
Changed to "These problems were addressed in Street's 2016 thesis in an updated phylogenetic analysis." Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conrad (2008) uniquely used only M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri in his phylogenetic analysis," - Again, this should be changed to something like "Conrad uniquely used only M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri in his 2008 phylogenetic analysis,"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "This result indicated that M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri are not related by genus." -> "This result indicated that M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri are not in the same genus."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because Street (2016) is not a peer-reviewed publication,[7] it is not cited in Madzia & Cau (2017)." - I don't think that this logic really holds up, as I've seen theses cited in papers before (in fact, this one cites four). Also, I don't know how this couldn't be considered original research if just the paper and thesis are cited, as the thesis came first and if the paper doesn't mention why the thesis isn't cited. Since it's not too uncommon for different studies to recover different topologies, I'd recommend just removing this sentence.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the notice below, I'll try to have my review done by the end of today or tomorrow. Here are my comments on the history section:

  • "The first Mosasaurus fossil known to science was first discovered" - The usage of "first" feels a little repetitive. Perhaps it could be removed at the second instance?
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "that caught the particular attention of" -> "that caught the attention of"
I prefer the original because of the implied notability. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was found by Camper's son Adriaan Gilles Camper and Georges Cuvier by 1808 to belong to a marine lizard" - Perhaps replace "found by" here with something else - since there is quite a bit of text before "to belong to", I initially misinterpretted the meaning of "found" here, which confused me, as the skull had already been found.
Rephrased. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "initially identified it as Ichthyosaurus" -> "initially identified it as a species of Ichthyosaurus"
That was per suggestion by Jens, but done anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rest of the skull had been discovered earlier by a fur-trapper, which eventually came under the possession" - "which" should probably be replaced with "and" here, to better demonstrate that this is about the fossil, not the fur-trapper.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third species was described in 1881 by Edward Drinker Cope from fragmentary fossils in New Jersey, who thought it was a giant species of Clidastes and named it Clidastes conodon." - I'd recommend changing it to "The third species was described in 1881 from fragmentary fossils in New Jersey by Edward Drinker Cope, who thought it was a giant species of Clidastes and named it Clidastes conodon." for better flow.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the term "terrestrial limbs" used in the literature? I think that "limbs suitable for walking" might be a simpler way to phrase this.
Changed to "limbs for walking." Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and misleading interpretations of some phalanges as claws" - Perhaps "incorrect" would be better than "misleading" here? Alternatively, the word could just be removed as it's stated that these interpretations are erroneus immediately afterwards.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "paleoart depictions of Mosasaurus" -> "depictions of Mosasaurus in paleoart"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34 (Witton) is an error message.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are mostly pretty minor. I'll finish up with the lead & taxobox soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Here are my comments on the lead:[reply]

  • Type genus is a rather technical term, perhaps add "defining example" afterwards.
Added. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the late 1700s" - This could refer to the century or the decade, perhaps use "the late 18th century" to be unambiguous?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this task was completed by" - Perhaps "this was done by" as the former kind of makes it sound like Cuvier was obligated to name it (also, as Conybeare named no species, it could technically be argued that Mantell was the one who "completed" it).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Traditional interpretations have estimated the maximum length of Mosasaurus to be up to 17.6 meters (58 ft), making it one of the largest mosasaur genera." - It's a bit odd that this is the only size estimate mentioned in the lead, considering that the size section makes it seem as though the 1:10 ratio for M. hoffmannii is disputed.
That's why it says "traditional interpretations." Also, rereading the sources I probably overblew the suggestion of the extent to which it is disputed, so I changed the text in Size. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "diagnosis of the type specimen" - Can a diagnosis apply to a specimen?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each species was variable with unique anatomical features differentiating them from the robustly-built M. hoffmannii to the slender and serpentine M. lemonnieri." - The way this is phrased suggests that there should be a comma after "them".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Continents that have recovered Mosasaurus fossils" -> "Continents where Mosasaurus fossils have been found"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus was a common large predator in these oceans and a dominant genus" - Don't "common" and "dominant" mean similar things? I know that they don't mean exactly the same thing, but perhaps one (probably the latter) could be dropped for brevity?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still recommend dropping the M. lemonnieri section in the synonyms list in the taxobox.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all that I have! Sorry that this review took so long (it's been about 10 days since I started). This has been an interesting read, and it does a good job covering such a massive topic. I plan on supporting once all of the above comments get addressed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!! Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! There are only two more things I have to comment on (they're both related to comments above, but I'm putting them here just so that they can be found easily. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomina nuda are now written in quotes, but I was also under the impression that they don't get italicized at all. Also, how come they're written with single quotes in the article but with double quotes on the cladogram?
I think it can be either italicized or not. Some published literature italicize nomen ex dissertationae (for example, Tylosaurus saskatchewanensis, which originated from a 2006 thesis, was treated with recognition down to the italicization in the following years before the taxon was formally described in 2018). But I changed double quotations to single quotations. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that it would be good to provide a range of size estimates in the lead, or at least specify that the 17.6m estimate is specifically for M. hoffmannii.
Going with latter. There's also an uncertainty in regards to the size estimate mentioned; I used Lingham-Soliar's estimate despite it being constructed incorrectly because it's nevertheless cited the most in literature, so there's stronger notability. Do you think it would be better to lean more on the other end and change it to the Grigoriev estimate?Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit torn here, I'd usually stick with the most frequently stated estimate, but since the methodology here is flawed, that makes the 17.1m estimate more apealing to me. Perhaps both (i.e. "to be up to 17.1-17.6 meters") could be put in? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But putting a range would imply a low/high range when it's actually a correct/flawed-but-notable one. For now, I'll see how changing to the 17.1 m estimate would work. Macrophyseter | talk 19:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of my above comments have been addressed, I will support. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for three weeks and has attracted quite a bit of attention, but shows no sign of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next few days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can step up the pace. Macrophyseter | talk 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

edit

Going point-by-point and reviewing this version:

  • 1a: "as an attack on Mosasaurus by Tylosaurus has been documented" is an odd formulation for an attack between two prehistoric animals. Also, I don't like these strings of citations such as [37][58][59][60][61][62][63] they are kind of distracting. Things like "However, Russell used a early method of phylogenetics and did not use cladistics, of which the English edition of the work that established it was published just a year prior." and "The head musculature of M. hoffmannii has been studied." are a little awkward.
Fixed most. I think the sentence for musculature is necessary, as it clearly establishes that no other species' musculature has been studied (and saying so in text was considered OR by a reviewer). Also, I don't think it's awkward, as studying muscle tissue in fossils that normally do not preserve such is not immediately obvious to most readers. Macrophyseter | talk 02:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested rewording which might be more palatable: "Several studies have focused on the head musculature of M. hoffmannii". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to a similar wording. Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for the quality of the latter source as a blog by a professional palaeontologist, but I am questioning its relevance (why is the ICZN citation not enough)? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is a newspaper that reports the discovery of details that may help with the precision of the dating of historical events, and the article text makes clear that given details are from a newspaper. Regarding the relevancy of the second source (the author, by the way, has his own Wikipedia article), the ICZN working didn't seem to make it clear that unpublished works are not formally valid (it simply lists what they are), so I was suggested to accompany it with another source that states the general consensus that this is the case. Macrophyseter | talk 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e: Seems to fit.
  • 1f: The "drop random sentences into Google" test shows no problems.
  • 2-4: I think that in its current state, the article strikes the right balance between being small enough and being comprehensive enough.
  • 2a-2b: Fits.
  • 2c: There are some formatting issues, e.g #37 and some citation formats are inconsistent in the way they use or don't use DOIs and identifiers. https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/849723494.html?FMT=AI is broken.
Fixed broken link and format issues. Some of the sources don't have DOIs or other identifiers. Macrophyseter | talk 02:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That only leaves the access-dates for some cite web things; some have them and some don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were published in 1845 and 1834, so they should long be in the public domain for both the United States and Germany. I can try to fish out the original publications if there's still doubt. Macrophyseter | talk 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader of these, yes, the most recent one is PD US, and the older, German one is from 1834, so I think it's safe to say there's no chance the creator survived until 70 years ago. But would probably good to add the original sources to the file pages, yes, and if there is more on the artists. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the other way around: the 1834 is American and the 1845 part is German. Both original authors, Richard Harlan and Georg August Goldfuss, died in 1843 and 1848 respectively, so it's over 150 years ago. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, even then, I doubt an artist working in 1845 was alive 70 years ago, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • 62: Can't access the source but looks reliable.
A lot of the sources are scientific papers that are normally locked up behind paywalls. Unless the authors uploaded them on Researchgate or elsewhere, there's really no way to provide public access to them without the use of a little bit of civil disobedience. However, anyone with access to these sources should be able to verify. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34: 1852 does not appear in the source? I am not so sure that the source supports the claim that the mosasaur reconstruction was wrong even by the standards of the time.
Added another source that connects 1852. The Witton source explains how the reconstruction contradicts the contemporaneous understandings as established by Goldfuss. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11: Where does it say that Clidastes conodon was reidentified as mosasaurus or that the number of caudal vertebrae is unknown? Lack of pagination makes it hard to verify the claims.
I checked the source myself and the two statements are supported by (1) the start of Systematic palaeontology (synonyms list) and (2) Table 4. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the synonymy list as Lythronaxargestes said, but I can now see how it's not obvious to most. I added the original source that did the reidentification for support. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 93: Why does Tethys not appear in the source?
Added another citation as support. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 89: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: Is a thesis a good source? And it takes forever to load.
Sometimes yes. In fact, scientists sometimes use some theses as legitimate sources in published papers. Also, it took over 10 minutes for me to load that document, but once you download it it opens a lot quicker. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 103: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15: Where does it say it's about a whale?
It uses an old terminology that refers to the sperm whale. Added a source that makes that connection. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 95: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 98: It supports part of the claims.
It's there to support the previous two sources. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 108: A few genera are supported by this source.
Source 101 supports the rest. To multi-cite the sentence for each genus would be overciting IMO. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 115: OK.
  • 43: Where does it refer to the species as missouriensis?
It's in the supplementary data, which is in the same paywall situation as the other sources. Source 46 supports the proof that such a source exists. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 44: Where does it refer to the species as missouriensis?
In table 1. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 91: OK.
  • 73: Liodon is not mentioned.
It's mentioned as Leiodon, which is an old spelling. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119: OK.
  • 31: OK.
  • 48: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it a pass, but on AGF basis since I can't access a rather large amount of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be a point of contention: Jo-Jo Eumerus, how would one cite the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature? Is the appropriate template {{cite web}}, {{cite act}}, or {{cite book}}? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would use cite web. Not cite book because it's not really a book, nor cite act because it's not a law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected it myself (but Macrophyseter - feel free to change as you see fit). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks for that edit! Macrophyseter | talk 16:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Then would you be fine with considering your part concluded? This is so I can figure out the next course of action now that everyone else has finalized their decisions. Macrophyseter | talk 19:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

I did both a thorough peer-review and the GAN review with FAC in mind, so here's my formal support to buy it a bit more time for other reviewer improvements. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit
  • 23 sentences start with "However," which seems excessive.
Reduced the "however" count. Macrophyseter | talk 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientists have expressed the likelihood that" seems a little clumsy. Perhaps rephrase to flow better?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with significant separation damage of the bone's head from the rest of the bone". I struggle to understand this. One can have 'with significant separation of the bone's head from the rest of the bone' or 'with significant damage to the bone's head from the rest of the bone', but I am not sure that the current wording makes sense.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 163 usages of "that". One word in every 60 in the article is "that". Including cases of 11 uses in 280 words and 7 in 130. Many are redundant, or could/should be replaced with which, or rephrased out.
Reduced "that" count. Macrophyseter | talk 16:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cut it to 110, and with this edit I reduced it to 76. Which is still a lot, but just about acceptable. Let me know if you strongly object to any of these edits or deletions. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Macrophyseter | talk 00:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Any additional comments? Macrophyseter | talk 16:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. All good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then do you think it's ready to promote? Macrophyseter | talk 18:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I do. I would have done it yesterday but I wanted to give you the chance to object to any of my copy editing. I have just got in after a busy day, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 17 July 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) 19 July 2021 [69].

Ur-Quan

edit
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the main antagonist from Star Control II. This article is on the short side as the character is from the pre-internet era: not only before journalists had any deep analysis of a game's story, but arguably before any game character had enough depth to analyze. But there are enough later reviewers who remember this character as a sort of historic turning point, inspiring a later generation of game developers. I focused the weight of the article on the biggest real-world impact, rather than an exhaustive look of plot details, and feel confident it still meets our comprehensiveness requirements. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47

edit
Resolved comments
  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image and the images used in the article itself.
  • I am not familiar with Star Control so apologies if this is obvious. Is there a reason for using a screenshot from a fangame as opposed to one from the official games?
  • This part, an intelligent race of giant predatory caterpillars, leaders of a hierarchy of battle thralls, reads a little awkwardly since it is two separate descriptions tied together by a comma.
  • As someone who has never played (or really heard of these games), I am not really sure what this part, a traumatic past that lead them to fiercely seek their own security, from the lead means. Could you clarify this for me?
  • For this part, The Ur-Quan's military doctrine becomes a subject of intense internal conflict, could it be phrased instead as The Ur-Quan's military doctrine leads to intense internal conflict or something similar? The current wording seems a little off to me.
  • For this part, In Star Control 3, developed by a different team, I believe it should be which was developed instead.
  • I was somewhat confused by this part, they ally with the player against a different antagonist and their role is scaled back, as there is really no context about the player or overarching story behind these games. Would it be possible to add something brief (like a single sentence) to clarify how these aliens fit into the player's story?
  • I am uncertain about the use of modern in this part, and has influenced other modern space games, per MOS:CURRENT. Could it be possible to either clarify the time period or provide examples of these games (or possible both)?
  • For this part, they are praised for their surprising depth and humanity, I would clarify in the prose who is doing the praising. I am assuming that it is critics, but it would be nice to be specific.
  • I am not entirely sure "Background" is the best name for the section as it seems to more so focus on the characters' roles in the game. Something like "Appearances" would seem more accurate to the section's content to me.
  • I am confused about this sentence: Their biological origins are similar to solitary predators such as the praying mantis, who are naturally limited in their social behaviors. Is this mantis comparison made in the context of the game? If not, then I would move it down to the "Concept and creation" part as this section seems to be more focused on their roles in the game.
  • I think genetic engineering could be wikilinked.
  • For either of these two points, Prior to the events of the games and Much later, the Ur-Quan led a successful slave revolt, could you provide a more exact time frame as it is very vague.
  • Why is Hierarchy capitalized? Is it a proper noun in the context of this game?
  • After reading this part, Star Control II begins following the war from the first game, I was left wondering what this war was. I would provide more context to readers who know nothing about this game.
  • I was confused by this part, the Ur-Quan join an alliance with the player, as the article does not establish who the player is and their relationship in regards to the Ur-Quan.

These are my comment so far. My main concern is the article does not provide background on Star Control and reads like it was written for a reader already familiar with the game. Since I never heard of these games, I was honestly somewhat lost with the story. I will look through the rest of the article once the above comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those questions were really useful to help me find the right balance of information. The prior version tried to err on less, since I've seen lots of FA's fail due to WP:UNDUE weight on fictional details. But I tried to really clarify some of the plot details, splitting the "Description" section into a "Background" and "Appearances" subsection. I believe this should help distinguish between the characters' backstory, and the events of the game, with context as to what the games are about.
I used the re-written "Description" section to improve the lead, along with some of your other suggestions. I added Alt Text for the images. As an aside, the open source version is maintained by fans, but it's officially authorized by the developers as a faithful reproduction. The image avoids any copyright issues by pulling from the original game, and should be mostly indistinguishable.
Ready for more feedback when you have it. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for addressing my comments. I will resume my review sometime tomorrow. I agree that it is best to brief with background context, and you have added the right to me (at least from my perspective). I have just one quick comment below, and just for clarity, my review will primarily focus on the prose:
  • I have a comment for this part, Besides their menacing and threatening persona, journalists have praised them for their surprising depth and humanity., in the lead. I do not think it is grammatically correct as the beginning phrase is tied to the noun of the next phrase so it reads like you are saying journalists having this menacing and threatening persona, which is obviously not the intention so I would reword this part to avoid this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go back to this sentence: Their biological lineage is compared to solitary predators such as the praying mantis, who are naturally limited in their social behaviors. Is this comparison made in the game itself? If so, then I would attribute who makes the comparison, and if not, I would move it down to the "Concept and creation" section and attribute who makes this comparison. I look at the "Description" section as being entirely in-universe so that is why I am approach it this way. Also, mantis is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked on its first instance.
  • For this part, Reiche describes their character creation process, I believe it should be in past tense.
  • The first paragraph of the "Concept and creation" uses this sentence construction, which led, twice. This is super minor and admittedly quite nitpick-y, but I would change one of those two instance to avoid repetition as it was something that caught my eye while reading this section.
  • I do not think antagonist needs a wikilink as it seems like a universally understood concept. With that being said, I think a wikilink for synthesizer would be helpful as I can see some readers hearing the term but not fully knowing what is referencing.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would identify the The A.V. Club reviewer in the first sentence with this source. Naming the publication in the first sentence and then the reviewer's name in the second sentence seems unnecessarily confusing as I can see a reader thinking they are too separate things and not understanding who William Hughes is.
  • The "Reception" section as a whole seems rather inconsistent with critics' names. Sometimes they are said in the prose while other times they are not. I would be consistent with one approach or another.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, I am not sure the full GameSpot quote is needed. The way it is currently used seems a little off to me, especially since it repeats Ur-Quan a few times in the same sentence. I think the quote could be used in a better way, as it is a good one.
  • I'd be careful with how many times Ur-Quan is repeated. For instance, the Rock, Paper, Shotgun has three times and it makes the prose quite repetitive and not as engaging as it could be.

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I am still going through that part of the article and I will try to get through that tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, especially when I introduced a new grammatical error that makes it sound like the journalists have a menacing persona. SMH. Things should be more clear and less repetitive now.
The only edit I'm struggling with is the part about their biological evolution, which is presented in the game as an accepted fact. My original phrasing was "Their biological origins are similar to solitary predators..." and I based on your feedback I changed it to "Their biological lineage is compared to solitary predators..." and now I could write "Character X, Y, and Z have stated that their biological lineage is similar to solitary predators..." I do want to improve the clarity, but I think I'm starting to get too pedantic. If you feel that the "Description" section is already implied to be in-universe, then I suspect we can simplify this a lot. What's the simplest way to present their biological evolution as an in-universe fact? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification about this. Since the game presents it as an "accepted fact", then the current wording should be fine. I was more uncertain if this was an observation made by a specific character or group, but the current wording is a better representation of how it is just a fact presented to the player as part of the world/story. Apologies for taking a while with this review, and thank you for your patience. The article looks to be in very good shape right now, but I want to read through it one more time to see if I have missed anything so I will post anything further by tomorrow. I hope you had a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. It is important to remember that we are all volunteers here. I do have a tendency to forget that and it is important to know how to manage time on here. I have not gotten to re-read the article again today, but it is on my list for tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in the "Reception" section should be in past tense. Here are some instances where things are in present tense (mentions the Ur-Quan for their role in one of the best video game endings and Laidlaw has praised the Ur-Quan). There are a few other instances of this so I would look through the entire section and change it to past tense as critics' reviews should be done in the past tense.
  • I would be careful about using "also" too much as it is mostly a filler word.
  • I would be careful with things like Echoing these rankings and This mirrored as it implies a strong connection between citations. For instance, I do not imagine that Hardcore Gaming 101 is deliberately "echoing these rankings" so I would be careful about implying connections between citations/reviewers that may not be entirely true.
  • The Hardcore Gaming 101 sentence in the first paragraph is missing a closing quotation mark.
  • The AllGame quote is very long, and I do not think it is encouraged to quote that amount of text from a citation. I would instead paraphrase and use the quote more sparingly.

After my above comments are completed, I believe I should be ready to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again. I tried to incorporate all your suggestions. It's a thin line between a filler word and a transition, so I tried to vary the transitions to maintain the flow. I've also tried to be accurate: Hardcore Gaming 101 indeed says "the Ur-Quan are rightfully ranked among gaming’s greatest villains" in the context of their own praise. So I went with a more direct quote about the rankings, even though it's a tricky trade-off. I'm not crazy about excessive quotes, but they help readers to see what reviewers have actually said, and avoid confusion about whether they are reading a Wikipedia editor's opinion, or even a misquote. I did shorten some other quotes as you suggested. Either way, I hope I'm moving things in the right direction. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will conduct soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some consistency issues here - sometimes authors are listed as Last, First other times as First Last. This should be consistent.
  • DeMaria 2018 needs page numbers
  • For Barton 2016 you have the page range as " pp. 203–", you seem to be missing the second page.
  • Escapist is listed as situational at WP:VGRS, although this may be due to a time frame when they exercised little oversight in '17 and '18; would Escapist's early (2006) work be considered high-quality RS?
  • What makes 1MoreCastle high-quality RS?
  • "Red Bull also highlighted the importance of the Ur-Quan in creating the classic game world of Star Control II.[33]" - Unsure why the opinion of an energy drink manufacturer would really be WP:DUE for an article about a video game character, unless Red Bull has dabblings into video games I'm not aware of.
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_153#Reliable_source_check - suggests that PikiGeek is at least somewhat reliable, but does it meet the higher "high-quality RS" standard?
  • Sainsbury 2015 needs page numbers.
  • Suggest adding links to CRC Press and No Starch Press, as applicable

Conducted searches in several places and databases and found no indication that there is sizeable scholarly literature that has been omitted.

Will do the spot checks for source-text integrity and copyright at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ur-Quan/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! For the sources, I fixed the first/last formatting, the page numbers, and the links to publishers. As for the quality of the sources themselves:
  • The Escapist piece is written by Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak, who is considered an expert in the industry. The piece focuses on interview material with the developers. It for sure isn't the volunteer-written material we need to be cautious of.
  • The Red Bull piece is written by Stuart Houghton, who is a journalist at Kotaku[70], Gizmodo[71], and the New Statesman[72]. I can understand how seeing "RedBull" could be odd at first glance, but they have robust involvement with games now.[73] It warrants a mention, which is the appropriate WP:WEIGHT.
  • I removed the 1MoreCastle reference. There's some evidence of editorial review, but it's less than clear.
  • I see no issue with the Chris Ullery piece for Pikimal. Ullery is a journalist for the Intelligencer[74] and the Bucks County Courier Times[75] (both published by Gannett). Pikimal is defunct, but had full-time editorial review.[76]
Hopefully that covers the sources. I was pretty careful and focused more on quality than quantity. Thanks for the spot check too, and let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations for quality sound good, passing on the source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • I just want to make sure I understand the explanation above re: the lead image. The design elements present in this image are indistinguishable from the original game? How would this avoid copyright issues - did the authorization to produce the game include license to release the graphics as CC? (The link from the image description that may explain this is not working). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the image, and yes, the images have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Here's an archived link to the open source project's FAQ. (A really inconvenient time for the site to be down.) Let me know if you have any other questions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if the images from the original game have been released CC, why not include images from the original game? And if the images from the original game have not been released CC, how could the images from the fan game which are visually indistinguishable have been licensed in that way? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is meant by the term "authorized"? Does it encompass release of intellectual rights, or no? Or was their participation to the extent to make that a moot point? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means their involvement has been extensive, yeah. It was their idea to release the game as open source. They worked with the open source community to do it, so it's a combination of the original creators and the wider community. They licensed the code and content on a free, perpetual non-commercial license. And when the project was finally made available, they published the licensing info that I linked above. The creators also made their stance clear in public that (direct quote) "our policy has been to let people do whatever they want, as long as they don’t turn our characters into mass murderers or make money with it." I didn't upload the image but it looks like the CC licensing information in the image is correct. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

edit

Having looked through the article, I don't see any major issues. The image problems are likely to be tackled above, many of the prose issues were corrected above, and the sources seem solid. A few points caught my attention;

  • You mention Red Bull. It is the drink specifically commenting on this, or the company? Not clear from the simple link.
  • Several of the citation sources, such as The Escapist and Ars Technica have articles, yet are not linked in citations.
  • Surprised this doesn't seem to have been raised, but there seems to be an overuse of quotes in the Reception section. While some quotes are understandable and necessary, having a quote in every sentence is clunky to read. Perhaps take a third of the quotes and paraphrase, and that would make the section flow better.
  • Perhaps include citations in image captions with statements, but I don't think this is compulsory.

Shooterwalker, other than that, it seems like a solid article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Went with most of your suggestions. Took out a few quotes – this came up in the GA review and I fixed it a bunch, but I took out a couple more for good measure. Thanks for the review and hopefully it's on its way to FA quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: With the alterations, I think this is okay now. I'll give this a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit
  • "Star Control series" I think it's worth adding "video game" here.
  • Do we really need to link Earth?
  • "During Star Control II,.." is that the "sequel" mentioned in the previous sentence? I'd link it there. If not, what was the sequel?
  • "into an civil war over" a civil war.
  • "unique ships in " are these spaceships?
  • "naturally limited in their social behaviors" what does this mean? Isn't every species?
  • Is that the best caterpillar image on all of Commons? I struggled to make it out.
  • utter -> complete?
  • "the 22nd Century" century
  • I don't think we need to link common words like human.
  • "planet Earth imprisoned" likewise.
  • "Star Control creators Paul..." image captions which are fragments don't take a full stop.
  • When using possessive apostrophe for an italicised word, use the {{'s}} template.
  • "saw a National Geographic image" should be italics.
  • Date formats should be consistent in the references.
  • Refs 23 and 25 work are erroneously formatted.

That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the input. I addressed all your comments. Only exception was the image, which I chose as the one that most resembled the character design in the game. The refs should be properly formatted, and the phrasing fixed, with fewer superfluous links. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

edit

Placeholder, coming here from the urgents list. Will review. Looks good so far. Vaticidalprophet 17:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only minor notes:

  • 4th greatest game villains should be presented as "fourth" per MOS:NUMERAL.
  • Kurt Kalata approved of the game for adding the Ur-Quan to the player's alliance, but lamented their otherwise minimal role. Game magazine Pelit made a similar criticism, that the third game was left lacking a threat as memorable as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah. These wordings are somewhat odd. I particularly wonder if the latter source offers any opportunity to expand here, rather than just give us a rather abrupt and choppy sentence.
  • Non-Anglophone refs should use the lang= parameter in CS1.

Vaticidalprophet 17:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Made some quick fixes and glad it looks basically good. The part about their minor role in Star Control 3 was previously described a direct quote:
  • (from the source) "For as menacing as the Ur-Quan were in Star Control II, and how cool it is that they’re on your side in this game, they barely do anything here." -> summarized as: "Kurt Kalata approved of the game for adding the Ur-Quan to the player's alliance, but lamented their otherwise minimal role."
  • (from the source, via google translate) "Legend seems to be exhausted in the middle. The game lacks the Threat: in the second game, everything bad happened over time, and in the end, the kohr-ahs killed everyone else if the player just sat on their thumb. Now is (apparently) all the time in the world, and when the enemy just sits at home, it does shake the motivation." -> summarized as: "Game magazine Pelit made a similar criticism, that the third game was left lacking a threat as memorable as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah"
They really are brief mentions for a character demoted to a minor role. There isn't much to expand on, but I'm open to a rephrase if it would make some part of it more clear. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there isn't meaningful expansion potential, then the problem is probably in the phrasing. It's difficult to describe exactly, but it's somewhat choppy, especially the final sentence. The second source does seem to offer the opportunity for a somewhat broader statement than currently given, as it appears to be complaining about a general weakness in the antagonists of that game which the Ur-Quan play into by no longer being antagonists. Vaticidalprophet 18:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Let me try rephrasing it to be a little less choppy:
  • Before: Star Control 3 was developed and written by a different team. Kurt Kalata approved of the game for adding the Ur-Quan to the player's alliance, but lamented their otherwise minimal role. Game magazine Pelit made a similar criticism, that the third game was left lacking a threat as memorable as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah.
  • After: Star Control 3 was developed and written by a different team. Kurt Kalata felt that the game failed to give the Ur-Quan a meaningful role, though he praised their transformation into an ally. Similarly, Pelit commented that Star Control 3 lacked an enemy as compelling as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah.
Doing my best to stay on topic and hit the real point, as this article is really about the Ur-Quan, and not about Star Control 3's new antagonist. Once we can find a suitable wording, I can re-add it to the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds fine :) Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and added it. Thanks again for the review and hope that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support happily. Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 13 July 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.

Lede
Prose
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) 13:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: The review is greatly appreciated. I think I was able to address all the comments, without overriding some of the concerns from previous reviewers. I'm trying not to get too pedantic while still making it clear that their history is fictional. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only outstanding bit I have is that the lede says that the Ur-Quan helped design the games for Stelaris and Mass Effect. I think that's a bit too generous. Star Fox did this, rather than these characters. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski: Reading it again, I can see how it's overstated. I re-wrote it so it's clear that the character inspired other similar concepts in those games (the reapers, the battle thralls, the slave shield), rather than making it sound like the entire games were inspired by one character. Hope that's clearer now. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check-in from nominator

edit

Eager to wrap this one up and work on more featured articles. That said, I am also patient with this process. The article now has the support of multiple reviewers, including a source and image review. I count 6 or 7 supports (depending on whether the image review is supportive or neutral), with zero opposition after 7 weeks. Looking for some feedback from a coordinator when they have time. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Try {{@FAC}} to attract our attention. There does indeed seem to be a consensus. Promoting.
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) 18 July 2021 [77].

Rockstar San Diego

edit
Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the video game developer Rockstar San Diego, formerly known as Angel Studios. Rockstar San Diego is one of the best-known Rockstar Games studios and has produced highly acclaimed games, such as Red Dead Redemption (2010). It has a 35-plus-year history beginning as a work-fore-hire animation studio, turning into a video game studio, and being acquired by Rockstar Games. I originally wrote this article gradually as a learning exercise starting in October 2017; it became a GA in November 2019. Having exhausted all immediately available sources, I want to take on FA as the next step. Credit goes to the GOCE members Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978, GA reviewer Spy-cicle, peer reviewers Panini!, Rhain and SandyGeorgia, and FA mentor PresN. IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I participated at the Wikipedia:Peer review/Rockstar San Diego/archive1, and will watchlist to go through after independent editors have been through. I am have been extremely busy IRL, and have not yet had time to check whether my prose concerns were addressed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I hope it is not rude to ping for this but I wanted to know whether you have been able to check for these issues. Inbetween the PR and now, there has been a GOCE batch, manual copyedits, and requested edits seen below. Of course, I'd gladly accept further suggestions to improve the article. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini!

edit

Participated in the peer review but didn't say much.

Infobox
  • Similar edits at Paper Mario with this one; you can cut "Rockstar San Diego's" because its what the article is about.
  • I'd also find a way to cut out one of the two instances of "Rockstar Games". It can be a mouthful.
Lead
  • "... and a studio of Rockstar Games that is based in Carlsbad, California." The "that is" can be cut to remove the repitition of is.
  • I'd link computer animation
  • "It began with a focus of..." I'd change "It" to "the company"; it refers to Angel prior and it seems like you are calling him a thing.
Early years (1984–1993)
  • (also spelled Diego Ángel) would work better as a hatnote. I'm an anti-paranthesis person because they look unproffessional if used excessively in my eyes, so there could be other instances where hatnotes could work better too.
  • "... Angel's wife invested in Angel Studios and Angel secured a bank loan." Although I'm a Christian, there's too much Angel here. I'd change the second instance to "the company".
  • Refer to Hunt and Limber by their full names in their first appearances ("Hunt became the company's chief technology officer and Limber was its chief operating officer..." and then later "Brad Hunt and Michael Limber were among the founding partners.")
  • "...which meant he would not accept any offer that came his way..." I would change "any" to "every" because it currently sounds like, "They didn't do any work, but they did work."
Entry into video games (1993–2000)
  • "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for Silicon Graphics'..." Repetitive, -> "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's..."
  • "... as a partner for the upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, which ultimately became the Nintendo 64." -> "...as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64."

Beyond this point, I got distracted in reading, which in my eyes means you did a very good job.

Miscellanious
  • I don't believe stating "the founder of Angel Studios" in the quote box is necessary.
  • Not necessary, but any "See also"'s?
  • Are refs 7 and 8 the same?

Panini!🥪 13:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Panini!:, should be all done. Refs 7 and 8 are separate parts of the same story (appearing on different pages, so I had to clip them individually). I see no viable see-alsos that are not already linked within the article (Rockstar North, Red Dead, and so forth would have been good fits). Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shooterwalker

edit
Lead
  • Can drop "The" from Columbian entrepreneur. (Columbian-American?)
  • "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s; its first video game projects were Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996), for which the company created cutscenes." -> "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s, creating cutscenes for Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996)."
  • I know you mention Angel Studios in brackets right away, but it might add clarity to name the studio in context. For example, "founded the company as Angel Studios", or "As Angel Studios, the company began..." That way it would be less jarring when you start calling it Angel Studios later, and you could easily just call it "the company" or "the studio".
  • "Angel Studios fully developed games in association with" -> "The company developed its first full games by working with..." or "They soon began developing full games with..."
  • Also consider putting the cutscene sentence next to the full game sentence, changing the paragraph structure for better context.
  • Is there a clearer word than "housed"?
Early years
  • Consider naming "early years" to include something to do with art / animation, just as the second heading mentions video games.
  • Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? If so, was he investing in his own studio? If it wasn't money, maybe there is a better word.
  • "receive a job" -> "find a paying client"
  • For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year...
  • "was films and music videos" --> "was for films and music videos"
  • "The studio was most successful with" --> "The studio's biggest successes came in 1992, with"
  • "adaptation of its scenes for the movie" --> "adaptation of its scenes from the movie"
  • "It further produced" --> "The studio further produced"
  • "The agency Spear/Hall & Associates was contracted to handle marketing services for Angel Studios" --> "They also contracted the agency Spear/Hall & Associates to handle their marketing services." (passive voice to active voice)
Entry into video games
  • "Angel Studios cooperated with the technology company Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's high-end computers and receive some of the computers in exchange." -> "Angel Studios collaborated on technology demos for Silicon Graphics computers, in exchange for high-end computers of their own."
  • "He requested an appointment with the company the following day and three days later signed it as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64" -> "He met with the company the next day and signed an agreement just three days later, making them a partner for their upcoming console."
  • "The studio shifted its focus to the video game industry and in February 1995, it was announced as joining Nintendo's "Dream Team", a group of third-party companies that would develop games for the Nintendo Ultra 64" -> "The studio shifted its focus to video game development, and Nintendo announced them as one of the studios on their "Dream Team" for the Nintendo 64."
  • "Angel stated he decided to stop seeking projects in fields in which the company had already succeeded if the field involved a "high-risk, capital-intensive business", even if it offered rich potential" -> "Around this time, Angel consciously steered the studio away from "high-risk, capital-intensive" projects, even if they offered rich potential."
  • "Annunziata was pleased with the result and invited" -> "Pleased with the result, Annunziata invited"
  • "As part of the Dream Team" -> "As part of Nintendo's "Dream Team""
  • "Still in conjunction with Nintendo, Angel Studios worked with video game designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a Nintendo 64 vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie" -> "Angel Studios continued their work for the Nintendo 64, collaborating with designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie"
  • "For the first meeting with Miyamoto, Angel and some designers spent 45 days creating a "design bible", which Miyamoto rejected upon confrontation, asking the team to spend the next three months working on the game technology and to "find the fun"." -> "Angel Studios spent 45 days creating a "design bible" for their first meeting with Miyamoto, but he rejected it and asked them to "find the fun" over the next three months."
  • "The company fit a game taking up two compact discs for the PlayStation version onto one Nintendo 64 cartridge, which had less than 10% of the original data storage" -> "The studio condensed the game's data to less than 10% of its original size, fitting the original version's two compact discs onto a single Nintendo 64 cartridge".
  • If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired.
  • "The Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98 exhibited Angel Studios' film Oceania, which was described as a "virtual journey", throughout 1998" -> "The studio's film Oceania was exhibited at the Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98"
  • "The June 1998 opening of the first DisneyQuest interactive theme park in Orlando, Florida, debuted Virtual Jungle Cruise, an adventure ride to which the studio had contributed"
  • "The studio also contributed to an adventure ride called Virtual Jungle Cruise, which debuted at the June 1998 opening of the DisneyQuest interactive theme park."
  • "He decided his employees should work on their own and find their own ways to produce a full-fledged video game, a policy that was considered a major factor for the product's quality. Some workers developed a sense of ownership of their respective parts" -> "He encouraged his employees to work independently and take ownership over the game's different parts, and this policy was considered a major factor in the game's quality."
  • "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend known as XGirl. The game was planned as a launch title for Microsoft's Xbox console but was canceled" -> "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend. The game was planned as an Xbox launch title called Xgirl, but was cancelled."
Other notes
  • At the end of the article, you have a list of games, but Oceania is described as a film. You should decide whether you want to include the studio's video work (e.g.: Lawnmower Man, Peter Gabriel), or just focus the list on games. Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue.
  • I haven't checked any sources for accuracy. On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that.
  • I'll come back for the last couple sections. On the whole the article is quite good, and don't let the notes detract from what's clearly on its way to FA. Great work so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Thank you so much! The issues should be addressed now. Some direct responses:
  • (Columbian-American?) – Sources describe him as Colombian. I don't think that he has US citizenship.
  • Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? – The source only says "invested". To avoid unclarity, I removed that part instead.
  • For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year... – This must have been 1986-ish but the source unfortunately does not provide a year.
  • If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired. – This is never explicitly stated in the sources; the news just stopped after the acquisition and the game never came out. It is know that there were some shake-ups at Graphix Zone shortly after the purchase.
  • Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue. – Good catch. I removed Oceania, though I believe the first two games are fine as they are proper games with Angel Studios providing additional work, even if that additional work was art and not code.
  • On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that. – The 2018 controversy centered around Rockstar Games more broadly, rather than R*SD alone. The Kotaku feature briefly mentions R*SD briefly in connection with this. I will look into adding some of these details soon. Red Dead Redemption 2#Controversies covers this comparably.
Lastly, I was taught to generally use 'it' for companies instead of 'they', which you use. Do you know whether this is MoS'd in any way? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to overstate the "it" thing, since the grammar is up for dispute, and this is a situation where I choose style over grammar. Grammatically speaking, a company is a singular genderless proper noun, so "it" is grammatically correct. But "they" is also grammatically correct, because "they" can also be singular and genderless. The spirit of "it" is to refer to an inanimate object, where the spirit of a "they" is to refer to an intelligent entity, which is why I prefer "they". People don't like "they" because they see it as ambiguously plural or singular, but in its ambiguity, it's fine to use it for singular. TLDR: I prefer "the studio", "the team", "the company" because it's clearer, and my distaste for "it" is really a matter of style. If someone with stronger feelings on it comes along, you should listen to them.
  • "companies' combined expertise" -> "company's expertise" (not multiple companies?)
  • "which was owned by" -> "a licensed game for"
  • could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name?
  • "Development of the sequel, which was titled Oni 2: Death & Taxes, was eventually halted" -> "However, Oni 2: Death & Taxes was cancelled during development."
  • "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to. The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse." -> "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer. When he didn't respond, Rockstar then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse, and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted."
  • Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? Becoming Rock Star San Diego is a big turning point, and it will also prime the reader to stop thinking of them as Angel, and start thinking of them as a subsidiary under the Rockstar brand.
  • "Angel Studios began work on the game in 2000, while Capcom oversaw it, funded it, and announced it in March 2002" -> These are probably separate thoughts, and should be separated into two sentences.
  • Maybe make it clearer that Rockstar bought the rights from Capcom, and not just abstractly.
  • "a stealth game with an open world" -> "an open world stealth game"
  • "The development team leadership, led by producer Luis Gigliotti, was inherited from the studio's Transworld Surf (2001)." -> This might be a little unclear as to how the leadership transferred, let alone why it's important. Comparing the teams between games might not be that important.
  • "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? If it was after launch, does it make sense to place this sentence later, after launch?
  • "In both cases, police detained artists; the situation in Washington, D.C., was quickly resolved in but the one in Cairo took significantly more time. After both teams returned with their photographs, the development continued. " -> "When police detained the artists in both Washington and Cairo, the situation was eventually resolved. But Cairo took significantly more time, and development continued once both photography teams had returned."
  • "RAGE remains in development and is used in" -> the tense here is a little jarring, though I get that you're speaking to something that will persist for a long time. Maybe "RAGE would go on to be used..."?
  • "Since the acquisition, Angel had been working"... -> "Founder and CEO Diego Angel had been working..." (more important to remind folks that the founder is leaving than to explain the timing since the acquisition)
  • "The Houser brothers tried to persuade him to stay" -> add a comma for flow
  • "settle in Colombia" -> "return to Colombia"
  • "In Medellín, Angel created game development opportunities that ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area." -> "In Medellín, Angel tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area."
  • "by January 2006" -> can probably drop this as it's implied, considering it follows on December 2005.
In the home stretch here. Take a stab at those and we can hopefully wrap up in the next day or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Re:
  • (not multiple companies?) – This refers to Angel Studios and Rockstar Games, each with expertise on their own. I changed "the companies'" to "their" for hopefully better clarity.
  • could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name? – I chose to keep the full name because both "Rockstar"s are mentioned frequently, making confusion between the two somewhat possible. I hope this does not pose too much of an issue.
  • Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? – Not sure whether an additional header is the best choice here as the section is mostly about how the acquisition came to and what happened immediately thereafter. Only the first paragraph does not strictly tie into this, though it discusses how the relationship between Rockstar Games and Angel Studios built up. Should I move that to the previous section? I could also rename the section something like "Acquisition and transition to Rockstar San Diego" to make it more obvious what it is about.
  • "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? – This refers to any launch, not a specific game. As in, after each release, all staff would get two or so weeks off, which Rockstar Games scrapped. I'm not sure where to put this but I moved it up to the actual acquisition.
Thanks again! IceWelder [✉] 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vacation part is now clearer, so that helps. The other stuff seems more clear now too. Do consider adding another heading, as it's one of the strongest and most helpful cues for the reader. I don't think there's any harm in breaking the acquisition out into its own section, as that section is already five paragraphs as is. But I wouldn't insist and you should take your cues from other reviewers when they come along.
  • This is a style thing, but I find "controversy" to always be vague and euphemistic. "Labor issues and Red Dead Redemption" would be shorter and clearer.
  • "Former Rockstar San Diego 3D artists Terri-Kim Chuckry and Garrett Flynn filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and over one hundred other ex-employees against the company on August 26, 2006, over unpaid overtime compensation." -> "By 2006, two former Rockstar San Diego artists filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of over one hundred ex-employees, claiming unpaid overtime compensation." (The timing is a good way to start the section, and we can be less wordy since the actual names of the claimants aren't as important in a class action.)
  • Add "Even after the settlement, the wives", for better flow and context...
  • The Rockstar quote is one where I think it's important to state it in their own words, rather than paraphrase, for readers to have the most accurate sense of their response. "...saddened if any former members of any studio did not find their time here enjoyable or creatively fulfilling..." is a good place to start.
  • "; other key employees" -> a hard stop "." would be better here.
  • "Take-Two Interactive's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, named it one of the company's strategic permanent franchises" -> considering the last sentence, it feels like you could improve the context and flow here too. Even as simple as "Speaking to investors, Take-Two's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, announced that the game would become one the company's strategic permanent franchises."
  • For the 2011 section, I think the timing is a little confusing that you jump from 2011 to 2018 in the first sentence, then jump back. I might move this sentence to later, closer to the release, or at least split this sentence into separate thoughts.
  • The second sentence about two games would probably be appropriate to separate into two separate thoughts too.
  • Without any context, the part about hiring for an untitled open world project feels kind of meaningless. I'd drop it, or find a way to make it more relevant, either explaining what happened to the project, or dropping the project to focus on the simple fact that the company was growing (which you could connect to them leasing a massive office space).
  • "Martin left Rockstar San Diego in July 2019; he joined the Chinese conglomerate Tencent in December that year and opened a studio called "LightSpeed LA" for the company in July 2020." -> "In 2019, Martin left Rockstar San Diego to join Chinese conglomerate Tencent, opening a subsidiary studio called "LightSpeed LA" the following year."
  • This last section is well written, but feels short. Not in the sense that it's one paragraph, but in the sense that it lists a lot of projects and doesn't really give much context about how they turned out, or their significance to the studio.
  • The N/A in the tables isn't the worst thing, but it feels like the theme park would be as much of a platform as a console. Would make the table feel more complete.
The article was already in good shape and it's already in better shape. Keep it up. You're very close IMO. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[78]. I think the lawsuit filers are somewhat relevant, even in a class action, and one of their names appears again in the case name, which I would like to retain at least for flow. I reordered the last section to make for the order of collaborations->expansion->collaborations->departure, chronologically for the most part. I also expanded it with a bit on the over-hours controversy you noted earlier. I'm not sure whether GameWorks and DisneyQuest fit into the platforms column as they were merely the place where the games were used; the underlying systems were not disclosed. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks to all your revisions. The prose is on the whole better and clearer. I'm hoping that other editors will take a closer look at the references, so I suppose my support is conditional on that. There's a few outstanding questions, like how much to expand the last section, or how to include the VR games in the table. But let's see what other editors say, since the article otherwise meets the FA criteria, from what I can tell. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Spy-cicle

edit

Did a pretty thorough GA review a while ago, and glad to see it is making its way to FAC (also great to see a free image of Angel). Not sure if I'll have time to do a full review, but here are some intial comments.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • he company as Angel Studios in January 1984 after studying film in Chicago, where he grew fond of computer animation. The company... Maybe change the second use of the company to business/firm to avoid repetition, especially as sentence are back to back. This also goes somewhat for the body sometimes if you can repleace with studio/developer/it/firm, etc slightly more engaging and less repetitive
  • Is it worth linking to "Kiss That Frog" to album it is from (Us (Peter Gabriel album))
  • In the infobox "RAGE Technology Group" surely this should be spelled out in full "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group" since RAGE is not a common acronym
  • "and continued with commercials for Nintendo, Polaroid Corporation, Asiana Airlines, and Cobra Golf, among others" So was the "educational video" a commerical as well? Continued makes it seems as if is but it is not clear or when they started doing commericals. Slightly awkward wording unless I'm missing something
    @Spy-cicle: Thank you! I fixed the duplication, linked the song (now a redirect to the album), and slightly reworded the commercials bit. Regarding the RAGE Technology Group, the division is known in full by that name (cf., for example, the Grand Theft Auto V credits). I am not aware of a source that refers to it as "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group". Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay I understand thank you for clarifying the bit about RAGE Technology Group, I might be able to leave some more comments if I get enough time.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay should have some more time now, ping me in two weeks if I have not done a full review by then. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything more from you Spy-cicle? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Rose: Thanks for the ping I have a couple of comments but it is pretty well in good shape in my view.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done another scan through and few copyedits. The only two comments I can suggest now are:

  • Could possible add an explanation (possibly in an efn) that the Agent project San Diego worked on is not be confused with other one Agent (developed by Rockstar North). Polygon ref looks good to use
  • Could possibly replace a number of instance of "Rockstar San Diego" in the body with "firm/company/studio" to avoid repetition.

That is pretty well all I have to suggest. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I added a short sentence on Rockstar North's Agent and removed some instances of "Rockstar San Diego". It now appears, on average, 1.5 times per paragraph. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks, I have added an efn in the game section to avoid confusion have added a link. Happy now to Support, good job on this. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Hi @Nikkimaria, I adjusted the "Purpose of use" field to more refer to Angel Studios. Does this suffice? Related to this, does a non-free former logo run afoul of the NFCC? Or is this logo in particular PD-ineligible as simple text and shapes (of US origin)? I would remove the image in the former case and move it Commons in the latter. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's always going to be a bit of a judgment call. In my opinion the answer to both of the latter questions is no, but others may disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not see anything wrong with using the the logo as it stands, but I am not an image expert.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I did. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The images did not change much; I amended the rationale of the Angel Studios logo as mentioned above and uploaded a new version of that image that fixed some compression artifacts. If another image review is required, I'd be happy to have one. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

edit

While I am somewhat familiar with this studio, and I have played their Red Dead Redemption games, I am not too familiar with its history or structure. Please consider me a non-expert.

  • "The company soon began developing full" perhaps "The company developed full"
  • "with the studio's work on Midtown Madness and approached Angel Studios with a long-term partnership in 1999," Perhaps "an offered them a long-term partnership in 1999"
  • "Angel Studios was acquired by Rockstar Games' parent company Take-Two Interactive in November 2002 and became part of Rockstar Games as Rockstar San Diego." Lots of the word "Rockstar" in this sentence. Perhaps, "Angel Studios was acquired by Rockstar Games' parent company Take-Two Interactive in November 2002 and became Rockstar San Diego." I think their name implies they became part of the Rockstar group.
  • " Red Dead Redemption (2010), and the expansion pack Undead Nightmare" -> "and its expansion pack"?
  • "Within a few days, he met with the company" Within a few days of what? I actually don't think that phrase is needed and could be deleted.
  • "considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to." -> "and did not respond." or "and did not respond to it."
  • "The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse. When he did not respond, Rockstar presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted." Is the repetition intentional, and there were three offers, or was the first sentence supposed to be deleted?
  • "leading to crunch at the studio." -> "leading to a crunch"?
  • "When police detained artists is both locations, Why were they detained?
  • "In Medellín, he tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area. He also opened a restaurant in the city with his daughter Carmen and her husband." I think this is off-topic for an article about the studio, and instead belongs in an article about Angel.
  • Is there any information on what the company is currently working on? Anything about the company's history in 2020/2021?

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Within a few days of what? – Takeda inquired Angel Studios' details from SGI, met with the company the next day, and signed an agreement three days thereafter. Over time, this context was reduced to "Within a few days", which I have now struck. Should I reinstate it with the full context?
  • Is the repetition intentional – Good catch! That is indeed a leftover from a previous copyedit and should be fixed now.
  • "leading to a crunch"? – I'm not sure whether this an English language quirk but I always understood that "crunch" in this context is uncountable. I believe the relevant section at Video game developer#"Crunch time" (particularly the sixth paragraph) uses it in the same way. Is this wrong?
  • I think crunch is a singular noun referring to an uncountable unit of time, which is why I think the word "a" should be before the word. I would compare this to the word drive in "going on a drive". Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were they detained? – The source implies that they were detained merely for taking pictures. How would you phrase this? "When police detained artists for their work in both locations, ..."?
  • I think this is off-topic for an article about the studio – I removed the portion about the restaurant but feel like the game development one should remain as a way to show what Angel made of his experience at Rockstar San Diego. Would you agree?
  • Anything about the company's history in 2020/2021? – Not that I know of. Rockstar Games has a high level of secrecy, though, so this is not surprising.
IceWelder [✉] 07:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's understandable, many game companies like to control the messaging and production in their studio. If this article is promoted, I suggest that you continue to monitor news outlets and publications for news on the company to keep the information updated. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Sorry for the late response. I added an example for the development opportunities (in this case, a master's program) and fixed the other two issues.[79] Regards, IceWelder [✉] 06:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I can support.

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive links are not needed for GBooks, and generally the publication dates provided by that site are overprecise
  • FN24: what's the specific article being cited here?
  • FN23 has a misformatted page, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source in this context?
  • What makes Siliconera a high-quality reliable source? Gamers' Republic? VG247?
  • FN47: is there no independent source for this claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:
  • Archive links are not needed for GBooks – Would it be an issue to keep them in? I like to have as much archived as possible, even if it is just meta information on Google Books.
  • FN24: what's the specific article being cited here? – I cannot tell since I do not own the issue in question and can only view the snippet found via the Google Books search, which contains some of the credits for the film The Swan Princess. If this poses a problem, I would not mind removing it entirely.
  • I reduced Google Books' dates to years and changed Starlog's "pp." to "p.".
  • Siliconera and VG247 are covered by WP:VG/RS's list of reliable sources. The Gamers' Republic website was part of an eponymous magazine published by Hearst Communications and edited by Dave Halverson, both generally considered reliable (the other two Halverson-edited publications (GameFan, Play) also appear on WP:VG/RS's list).
  • What was the editorial policy of that magazine?
  • I cannot immediately find the policy in the printed magazines (via Archive.org) and most of the former website is inaccessible due to the shutdown of Flash. I would assume its reliability based on Halverson heading it. I could put it before the WikiProject if required. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed the discussions linked from VG/RS regarding Siliconera, and am not convinced it qualifies as generally reliable - the determination seems to have been situational instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN47: is there no independent source for this claim? – Not that I know of.
Regards, IceWelder [✉] 00:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Siliconera and Gamers' Republic are now listed at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Based on the initial discussion for the prior, I have removed both uses of Siliconera from the article. IceWelder [✉] 19:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine; waiting on conclusion in discussion around a couple of the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the current stage, it appears that Siliconera and Gamers' Republic will be classified as borderline-reliable and reliable, respectively. Of course, Siliconera has already been removed. Do you want to give the usage of Gamers' Republic an interim reassessment or do you want to wait for the discussion to be formally closed? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IceWelder, does this address the last of the source review comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Gog the Mild. Yes, the reliability of Gamers' Republic is the last outstanding question in this source review (and, at the moment, the last of the FAC). I think the ongoing discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Gamers' Republic is already reflective of its outcome but I'm waiting for a formal reply from a reviewer on this matter. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 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.

Lede
Prose
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) 14:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you for your comments! See individual replies above. I will likely QPQ after my current exams. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. I realise there is some outstanding things others have brought up above, but in terms of prose, I have no issues Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all other points (aside from the separately ongoing reliability review for Gamers' Republic) have been addressed or discussed. Could you clarify which points you see as outstanding? There might have been a miscommunication on my part. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:27, 11 July 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) 17 July 2021 [80].

Zombie Nightmare

edit
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a voodoo priestess resurrecting a baseball player to get revenge on the people who ran him over. Set in Canada. Starring Adam West.

This Canadian jaunt is yet another article about a film that ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and personally surprised me with how much information I was able to find about this. But I am prepared for the criticism this nomination might bring. But I do think this has what it takes to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Comments from JM

edit

This looks fun!

  • "and was originally intended to be a black-centric film before changing the characters to have whiter names to appease investors" How about "The film was originally written to start mostly black actors [if that's what is being claimed] but, at the request of investors, the characters' names were changed to more typically white names, and white actors were hired." Or something. I find the current wording a bit off.
  • "mother Louise mourns for him" Do you mourn for someone, or just mourn them?
  • Is Blood Sisters worth a link? Don't be scared of redlinks! (Ditto the bands mentioned in the soundtrack section.)
    • Not really on the movie. But the bands I can wiki-link.
  • "for eating all the craft services" What does this mean?
  • I'm getting a few hits on Google Books/Google Scholar, but nothing (I don't think) that absolutely has to go in. And nothing of any interest showing up on Netflix. Maybe there'd be more sources buried deep in forgotten magazines, but I don't know how much there is written about this one!

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Andrzejbanas

edit
  • "Zombie Nightmare was a commercial success despite negative reviews". Probably shouldn't say "despite" here, as that implies that the financial success of the film defies any negative critical reaction. I may note too that despite comparisons between budget and gross, we don't have any statment that says it was a financial success as budget may be the cost of the film, it does not take into consideration how much other factors of it may have caused. So you might just want to state something a bit more specific and less interpretive like "The film grossed a total of ____ againa a ____ budget" and let users piece what that means themselves.
    • Changed.
  • Similar to the above, where its stated "Wrestler Superstar Billy Graham was originally cast to play Tony's father. However, on the day he arrived in Montreal, no one came to pick him up at the airport and Graham left after waiting ten hours. Fasano took up the role." You can probably drop the "However" as its a bit jarring to read a statement, assume its true then read a "however" which sort of puts into the readers mind what's happening was not true at all.
  • The music section in the article is so small that I would not give it its own headline.
  • The Deep Red Magazine link goes to FantaCo Enterprises, but there is no information on the magazine here, so i would remove the link.
  • I'd try to split the contemporary reviews between the retrospective ones (i.e: the initial release give or take a year over the retrospective ones). Otherwise its not clear how the film was received on its release compared to later reception.
  • The Kerrang" article doesn't state "Best" it just says "13 Kickass Horror Soundtracks To Amplify Your Halloween". Kerrang! is an ok source for things but this is a cheap listicle that doesn't really provide much critical commentary and just sort of arbitrarily lists halloween playlists for people. It might be better to get the more critical meat of the article like how it says the soundtrack is better than the film itself.
  • The DVDTalk article does not state that the DVD was released in 2010, that's just when the review is posted.
  • A brief description of what the Turkey Day marathon would be helpful otherwise i don't know what the film screening on that session has in any context.
  • The Bloody Digusting film should specify the genre your mentioning (i.e: it's talking about rock-music themed horror films, not just zombie films as the identified genre in the lead.

That's all for now! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey, sorry for the slow response.
  • The lead should cover some information about the production. I know there isn't much, but even the basics on how it was filmed in Canada, some casting, etc. Whatever you feel is important as the lead should cover the major parts of the article, and one of the major parts is the production.
  • You can remove the red links to bands that probably will not be getting any wiki articles any time soon.
  • This will probably sound picky, but my own pet peeve is assuming an all encompassing reception to a film from the few we've gathered. There is no ratio that collects whether it was recieved poorly or not (i.e: no metacritic / rotten tomatoes or historian covering these bits and pieces). So I don't really like say things like "The film received negative reviews from contemporary and retrospective yadda yadda yadda". I'd remove it unless you have a source with suggests the general reception. (For the record, I don't doubt it recieved bad reviews, but we should have something that backs up that statement other than our own original research).
  • The part of the Voodoo in Film book probably should focus on the criticism of the film rather than how it uses voodoo in context as that seems to be a pretty minor element that's not really expanded on here.
Other than that, I don't have much more to add. once these things are addressed i can look it over one more time. Otherwise, i'd say it's good. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I give my support for FA. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

edit

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit

I have actually not seen this film or the MST3K episode about it so hopefully, I will be able to offer a different perspective. My comments are below:

  • I do not think "Canadian" needs to be linked in the lead. I see where you were going with the Cinema of Canada link, but I think it is unnecessary as I do not believe any other film FA links nationality in this way.
  • In the lead, I would link "Haitian voodoo" to the Haitian Vodou article. I would also link "priestess" to be consistent with the link in the plot summary.
  • I have two comments for this part, The film was shot in the suburbs of Montreal, Canada, the film was originally written to start mostly black actors but. I believe the comma after Canada is supposed to be a period as these seem like two separate sentences. I would also avoid having two separate sentences begin with "The film".
  • For this part in the plot summary, Now a voodoo priestess, I would clarify that it is Haitian Voodoo as without that, it looks like it could be referring to other voodoo topics.
  • I would be consistent with using either a character's first or last name in the plot summary after their first mention. For instance, you use Tony and Churchman. Since a good portion of these characters do not have last names, I would go by first names.
  • In the "Cast" list, is there a reason Captain is not fully spelled out? Was it done that way in the film credits?
  • For the Adam West image, I would revise the caption to include the year that it was taken.
  • For this part, Wanting to direct a horror film, Jack Bravman, I think it may be worthwhile to add a link for horror film.
  • For the first sentence of the "Production" section, I would avoid repeating "horror film" twice.
  • Do we know what budget the original script received from investors (or did they just flat-out refuse to do the film with black characters and actors)?
  • I have a question about this part, Adam West, who portrayed Batman in the 1960s television series. How is West's work as Batman relevant to this article or to the film? I understand that West is best known for his performance as Batman, but it seems rather tangential to me.
  • The "Critical reception" sub-section seems rather short, but I am assuming this means that this film just did not receive a lot of reviews. That would not be surprisingly given the low budget, its direct-to-video status, and its general obscurity, but I just wanted to confirm this with you.
  • Were there any reviews of the MST3K episode about this film?
  • Have you checked out the following source, Historicising Racialised Objects of Horror: From the Black Renaissance Villain to the Voodoo Doer? It is behind a paywall so I cannot say for sure if it has anything, but it may be useful.
    • This is what the piece had to say about the movie: "Ratgirl thus sees a missed opportunity in both these films for the conventional early 20th century script and the type to be rewritten and hence the subgenre of voodoo horror and the black stereotype to be changed from within in the 1980s. Could this have happened in the 1980s? Are there examples of this type of reworking of the subgenre and the type? In fact, there are. In Jack Bravman’s 1986 film Zombie Nightmare there is a voodoo priest who resurrects the character Jon Mikl Lohr (Tony Washington) who has been run over by white teenagers. Jon is given a new lease on life as a zombie and the power to hunt and kill those who have killed him. It is still a horror movie and the ethics are debatable but the point here is that the voodoo priest is not the villain of the piece but instead provides a means of retribution for the victim."
    • "Yet, a critical examination quickly reveals that Manuska Rigaud (Molly Mokembe) is not a priest but a priestess. It is the female voodoo doer who has been changed in Zombie Nightmare rather than the male type." GamerPro64 00:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another potential useful source, The Migrant Monsters of Multiculturalism in Andrew Currie’s Fido. It is behind a paywall, but it has more information about the original script. It talks about how the film was originally "a retribution narrative in which a black teenager returns from the dead to exact revenge on the privileged white hoodlums responsible for his death". It uses the 2004 Vatnsdal citation that is already used in the article so maybe that information is also in there? I think this information is relevant as it adds more background on the original intention for the film.
    • Let me try to get access to these two as I never seen these sources before. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me know how it goes. I am uncertain about the first one, but from my very (and I mean very) limited preview, it seemed somewhat promising. I think the second one would be helpful as it provides a little more context on the original vision of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what this source says about the movie: "In addition, Zombie Nightmare (1986) was originally written as a retribution narrative in which a black teenager returns from the dead to exact revenge on the privileged white hoodlums responsible for his death (Vatnsdal, 2004)." GamerPro64 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage you to archive your web citations (like citation 17) to avoid any future issues.
  • I would clarify in the ProQuest citations that a subscription is needed to access the information.
  • Citation 17 has Allmovie when it should be AllMovie.
  • Citation 28 has Popmatters when it should be PopMatters.
  • Citation 4 has Newspapes.com when it should be Newspapers.com.
  • Why is Den of Geek not linked in Citation 26? I have the same question for Montreal Gazette in Citation 16 and Newspapers.com in Citations 5 and 24.
  • Why do you not include a link for the Newspapers.com citations? I would think it would benefit the reader more to include a link (or ideally a clipping) so they can verify the information for themselves or read the original source.

Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article again just to make sure I can do a thorough review. I hope you have a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the responses so far. I will look through the article again sometime this weekend. Let me know how things go with the two sources I recommended above. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the quotes. The first source is interesting, but not necessary for the article. I'd still add information from the second source. The "retribution narrative" aspect provides more context for the original script because it shows the initial concept had a more direct message on race and this informs the original casting choices. I think without this, readers might think Fasano just wanted to cast black actors and that it did not have a significant connection with the story. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review. Everything looks good now so I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

edit

Looking mostly at the prose. It's in pretty good shape and only needs a few tweaks.

  • The opening sentence is a little long and might be worth splitting, but I would defer to other editors if no one else has raised any issues.
  • "directed a majority" -> "directed the majority"
  • "and the production crew, believed him" -> "and the production crew, who believed him"
  • Drop the "during a Thanksgiving marathon hosted by West" for succinctness. (Or perhaps there's a way to work it in better: "Adam West hosted an episode of Mystery Science Theatre ...")
  • "Years later, after disrupting an attempted robbery at a grocery store, William's son Tony, now a baseball player, is struck and killed by a car full of teenagers: Bob, Amy, Jim, Peter, and Susie." -> "Years later, William's son Tony grows up to also become a baseball player. After Tony disrupts an attempted robbery at a grocery store, he is struck and killed by a car full of teenagers: Bob, Amy, Jim, Peter, and Susie." (burying the subject "Tony" makes this sentence hard to understand)
  • "Sending Sorrell home to rest, Churchman contacts Jim's father Fred and informs him of Molly's involvement in Jim's death, then tells him to come to the police station. Fred tries to do so but encounters Tony outside his house and is killed." -> "After sending Sorrell home to rest, Churchman calls Jim's father Fred and informs him of Molly's involvement in Jim's death. Fred tries to meet Churchman at the police station, but is killed by Tony on his way."
  • "Knowing that they will be targeted next," --> "Believing that they will be targeted next,"
  • "After destroying the zombie he shoots and kills Molly while she casts a spell. Before he is able to shoot Sorrell for being a witness, a second zombie rises out of a nearby grave and drags Churchman into the ground while Churchman pleads for Sorrell to kill him." -> "Molly tries to cast a spell, but is shot and killed by Churchman, who then turns to kill Sorrell as the only surviving witness. However, a second zombie rises out of a nearby grave and drags Churchman into the ground while Churchman pleads for Sorrell to kill him."
  • "Wanting to direct a horror film, Jack Bravman, who had worked in the adult entertainment industry, contacted John Fasano after hearing about his work on Blood Sisters." -> "Director Jack Bravman wanted to transition from adult films to horror, and contacted John Fasano after hearing about his work on Blood Sisters."
  • "wrote up the white sounding names" --> "typed the white-sounding names onto a page"
  • "which caused filming to move to" --> "so the filming moved to"
  • "; a childhood friend of Fasano, Frank Dietz, played fellow cop Frank Sorrell" -> "Fellow cop Frank Sorrell was played by Frank Dietz, a childhood friend of Fasano."
  • "Worldwide, the film grossed C$1.5 million" -> "the film grossed C$1.5 million worldwide" or "the film grossed C$1.5 million across all [markets/territories]"
  • "Fangoria was positive on" -> "Fangoria had praise for"
  • "While recommending the movie for the soundtrack," -> "However," (you already mention praise for the soundtrack)
  • "the film was horrible but was so "deliciously goofy"" -- drop the second "was"
  • There might be some undue weight on the Mystery Science Theatre section. It could probably be trimmed down to one paragraph. At a minimum, I'd cut the list of titles in the box set, which seem to be basically unrelated.

I think the article is close overall, without taking a closer look at the sources or citations. Let's see where we stand after the suggested revisions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was originally written to start mostly black actors but, at the request of investors, the characters' names were changed to more typically white names, and white actors were hired" - this is only partly supported by the text, is there a source that provides this detail?
  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • What makes DVD Verdict a high-quality reliable source? Mandatory? Midnight Marquee Press?
  • Hi GamerPro64, I was about to ping Nikkimaria to see if all of her concerns had been addressed, but it is unlikely that she is going to sign off on a source review when the nominator admits that a source doesn't meet one of the FAC criterion - "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Can I suggest that you resolve the DVD Verdict issue and ping her yourself? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I removed the DVD Verdict source and replaced it with Fangoria for another piece of information. GamerPro64 20:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: GamerPro64 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Midnight Marquee? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that too. GamerPro64 00:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What source now supports runtime? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllMovie. GamerPro64 02:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a response (you do) you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 17 July 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) 17 July 2021 [81].

Cai Lun

edit
Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He invented paper, but you've never heard of him? Well don't worry, most people outside of East Asia haven't—and he didn't "invent" paper exactly, but his improvements were so pivotal that he is credited with the invention, at least in its modern form. Not only this, but he certainly had an interesting (albeit mostly unknown) life, full of palace intrigue. This article has been a project of mine for a little over a year, and I've dug deep to find sufficient sourcing. I primarily rely on two authorities on the subject: Tsien Tsuen-hsuin and Rafe de Crespigny; de Crespigny even kindly gave me valuable feedback via email on the article's state. Thanks to PericlesofAthens, Wehwalt and White whirlwind for their invaluable suggestions; Nlu for providing various translations; and Tenryuu for his first-class copy editing. And of course, thanks in advance to any who are able to review. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Will consider doing so, though it may be tomorrow
  • File:刘炟.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Cai_Lun_with_Donchō_and_Mochizuki_Seibee_(Minobu_Museum_of_History_and_Folklore).jpg
    • Added PD-1996 to both
  • File:Making_Paper.gif needs a source and a US tag
    • Added source & PD-1996
  • File:Hunan_International_Economics_University23.jpg: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Freedom_of_panorama suggests there may be some complications around using images like this
    • Hmm the issue is that there's no author/creator given, but I'd be surprised if the artist's name was even recorded anywhere.
    • How old is the statue? If we can show it's PD, there is no issue, but if there's still copyright then there are issues. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cai-lun.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added new source and PD-1996
    • @Nikkimaria: I added some tags that I think cover the issues. Only thing I'm un-sure about is the Hunan_International_Economics_University23 situation, if you could offer further insight. Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria beat me to it, but I also found

Drive-by comment

edit

Wouldn't it be easier for the reader to follow if this gif[82] instead used the multiple image template to show them all at once in the right order? Right now it is pretty annoying that each image is only displayed at a very limited interval. You can see what I mean in for example the quagga article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
I'm making a number of hands-on edits as we go. Feel free to revert or change any you do not like.
No need, all looks great Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might cut back on the number of parentheticals, translations, etc in the lede. It's a bit distracting and makesita bit hard to read.
  • Removed all the parenthesis except one—tried to incorporate the Chinese titles into the text, hopefully that helps
  • In the lede, you say Song was An's grandmother; in the body you say mother. Also, the lede says there was a false rumor Cai intended to harm An, this isn't backed up in the body.
  • Good catch, changed to grandmother for both
  • When multiple refs are used, they aren't in numerical order at present. Is there a reason why they aren't?
  • No reason, I actually meant to bundle them so have done so now. They should all be good; for the dagger refs I've kept them after the normal ones regardless as they're primary sources and thus different numbering, if that makes sense.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, all addressed I believe. Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

I struggled to take everything in on first read-through, but that was mainly because of my complete unfamiliarity with the subject, and at a second perusal I found the article clear, easy to follow and very readable. A few passing comments:

  • "into which Han Chinese had immigrated to..." – one preposition too many.
    • Indeed, changed to "where Han Chinese had immigrated for"
  • "chamberlain for the royal family" – is it OK to use "royal" and "imperial" interchangeably? (Being more at home in 19th-century French history I know one didn't refer to Emperor Napoleon III's family as "royal", but perhaps it was different in China in Cai's time.)
    • My feeling is that scholars have their own preferences, but to your point this is the only time I use "royal" in the article, so I've changed to "imperial"
  • "with the intention of instilling him as heir" – unexpected verb – not sure how one instils an heir.
    • Oops, yes, changed to "installing", but suggestions welcome
  • I found the constantly changing images in the third illustration a bit distracting, but one gets used to them, and I suppose they're harmless enough. A slightly longer gap between images would be less dizzying.
(Afterthought: it was ungracious of me not to say that it is a clever way of getting all the images in, but it is and I now do.)
  • Thanks! But yes, FunkMonk has just pointed this out above as well—I largely agree, though my attempts at slowing it down myself were unsuccessful. I've inquired at the technical pump to see if others can assist.
  • The Chinese printed above the Hòu Hànshū translation is presumably the original Chinese of the same text, but it isn't absolutely clear that this is so, and in any case I wonder what is gained by having the original reproduced in the main text. It's not usual to have extensive quotations in both original and translation in the body of an article, and I don't find it helpful.
    • Removed, it's already in a note there anyways
  • "to report to the Ministry of Justice in order to answer the charges" – there are those who get aerated about "in order to" and insist it must be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but you could indeed lose two words here without affecting the meaning.
    • Good catch, changed to your suggestion
  • "In his 1978 book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, author Michael H. Hart…" – as you tell us it's his book do you need then tell us that Hart is the author? (I say nothing about the false title, here or elsewhere, as the article is in AmE.)
    • Certainly not—changed. On the false title, in this case I believe the "The" is actually apart of the book's title, if I understand the situation correctly
      • No, what I was glancing at is the AmE habit (distressing to fastidious users of the Queen's English) of using the tabloidese false title ("a comment by tiresome pedant Tim Riley") in formal English. In good BrE prose that would be "the tiresome pedant...". But as the article is in AmE the false title is something up with which we shall have to put. Tim riley talk 23:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Deification and remembrance section "it fell into ruin again and had to be restored" strikes a slightly editorial note. It didn't have to be restored, surely, although it was?
    • Indeed, changed
  • I take the sources on trust, obviously, but they look authoritative to my layman's eye.
  • As far as I can remember I haven't seen a FA in which authorlinks were repeated in the Bibliography section – Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin linked three times, for instance – but again, there's no harm in it.
    • Usually I wouldn't do such a thing, but my logic here is that in using those sfn refs—(your favorite approach, I'm sure :)—the reader might hover over the Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin 2011 ref in the text to get to the link, but yes I'm not really committed to one way or another. Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few comments and quibbles. I'll look in again and, I'm confident, add my support. Tim riley talk 14:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, your comments are most appreciated and valuable! Thank you for taking the time; I believe I've addressed everything, save for the gif (which I am still trying to figure out how to slow down) and the authorlinks, which I gave my (rather weak) explanation for above. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support promotion to FA. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my opinion. Tim riley talk 23:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Tim, also, the gif should be working smoothly now. Aza24 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I would encourage you to add ALT text to all the images used in the article (i.e. the one in the infobox and the four in the body of the article).
    • Done, though I'm not sure how well I did them
  • When referencing the marquis title, I would link to the Marquess article as it does a part about its case with ancient China. I think this would be helpful to readers who are unfamiliar with this.
    • Linked
  • For this part, the compass, gunpowder, papermaking and printing, I think the printing link could be counted as an Easter egg as I was expecting the link to go to an article on printing not necessarily the history. This part is in both the lead and the body of the article.
    • Ooo yes, good catch—switched to just the standard printing article
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance. In the body of the article, the word eunuch is first referenced in this quote, Cai Lun was, after all, a palace eunuch, from the "Sources" section so I believe the link should be moved up to this instance. With that being said, I have seen mixed messages about linking items in quotes. I personally do it, but I have run into editors who prefer to not do this. What is your opinion about this?
    • Hmm I didn't do the second link on purpose, so linking the first time makes sense—now done
  • In this translation, Attendent at the Yellow Gates, is attendant purposefully misspelled?
    • No! Fixed
  • Would it be beneficial to link concubine to either the Chinese concubinage redirect or the Concubinage in China article? It may be excessive, but I just wanted to ask as it was something that crossed my mind while reading the article.
  • I am uncertain if this part, As a eunuch-only position, he, is grammatically correct as it is literally describing him as a "eunuch-only position". Maybe something along the lines of While in a eunuch-only position, he would be better?
    • Good point, have changed to more or less your wording ("While in this eunuch-only position")
  • I have a question about this part, he is mostly unknown outside of East Asia from the lead. He was mentioned in a 2007 Time issue and got a crater named after him by the International Astronomical Union so there is at least some international recognition. I agree that he is lesser known internationally than in East Asia, but I am uncertain if "mostly unknown" is the right word choice. Is there a source/part of the article that supports?
    • My initial thought is that the assertion remains accurate—I double checked with what Hart said about it, and he seemed fairly adamant on Cai's unrecognizability. To be honest, I have no idea how I found that Time article and the moon crater is not as unusual when one considers there are both over 9000 craters and a tradition of naming them after scientists/explorers :) Happy to discuss further though. Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. Since the unrecognizability can be supported by a citation, it works me for me. And you are correct that there are just so many craters (and other things) that get named after people and that does not necessarily reflect on their popularity and recongnizability. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. It is great to see more diversity in the FAC space. I am only focusing on the prose. My only knowledge of East Asia and its history comes from Japanese language courses, and that does not help me here at all lol. The article was very engaging and compelling and even though I know very little about Chinese history, I very much enjoyed reading this and learning at least a little more. I would be more than happy to support once my relatively minor notes are addressed. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Aoba47 and apologies on my late responses. Your comments have definitely resulted in many improvements—I believe I've addressed everything. Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could help. And no need to apologize. I support this article for promotion. It would be great to see something like this as a FA. I hope you have a great rest of your week and start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Be consistent about how you reference material. Forex all of your early cites use abbreviations for the title, but are listed in the bibliography under their authors. #12 has a similar issue.
    • This is because they're more like compilers than authors—I've now clarified this and ordered them by Chinese names in the bibliography
  • Spell out abbreviations like DH or HHS so a reader doesn't have to hover over them to know what they refer to.
    • Done
  • Standardize on putting translated names of authors and titles first so readers can find them without using the hyperlinks
  • Tsien 1962 and Yardley need to have their titles put in title case
    • Done
  • Provide translations for Shou qi
    • Done
  • Spotchecks made on sourcing
  • The ISBN for Blake doesn't match what's on WorldCat; other ISBNs spotchecked--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed—fixed
Thanks @Sturmvogel 66:—everything is addressed I believe Aza24 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still a few issues remaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Sturmvogel 66, I've ordered the early citations by titles and put the names of the English authors first. Aza24 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sturmvogel 66, where are we on this? Aza24 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Horsesizedduck

edit

I have made a tiny adjustment of commas, and spotted some odd sentences I'd like to improve. I find the article to be of high-quality, and support it for FA.Horsesizedduck (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Horsesizedduck! Aza24 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the general opinions regarding the GIF? I've noticed the discussion around it, but found that the alternatives weren't considered for long: what would a multiple image template look like here? Would it perhaps take too much space? Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too much space for an article which is otherwise not huge. It used to be way faster but I've slowed it down to around five seconds per image, which I think works nicely now. Aza24 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 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 July 2021 [83].

Robert Roberts (author)

edit
Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I first read Robert Roberts's book The Classic Slum some years ago. An unusual and beautifully written mix of autobiography and social history, it struck me then as one of the most evocative, brilliantly drawn accounts of life in the English working classes that I have encountered. Along with his autobiography A Ragged Schooling, it offers a richly textured and at times moving insight into the lives and struggles of people who otherwise would have disappeared into obscurity. Unsurprisingly, both books have been mined by historians for decades and were critically acclaimed on their release; they are often set texts for university courses on modern British history today.

I was, therefore, disappointed to find that we had only a two-sentence stub on Roberts and nothing more about his books. That is, until this week when I reworked the article to include a comprehensive summary of Roberts's life, works and contributions to scholarship. It's a compact article, but I do not think there is more that I can say about the topic. Tim riley has kindly reviewed the prose and I've incorporated his suggestions. I therefore believe it meets our criteria and is ready for FA status. Thanks in advance for any comments. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Pre-emptive notes

  • Firstly, Roberts wrote two autobiographies and I have used these to support some of the article text. In most cases, this is attributed inline or supports a quote. It is also used, sparingly, to source some basic biographical facts: his mother's background, his parents' decision to purchase their corner shop, and their business and status in the community. I think that this acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, especially given that the books cited were published by a major university press.
  • Secondly, there are hardly any photos of Roberts available publicly; the one I've used is a fair use one taken from the ODNB. It is already a small image and I've had to scale it down further to suit the fair use requirements. There are, to my knowledge, no free images available of his old street, which was demolished years ago. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Image review
Many thanks buidhe. I will consider the infobox; I have no strong feelings either way about them. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Accessibility review

Heartfox. This should be done now. Thank you, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This nomination has attracted little attention. It could do with a couple of general reviews by the time it hits the three week mark, or I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, that's a shame – is there anything I can do to raise interest in the review? Could it be added to the "urgents" bar or something? —Noswall59 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Urgents is, usually, reserved for when a single additional review would make the difference between archiving and promoting. You could put a request on the FAC talk page, or the talk page(s) of anyone who has shown an interest in the article - as it hasn't gone through GA or PR no one may spring to mind. Or you might enquire of anyone who you think might be interested in this sort of area, put a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or on the talk pages of anyone whose FAC nomination you have previously reviewed. In all of these cases, especially the latter, be sure to use neutral phrasing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Vaticidalprophet

edit

The urgents bar, of course, is when I lurk FAC and see something interesting at archive risk. :) Have skimmed, will return with nits to pick. Standard disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing am still getting a feel for FAC reviews. Vaticidalprophet 06:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I shall look forward to your comments Vaticidalprophet. —Noswall59 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Resolved
Lead
edit
  1. Per Buidhe's suggestion of an infobox, I mocked one up in my sandbox, though the effect is a little ruined because the bot removed the image. I have no strong feelings on them myself and certainly don't want to reignite the ceasefire, but there may be a useful balancing effect for an article like this with a long lead and a small lead image.
Okay, I've added it. I actually tend to prefer biographies (especially of literary figures) without them, but I think in this case you are right – for desktop users, it does look strange with such a small image and this balances the lead and photo better. If a bigger photo becomes available, I may switch back.
  1. I think the image may be downscaled too far. I asked a couple people with file experience and couldn't get a straight answer, but WP:IMAGERES and the formula linked on it suggests an image as large as 280 pixels wide would be acceptable. I'm insufficiently comfortable in my understanding of NFCC to suggest expanding that far, but it seems you could have a 220x image (the default display size for Wikipedia images) without issues.
Like you, I really don't know much about these policies and I'm more concerned about not violating copyright as the original image was quite small and low-res already.
  1. In 1929, he was hired as a tutor at a commercial college There's no explanation anywhere in the article of what a 'commercial college' is, and where it's linked it's redlinked, which doesn't assist in giving one.
Explanation added as a note at the first instance in the body.
  1. A staunch internationalist, he was dismissed from this job in 1940 when he was exempted (as a conscientious objector) from military service in the Second World War Uncertain about the need for brackets.
Removed.
Background
edit
  1. This led to the conurbation's rapid expansion but it also brought poverty is somewhat rapid-pace phrasing. The easy solution is to stick a comma after 'expansion', although the sentence then becomes fairly long and twisty, which may be why you omitted it. If you find that solution suboptimal, there may be some rejigging of the broader sentence required.
I'm not sure I understand what you take issue with about this sentence.
  1. But poverty and poor housing remained endemic in working-class districts is a sentence fragment.
Swapped "nevertheless" for "but".
  1. Within a year of their marriage, the elder Robert had grown tired of travelling to Derbyshire to work for a firm of engineers; he was also envious that his brothers-in-law were shopkeepers. So he borrowed £40 from one of his sisters (who had all married well) and purchased a corner shop in a slum neighbourhood I don't think this reads particularly smoothly. Writing this as two sentences, it's better split where you currently have the semi-colon, with the second sentence reworked as "He was also envious that his brothers-in-laws were shopkeepers, and borrowed £40 from one of his sisters, who had all married well, to purchase a corner shop in a slum neighbourhood".
Changed as suggested.
Early life (1905–1919)
edit
  1. his autobiographical–historical books reads to me as a blending that would use a hyphen rather than a dash, although I hate nitpicking these and so am unsure.
I think you're right, so I've changed it to a hyphen.
  1. Jennie ran the business but the elder Robert's work as an engineer was punctuated by periods of unemployment Would add a comma after 'business'.
Done.
  1. His formal education (at Christ Church School) ended at the age of 14 No need for parentheses.
Removed.
  1. According to Roberts, he wanted to remain in education but Would add a comma after 'education', and this is a very long sentence that strikes me as wanting to be split.
Done. I also split the sentence.
Apprenticeship and unemployment (1919–1929)
edit
  1. He then began a seven-year[21] apprenticeship as a brass finisher Does the cite for 'seven-year' need to be where it is, rather than at the end of the sentence? I respect concerns about not having too many footnotes on a sentence, but it's no less distracting to move them to the middle of non-contentious statements. It's a short sentence, so wanting to footnote individual clauses doesn't apply.
Removed to the end of the sentence.
  1. Roberts gives an account of joining the Amalgamated Engineering Union in his autobiography Any possibility we could expand on this?
The account is quite brief and recalls specific work friends inviting him, him attending meetings and the general culture of the trade union. I am not sure it would add much of encyclopedic value here to expand on the point, I mentioned it more to specify which union he was a member of.
Teaching, farm work, writing and later life (1929–1974)
edit
  1. In 1929, Roberts was employed as a French teacher by a local commercial college Per above about 'commercial college', and there's some abruptness involved in what languages he knows -- we've previously only discussed Esperanto. Perhaps the end of the prior section can discuss better what he studied?
Note added, and I've mentioned French in the earlier section.
  1. In 1971 appeared his book Not sold at all on this phrasing, which feels like a failed attempt at elegant variation. A more simple "In 1971 x was published" or "his next book x was published in 1971" et al works fine.
Changed.
  1. a writer and traveller himself (his books included Sailing in a Sieve, 1963) This parenthesis can be omitted or moved to footnotes.
Put into a footnote.
Imprisoned Tongues (1968)
edit
  1. included extracts of the prisoners' work which were interesting is a somewhat long-winded phrasing. I don't have a simple solution -- "interesting extracts of the prisoners' work" is a bit much for wikivoice -- but it caught my eye as making the sentence drag.
Changed, hopefully to something better.
The Classic Slum (1971)
edit
  1. Roberts's impression of the district thus sharply contrasted with the notion of the "traditional working class" used by many social scientists "Traditional working class" strikes me as something that shouldn't be a redlink, and not just on the metaphorical "why is our coverage so poor for so much?" level. There's an idea being called at here, and it's not necessarily what every reader seeing the words 'traditional working class' will have called to mind. It would be worth defining the term-of-art here in somewhat more detail.
I have added a note to clarify this meaning.
A Ragged Schooling (1976)
edit
  1. Though not as influential as The Classic Slum, it "confirmed [Roberts'] reputation as one of the most sensitive chroniclers of English working-class life" (in Davies's view) Broadly speaking, I've been picking at the parentheses a lot here. I don't think they've generally added particular value to the article that couldn't be served with commas. This can be just as well expressed by moving this up as "it, to Davies, confirmed et al" or a similar rephrasing.
Changed as suggested.

Broadly speaking, this is good work, hence the nitpicks rather than coming in with structural concerns (although there are some points where I called out issues with detail). I enjoyed reading it and hope to support. Vaticidalprophet 01:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vaticidalprophet, many thanks for your review. I have addressed almost every comment (through these edits), but there was one I couldn't understand – about the "rapid-pace" problem in the background description of Salford. I'm not sure I understand your meaning there. Otherwise, I hope I've resolved the rest of the issues. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Looks good. "Rapid-fire" was probably too metaphorical a phrase on my part for clarity. The sentence seemed to move slightly too quickly over a long sentence, without enough punctuation or other markers to separate its ideas -- basically, quite similar to the sentence about his education I noted that you ended up splitting. It could do with a comma where I called out the comma, or possibly ommitting the 'but' and adding a semi-colon. Vaticidalprophet 08:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vaticidalprophet, ah, I see. I've added a comma before "but". Does that read better now? Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Happy with the article, and happy to support. Vaticidalprophet 23:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support! —Noswall59 (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

Not having been around much at FAC I hadn't clocked this nomination. I informally reviewed the article a little while ago, and will look in over the next day or so with detailed comments. Tim riley talk 22:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So much for adding "detailed comments"! On rereading the piece I find I have nothing much to add to the points I made when I reviewed the article, all of which were addressed. In the third para of the "Themes and contributions to scholarship" section there are links to Social status and Credit - both already linked earlier. (The whole article is more lavishly provided with blue links than it would be if I were writing it – but I'm not.) I think this article meets the FA criteria and I am happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 12:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim riley for giving this article more of your time and offering to support its promotion. I have removed those two duplicate links so all should be in order. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – I look forward to your comments! —Noswall59 (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • No deal-breakers WRT comprehensiveness and prose - this sentence -it also articulated Roberts's argument that the First World War profoundly and permanently altered the material, social and political lives of the residents. leaves me wanting to know what his argument was (maybe a sentence or two or does this open up a can of worms...
Thanks for your support Cas Liber. Regarding Roberts' argument, it was essentially as the quote suggests: he saw WWI as having introduced long-lasting social change which went far beyond lost lives. To expand a little, he felt that it led to changing working practices, offered greater material prosperity for many in the working classes, and turned many working class people towards the Labour party and the political left. It was this sort of fundamental restructuring which he argues for. I will re-read the relevant chapter to see if he has a pithy summary, but I'm reluctant to try to go further than that for fear of introducing my own interpretation into the article -- I'm not sure (but will check) that the secondary sources go into more depth. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Fair points Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber, thanks for your patience; I've now revisited the reviews and added a footnote to explain Roberts' argument based on their readings of it. Hopefully this clarifies things. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - valuable footnote to add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Citations

  • #19 — Any link to an online version?
    • No.
      • The Guardian and The Observer are available on newspapers.com. Do you have an account there? If not, how were you able to access the source?
        • I have institutional access to Proquest's Guardian/Observer archive. The link issue I mentioned earlier occurs.
  • #38 — Any link to an online version? Any reason for initials rather than first name?
    • No link. The initials were used in the original byline.
      • The Guardian and The Observer are available on newspapers.com. Do you have an account there? If not, how were you able to access the source?
        • As above.
  • #49–53 — Any link to online versions?
    • No.
      • The Guardian and The Observer are available on newspapers.com. The Times and The Daily Telegraph are available on Gale. Do you have an account there? If not, how were you able to access the source?
        • As above for the G/O archive. For The Times and The Telegraph, I also have access to Gale through an institutional subscription. The issue I described earlier with URLs occurs there too. I believe the issue is a result of the access/authentification software which my subscribing institution uses.
  • #51 — Any reason for initials rather than first name?
    • The initials were used in the original byline.
  • #82–84 — Any link to online versions?
    • No for 82. Added for 83 and 84.
      • The Daily Telegraph is available on Gale. Do you have an account there? If not, how were you able to access the source?
  • #88 — Any link to an online version?
    • Added.
  • General comment: Any reason to use ref tags instead of templates (e.g., {{cite news}})? This causes some inconsistencies, e.g., how the volume/issue numbers are treated in #85 and #88, compared to how such numbers are treated in the bibliography.
    • I have now put all of the non-Harv refs into Cite news or Cite web (as appropriate). Hopefully this has resolved any inconsistencies.

Bibliography

  • Briggs 1990 — Where is Harmondsworth?
    • I have added ", Greater London"
  • Cooney 1972 — Any reason for initials rather than first name?
    • Because they were used in the original publication.
  • Dalvi 1965 — Any reason for initials rather than first name?
    • Because they were used in the original publication.
  • Heinig 1902 — This is the only source with a "free access" icon. Any reason why?
    • It appears that someone has added this. I have removed it for consistency.
  • Irvine 1969 — Any reason for initials rather than first name? And what does "pp. 214 37/6" mean?
    • Initials because they were used in the original publication; the "pp 214 37/6" was used in the section header of the review and means that the book is 214 pages long and could be purchase for 37 shillings and sixpence.
  • Marris 1972 — The title is a mess. I'd just go with "Review of The Classic Slum: Salford Life in the First Quarter of the Century, by Robert Roberts"
    • See below for my comments on the "messy title" issue.
  • Mitchel 1969 — Any reason for initials rather than first name?
    • Because they were used in the original publication.
  • Parker 1969 — Ditto re messy title.
    • See below for my comments on the "messy title" issue.
  • Perkin 1973 — Ditto re messy title.
    • See below for my comments on the "messy title" issue.
  • Suttles 1975 — Ditto re messy title.
    • See below for my comments on the "messy title" issue.
  • Thompson 1993 — Any reason for initials rather than first name?
    • Because they were used in the original publication.
  • Waller 1972 — Any reason for initials rather than first name? And ditto re messy title.
    • Initials because they were used in the original publication. See below for my comments on the "messy title" issue.
  • Woolfson 1972 — Any reason for initials rather than first name? And ditto re messy title.
    • Initials because they were used in the original publication. See below for my comments on the "messy title" issue.
  • General comment — Many of the sources contain redundant URLs, i.e., URLs that are effectively just a DOI.
    • I don't think that's a problem – a DOI is technically distinct from the URL even if the URL is based on the DOI; sometimes, journals change publishers (as at Historical Research recently) so the URL will change but the DOI will stay the same. Also, using URLs where available is better for consistency.
  • General comment — ISBNs should be hyphenated. There are a lot of online tools that will do it.
    • Should they be hyphenated? Where do we require it?
      • WP:ISBN: "Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of hyphens varies between books."

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique: thank you for carrying out this review. I have responded to each query inline above (with one exception, will come to that in a moment). I've resolved nearly every issue and have converted the remaining footnotes to Cite news/web as appropriate. As I point out above, most of the old newspaper articles do not have a URL; if they do, they do not have a permalink I can use here (I access several of them through an institutional subscription and the website's URL alters itself to include the institution's name, which would be useless for anyone else and could identify me). As for initials, I have preserved the style used in the original by-lines, and have done so consistently. I don't think there is any guideline which says that this is an issue. I've asked a queries above about ISBN hyphenation and I've also responded about the URL/DOI query.
The main issue that remains is your concern with "messy titles". I haven't found any guideline about how to cite reviews, so I've opted to use the header employed by the reviewing publication. Sometimes this does lead to long titles, but I'm not sure it's messy: it just reflects the style chosen by the editor of the journal/newspaper. Is there any requirement that I change these? Thanks again for taking the time to review this. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Noswall59 (and Gog the Mild), thanks for responding. I've added a few comments above. The outstanding issues are:
  1. ISBN hyphenation (per WP:ISBN, hyphens should be used if possible)
  1. Links to newspaper links. newspapers.com has a lot of these—if you don't have an account, they're available at The Wikipedia Library, or you can ask someone at the resource exchange to clip them for you. Gale also has some; they require more work to create links, but you can generally do it by right clicking on the newspaper image, opening the image in a new tab, and then playing around with the URL. See ref #2 at George Sidney Herbert as an example.
Okay, that's all useful for me to know, but I'm not sure I need to link these for this article to meet our FA criteria -- the citations have all the information needed for someone to find them, and are acceptable as references to offline sources.
  1. I've also had issues citing review titles, but have generally come to the conclusion that it's better to be consistent within the article than it is to scrupulously adhere to how journals title reviews. See Robert Kaske#Reviews and William Chaney#Reviews as examples. Each is a slightly different style, but consistent within the article. This isn't a deal–breaker, but I recommend it for clarity. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, I believe I have now addressed these points fully. I've converted the reviews in the bibliography to the suggested format. Gog has kindly converted the ISBNs. I don't believe I need to link to newspaper articles where I've given a sufficient reference to the offline source. Everything seems to be in order as per my earlier replies. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Gog the Mild, I'm signed off. I do strongly recommend that Noswall59 provide links to sources whenever possible—including the use of clipped newspaper articles. After all, WP:Citing sources states that "A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source." But if desirable for a number of reasons, this is not something that should keep an article from becoming a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild, I've just had another dive into the link problem and discovered that we have templates for the Gale and ProQuest databases which automatically generate a link based on the article's unique ID. I haven't encountered these before, but it resolves the issue here. I have gone through and linked every single article to those databases. As far as I can tell, the only article reference without a URL is the Cambridge Review one, and that is not available online anyway. I hope this helps and I look forward to hearing from you about the outcome here. Thanks for your help. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2021 [84].

Abberton Reservoir

edit
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of water, many ducks, some naval mines and the "Dam Busters". Thanks to Gog the Mild for help with the milhist stuff and to aa77zz for help with the rest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This is an interesting article which covers its topic pretty well. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "large pumped storage freshwater" Is it really large? It's smaller than most of the several dams that serve Canberra where I live, which is a smallish Australian city. Not sure how to word this, but I think that what you're getting at is that it's large by the standards of the UK (a country which reliably gets lots of rain, unlike Australia where we need to store lots and lots of water for dry years). The second sentence says this, so I'd suggest omitting this from the first sentence.
  • "Plans to increase the capacity of Abberton reservoir to 41,000 megalitres (9.0×109 imp gal) by raising its bank height were completed in 2013" - were the plans completed, or the project to undertake these works?
  • The lead should note when the reservoir was established
  • "the RAF's 617 Squadron" - add a "No." in front of 617
  • Can anything more be said about the establishment of the reservoir? The material on this seems rather thin.
  • That's still a bit thin. It would be good to discuss how the reservoir came about, how it was funded, who it was built on behalf of, etc. Is it possible to access newspaper archives or similar? (In Australia, the Trove service would likely be very useful for this, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick-D, I don't have access to newspaper archives, but I'm not really sure what you are asking anyway. In the UK water companies have a (regulated) monopoly for their areas, and they identify the need for infrastructure improvements, as I've said in the text, plan the works, as I've also said and provide the funding themselves. They have customers who pay for the water, and shareholders who invest in the companies, but I would have thought both those facts are a bit trivial to mention Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my reading of the article, as someone totally unfamiliar with how water supplies are run in the UK, that wasn't clear to me to be honest. Can you draw on sources to state that it was the local water provider who oversaw the construction of the reservoir?

Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The reservoir's current owners, Essex and Suffolk Water, part of the Northumbrian Water Group, recognised that its capacity was insufficient to meet growing local demand,[6] and initiated a £140 million project to increase the capacity by 58% to 41,000 megalitres (9.0×109 imp gal) by raising its banks." - when was this recognised?
  • I couldn't find anything, and it's unlikely. The reservoir was enlarged by deepening, so no impact outside the reservoir's existing land usage, and the changes to the banks were designed to make it more wild-life friendly as it says in the Ecology section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Thanks for your work on this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, thabnks for your comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Interesting read. Some comments:
  • In the lede, the sentences about WWII and about the 2013 expansion are about the history of the site, yet they are separated. You have room in the lede for a paragraph basically historical in nature.
  • Reordered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "history" seems to deal with the present state of the reservoir, yet it is in a history section, with paragraphs on either side dealing with the history of the site.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final, brief paragraph of "History" is still a bit of an anachronism, as is "but most of its water is pumped in from the River Stour "
  • Are the contents of a body of water measured in imperial gallons, or in cubic feet or some other measure?
  • I thought that I'd consistently given volumes in metric megalitres (as does the main source), with a conversion to UK local units in imperial gallons. Areas are in ha/acres and depths in m/ft. Have I missed something or done something inconsistent, I can't see what's wrong here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the bridges referred to in the History section the same as the causeways referred to later on?
  • Essex Wildlife Trust is not linked on first use. It also strikes me that the World War II section, being history-related, should be adjacent to or part of the historical account. The latter half of the article is for the most part for the birds and it seems ill-placed there. Ecology and Protection seem to contain related matter and could also benefit from a merger or being adjacent.
It seems comprehensive, but I'm not certain everything is ideally arranged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt Thanks for further comments, all done, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

A remarkable article – from the Dambusters to a weevil specialising in fungi. I have tried hard to find something to quibble about, but have failed. "Bitterns regularly occur" looked a bit odd to me, but if it's OK with ornithologists it's OK with me. Is it intolerably picky to mention that "teal" is blue-linked twice? That apart, I have nothing but applause for this most interesting article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, thanks for the kind words and support. I've corrected the two infelicities you picked up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Support

edit

(This is the reviewed version)

General
  • Refs 4 and 5: these could really do with page numbers; particularly ref 5, as the source listed has a 20-page range. Use {{sfn}} if necessary, or separate links I suppose...
  • I'm not convinced by ref 4, since half the pages have no real content, but nevertheless, I've done as you wish and broken it down to five separate refs. I'm not convinced with ref 5, it normal practice here and universal elsewhere to give a range for a journal article. In this case, virtually everything in this 18 (not 20) page range is used in the article, and it makes more sense to read it from beginning to end rather than bit-and-bob about Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need consistency in whether we're italicising or not. Ref 7 has "Imperial War Museums" in italics, while ref 19 "Sites of Special Scientific Interest" is not italicised. In fact, 19 to 21 mix and match with the same publisher.
  • Ramsar and JNCC are linked, whereas other sources with Wikipedia articles are not. Is there a reason for this?
  • Ref 10: behind a paywall, so please mark as such
  • Refs 17-18: JNCC is abbreviated in 17 and spelled out in full in 18. Suggest spelling out in full for both.
  • Refs 22 and 23: Both point at the same page
  • Amakuru Thanks for review, I think I've responded to all your points except ref 10 (now 12), where I'm obviously not seeing what you are seeing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimfbleak: thanks for the responses. Re the Washington Post thing I was presented with a subscription options dialog when I followed the link, although in fact one of them is "free with a limited number of articles available" so I guess that's OK. On the journal article page numbers I have to say I'm a bit surprised... as you say yourself, this source has 18 pages and it makes it more difficult me to verify individual facts in the article if I have to plough through an entire article to do find one fact. (I don't have access to the article, so I don't know in this case how much I'd have to look at). I think I'll ping just a note at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to get a third opinion on this, and we can take it from there. Will do spot checks after that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amakuru thanks for that. As the responses at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources indicate, it's certainly not mandatory to indicate specific page numbers. Even I can see the logic giving a page number to identify a single fact in, say, a 100-page range, but that's a rare occurrence. As the responses indicate, this is a relatively new Wikipedia-specific trend which hasn't applied for most of the 17 years I've been writing FAs, and which I'm not about to adopt now, since it's contrary to normal practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimfbleak: well, actually the discussion is quite split, with no consensus as to whether individual page numbers are required, and for what length of article. Certainly many people have expressed concern that page lengths of 12+ present verification difficulties. As such, with no clear guideline in operation it comes down to a case-by-case decision. In this case, I've gained access to the article in question in digital format, and it looks like despite the large page range, the actual number of words is not huge once the maps, pictures and bibliography are taken away, so I'll let this one go. I'll proceed to the spot checks later on today hopefully. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks

This is the reviewed version for the spot checks.

  • [1] - confirmed both.
  • [2] - (the link was redirecting somewhere non-useful, so I inserted an archive URL for it).
    • Driest county in the UK: the source says it is the driest county in the UK, while the article says one of the driest'. This is probably fine though, because other sources do list Essex as just one of the driest, with maybe no clear winner between it and, say, Cambridgeshire.
    • Culvert under the road (causeway) - confirmed.
  • [3] - confirmed.
  • ? [4] - confirmed, although it should probably be pp 6–7 rather than 4, assuming the page numbers are those written in the doc rather than the PDF page numbers.
  • Changed pp.
  • [5] - confirmed.
  • [6]:
    • ? "on a site that was formerly farmland with a couple of small woods" - does the source say this?
    • "The scheme was completed in 2013" - confirmed
    • ? "The reservoir has a current maximum area of 700 ha (1,700 acres)" - is this in the source? I can see a mention of a surface area of 500 hectares, but I'm not seeing the maximum of 700 figure...
    • Sections and areas - confirmed.
    • Location - confirmed.
    • ? "Suffolk Water" - the source actually says "Essex and Suffolk Water", which obviously matches what's written higher up in the article too.
    • Bird info - mostly checks out, although I didn't check absolutely all of them!
    • Other wildlife - confirmed.
  • [9] and [10] - confirmed.
  • [12] - confirmed.
  • [14] -? I've just noticed the formatting of the title is a bit odd here, it should have some separators between the three parts
    • All other bits confirmed.
  • [15] - see [2]
  • [16] - see [2]
  • [17] - confirmed.
  • [19] - confirmed.
  • [22] - confirmed.
  • [25] -? the opening hours appear to have changed to "7 days a week 10.00am-5.00pm". Probably this should be caveated with an {{asof}}, to comply with MOS:CURRENT.

That's about it. I've marked all my queries above with a ? symbol. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • Perhaps link "wintering" to the "Birds" section of "Overwintering"?
  • Template:Infobox body of water states "date-built": date construction the body of water/reservoir started, if man-made. You have when it ended. Perhaps add "date-flooded"?
  • "Abberton reservoir was first filled just before the start of World War II". Perhaps state when this was for those not fully up to speed with 20th C history. Or who suspect it began with Pearl Harbour.
  • "a full dress rehearsal" → 'a full-dress rehearsal'.
  • "dress rehearsal" is a composite down, and "full" is acting as normal adjective, not an adjective-noun modifier like "three-year plan". this suggest that "full-dress rehearsal" is obsolete. The source for this was your James Holland book, what does that have? If it's problematic, I can always just have "rehearsal"Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edersee Dam" and "Eder dam". Perhaps standardise the name and capitalisation.
  • "25,000 megalitres" increased by 58% is not "41,000 megalitres". Was there an interim increase?
  • "The scheme was completed between 2010 and 2013". I assume it was completed in 2013?
  • "allowing the water level in the western sections to be retained independently of the main body of water." Is "retained" the best word here?
  • "Abberton was designated a Special Protection Area". Why the upper case initial letters? Similarly for "Site of Special Scientific Interest".
  • These are always capitalised, in the sources and elsewhere because they have legal weight, like the Children Act". A ssi designation would look very strange, and I've never seen terms or their abbreviations lc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.[a] Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." SSI seems to be running at 70%+ of usage and SPA about 74%, so fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Yes Jim, you may open a further nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, looking to close this but I notice you tend to refer to "Abberton reservoir" in the text -- I'd expect "Abberton Reservoir" as its proper name and only the all-lower-case when writing "the reservoir" or some such. Did you have a particular reason behind the way you present it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, thanks, you'd think I'd know better by now; I've searched and replaced all the incorrect lc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:13, 10 July 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 July 2021 [85].

Jamiroquai

edit
Nominator(s): 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English funk and acid jazz band Jamiroquai. They are well known for their music video of "Virtual Insanity" and the song "Canned Heat", the latter which appeared in Napoleon Dynamite. My previous attempts to nominate the article in 2019 failed and understandably so, as it had cluttered writing and excessive detail, but has now improved in comparison. I've worked on this since 2018, which has been challenging but rewarding, as I've learned alot from it. This article is in hopes that it will represent the band's artistry and success above all the tabloids and sensationalism that overshadowed them. Thank you and I hope this passes. Submitting again due to lack of feedback. 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review–pass

edit
Thanks, though I'd rather this [86] be the infobox pic and this [87] as the stage and visuals pic to vary the timelines and his headgear. 웃OO 13:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any shot that emphasizes the headgear may no longer be de minimis (see here) and you have to worry about copyright issues. (t · c) buidhe 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the headgear doesn't have to be necessary, I still would like for the infobox to give a clear shot of the frontman at least. 웃OO 13:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-15 (27352016619).jpg or File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-21 (25262574408).jpg as the infobox image? (t · c) buidhe 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, I actually decided to change your first choice to this 2018 photo [88], which served as the infobox pic before. You can revert if you're not satisfied. 웃OO 00:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

edit
Resolved comments from Hurricane Noah

Hello, I have a few comments for you below to improve your article. I am not an expert on music articles, but I will give it a whirl. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • funk/jazz movement Could you replace the slash with a word per MOS:SLASH? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band has sold more than 26 million albums worldwide as of 2017 Anything more up-to-date? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success, and was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards, and the song earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998. Run-on sentence. I suggest changing to: "The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success. The song was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards and earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998." NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a prominent component within the London-based funk/acid-jazz Same thing here on the legacy section with the slash. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They sold 4.4 million albums in the UK and had US sales of 2.5 million copies sold as of 2010 This seems really out of date since it was 11 years ago. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN66: Just judging from the title, it appears to be in German, but the ref doesn't state this. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)'[reply]
Copyedited the article per these requests. There aren't any updates regarding the sales in 2017 nor the individual sales in 2010. 웃OO 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination. NoahTalk 00:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake

edit
Resolved comments from K.Peake

Sorry about taking so long to comment, I kept on forgetting and was busy quite a bit with my job at Maccy's. For publications like CNN and MTV that are not italicised, you should cite them using the publisher parameter instead. Consequence of Sound has now changed its title to Consequence so update accordingly, plus cite Paper magazine as Paper and pipe to Paper (magazine). You have written New Musical Express instead of NME at one point in the references; only use the latter for consistency. AllMusic should also be stylised in the correct format throughout, while every The Telegraph reference needs url-access=subscription due to the website having these rules consistently. Pipe Interview Magazine to Interview (magazine), plus are you sure Dezeen is a reliable source for a FA? Regarding the body, I believe that the last para of legacy is too short and should be merged with the above one. Furthermore, you should at least give an overview in the awards and nominations section, also not all forms of media should be aligned to the right since this looks tedious for a FA. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just so happy you commented! 😊 The ref format issues should all be addressed, but I couldn't find what you mentioned with AllMusic. Dezeen seems to have alot of high regard, [89] they were mentioned by The Independent, The Times and Time magazine. I merged the artists influenced by the band and I created a summary of the more relevant awards in the UK and US. 웃OO 19:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better now, but ref 29 – you have stylized as Allmusic, plus it should be wikilinked there and nowhere else since that's the first instance. Also, you missed citing CNN as publisher for ref 84 and MTV News for ref 9, as well as not getting Consequence for refs 34 and 48. --K. Peake 06:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all fixed now. 웃OO 06:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have gone through everything, though there was a formatting issue with the first Consequence ref that I fixed and I will now support! --K. Peake 07:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy

edit
  • Quite a few dupe links in the article that need to be removed - if you don't happen to have a tool installed, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is the one I use
  • Some refs are out of order (for example: [28][59][64][61])
  • "Jay Kay was sending songs to record companies" - when? You mention a single released in 1986, but the header says 1992 - there's a bit of vagueness here
  • Lots of things like "Other writers said", "some critics accusing ", etc. strike me as fairly WP:WEASELy - it would be best to be specific
  • "They sold 4.4 million albums in the UK and had US sales of 2.5 million copies sold as of 2010." - what's the purpose of including this? We've already said what their sales by 2017 were

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed most of these comments. As for the formation section, maybe the solution is to instead rename the subheader as "Formation in 1992". And the following comment, when it comes to reviews of entertainment, they tend to be best written this way to condense what critics often point out, per WP:Reception. Just as long as the information has sources. Thank you for commenting! I'll be sure to check out your candidate. 웃OO 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the reviews thing - I'm not familiar with how these articles are written ;) As for the formation section, I wonder if it's worth adding a "In the early 1990s, Jay Kay was..." Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "by the early 1990s" when thinking about that 1986 single. 웃OO 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit
Resolved comments from Aoba47
  • For this part in the lead, in the London-based funk and jazz movement, do you mean jazz in general or specifically acid jazz? If it is the first option, I would link jazz, but if it is the second option, I would clarify that.
  • The lead has Acid Jazz records, when I believe it should be Acid Jazz Records. The Records part is capitalized already in the body of the article.
  • Apologies in advance if this is obvious, but for this part, When he had it studio-recorded, is it necessary to specify that it was "studio-recorded" as opposed to just "recorded"?
  • It may be helpful to wikilink demo tape. It might be obvious to most people, but I could still see some people not being entirely certain on what it means.
  • For this part, but would share his royalties with his band members in accordance to their contributions, could you clarify what you mean by "contributions" as it is rather nebulous? Is it referring to like song-writing and/or production contributions or like performance contributions?
  • I would link world music just to help readers who may not be familiar with the term.
  • I have a question about this part, Zender left Jamiroquai due to conflicts with Kay. Do we have any more information about these conflicts?
  • I would link Congress Theater in the image caption since it does have an article.
  • I have a question about Gig in the Sky. It is not a suggestion or anything really necessary for the FAC. It is more of a question I had while reading this part. I thought it a little odd that a group who had songs about environmental issues would do a concert on a private plane as those are terrible for the environment. Was there any coverage on this contradiction?
  • I would link funk rock.
  • For the quote box in the "Lyrics" subsection, shouldn't "Virtual Insanity" be in single quotation marks since it is a song title within a quote?
  • I think it may be beneficial to link "Native American rights" to the Native American civil rights article. It may also be useful to link "youth protests", but I am honestly not sure what it is referring to (which is why I think a link would be useful).
  • First Nations is linked twice in the article.

Great work with the article. I have honestly never heard of this band, but I enjoyed reading the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, which is only very tangentially related to this as it is a sitcom involving a radio station. Either way, I will support the article for promotion once all my comments are addressed. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed most of these comments. I clarified the contribution thing to indicate that they work as musicians. For Gig in the Sky, I don't recall seeing any coverage about the contradiction. Though similar comments are already covered with sports cars in the lyrics section. For Zender leaving, information regarding the conflicts is all unclear. The Independent article says he wanted to quote "do his own thing" but where did the statement come from? Only the Rocky Mountain News article where Toby Smith is interviewed states there is an unspecified conflict but I'm unable to access the interview to re-read it. 웃OO 21:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. Your response about Gig in the Sky makes sense to me and I for some reason completely missed the sports car part so I am glad that I was not the only one who was thinking about this. The Zender coverage should be fine in the article. If the information is not known, then this is the best option of addressing it. I support the article for promotion. Again, I really enjoyed reading through this one. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

edit
Resolved comments from Z1720

Please consider me a non-expert.

  • "The band's output blends their anything-goes approach" Anything-goes sounds a little like MOS:IDIOM and I am not sure what is meant by this. Can this be clarified in the lede?
Anything-goes takes from a quotation in Musical style and influences. They basically do whatever they want. I'm not sure what other words to use in this context. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since "anything goes" is a commentator's descriptor, and not a musical term, I don't think it can be used here. What about, "The band's music blends aggressive dance rhythms and 1970s influenced sounds with sounds and instruments that are not limited by genre." Do you feel that information is verified by the sources? Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While not explicitly stated by alot of sources, it's verifiable that they did explore musical styles and genres within the article's body. I changed the sentence to your suggestion. 웃OO 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with three of their albums charting at number one in the UK, including Emergency on Planet Earth (1993), Synkronized (1999), A Funk Odyssey (2001), and additionally their greatest hits compilation." Three albums are mentioned to chart to number one, but four albums are named. Also, this sentence is quite long and I would split it in two.
A compilation album is different from a studio album. Thinking about it, that might not be so important. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When he had it recorded, Kay fought with his producer" Did this fight happen during the recording process or afterward?
After. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A talks about rumours of Kay's rejection. Why is this important information for an article about Jamiroquai?
An IP kept adding this to the article even though I kept saying it was better off in Kay's article. See here: [90] At that point I gave up trying to debate this person and left that there. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I decided to remove it. 웃OO 03:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so Smith compromised his playing" What does "compromising his playing" mean?
He changed his playing style for the band. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can "compromised his playing" be changed to "changed his play style"? Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already changed it. 웃OO 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who left the band in the following year for paternal reasons." Can this be more specific? Was a child born that he wanted to take care of?
He did have a child that time. He left to take care of his family. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sound with[…] EDM, soul and trap sounds" I don't think there are supposed to be square brackets around the ellipses, per MOS:ELLIPSIS
Will fix. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Current members" uncited? What verifies that these are the current members?
There's a ref in the history body, but I could add it there too. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24 does not use the sfn template, but other references do. This is creating a HARV error in the Sources section. For consistency's sake, I recommend that it uses the template.
I missed that. Thank you! 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments! I will re-review when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments above. Sorry it took so long to respond; I forgot about this FAC. If I don't respond in a few days, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed, and I support. Z1720 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The list of genres in the infobox is different from the list of genres in Artistry. Why?
The infobox guidelines ([91]) say it should have a minimum of four genres. Should more or less be included? 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says generally two to four, but if this particular case has more then it would make sense to include more. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source for the list of labels? Not all of these are mentioned in the text
Were the ones removed incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia issued their greatest hits album and the others are for American releases. They could be brought back in, but verifiablly. 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band's music blends aggressive dance rhythms and 1970s influenced sounds with sounds and instruments that are not limited by genre" - part of this is a critic's opinion, and part I don't see in text.

the part where it says "not limited by genre" used to have something like "the band takes an anything goes approach" which is from another critic's opinion, but a reviewer found it to be poor writing. I suppose this statement does feel a bit convoluted. I could instead write that the band started off by building their acid jazz sound in their beginning years, as it is much more verifiable in the body. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "it listed in the Guinness World Records as the best-selling funk album in history". Is this meant to be it is listed, or it was listed?
It now implies that they currently hold this record. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kay's manager scouted keyboardist Toby Smith, but was rejected because he played in an acid house style Kay disliked, so Smith compromised his playing style to join the group again as Kay's songwriting partner" - is there an independent source for this claim?
No I'm afraid. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, does it warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cut out the part that appears "contentious". 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archiving and retrieval date isn't needed for GBooks links
  • "The album's complex songwriting caused Sony to tell Jamiroquai that "none of [the tracks] sounded like singles"," - is there an independent source for this claim?
No I'm afraid. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, does it warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cut out the part that appears "contentious". 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn12 is missing publication date. Ditto FN17, check for others
Still issues here - eg FN60. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look harder. 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21: OCC is a publisher not a work
  • Indian Country Today, conversely, should be italicized
  • What makes Consequence a high-quality reliable source? Highsnobiety? Vinyl Me Please?
Consequence is New York based, and had been featured in Rotten Tomatoes and Time Entertainment. They've also been involved with the Chicago Film Critics Association and Sony Music. Consequence was formerly named Consequence of Sound. While Highsnobiety started off as a blog, they've extended to London and New York City and have over 100 staffs. They've documented counterfeit brands in South Korea and won a Webby Award for Cultural Blog/Website. The interviewer in Vinyl Me Please has contributed to NPR, The New York Times, Pitchfork Music and Washington Post among others. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being located in a particular place and having a high number of staff aren't characteristics that contribute to reliability. See here for guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you mean Highsnobiety. They best I can find are these NYT interviews of their editors. [92][93][94]. I also found this Tech Crunch article which I'm not sure will benefit much. [95]
Those NYT articles suggest the source may have some expertise in fashion, but that's not what it's being used for here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find anything else supporting highsnobiety as this exceptional source, so I'm letting it go. 웃OO 01:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources?
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
I was completely unaware that this was included when I was automating some of the citations. I actually don't have knowledge of this feature and I can't find where it's used. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Footman includes it but the other Sources do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include |via=
I haven't seen any other citations I thought needed via. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, some Google Books references include it and others do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include |ISSN=
I removed all of these. Again, they must have sprung up when doing automatic citations. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hopefully resolved most of these issues. Let me know if I missed anything. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2021 [96].

Giovanni Antonio Grassi

edit
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many of the other articles about Jesuits I've nominated here, this Jesuit had a very active life in Europe, not just in the United States. He was an astronomer turned missionary turned educator turned royal advisor. I've developed this article substantially and think that it is up to FA standards. Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SportsLover 31

edit

I like this article a lot.Has a lot of references ,good text ,sources written clearly,reasons explained well. These are the reasons why I like the article for a Featured Article.

Explanation

  • Quality

The Quality of this works is very good .The images line with the text given,the text relates to the sources given and the sources are also a good informative reference for information.

  • Sources

The sources are well mentioned and have the pg.no ,author and the publisher listed properly are correct in the sense of a reader.The sources have also been read .These a re a reliable source for an FAR.

Thank You SportsLover31 10:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, SportsLover31. Ergo Sum 14:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Johannes Schade

edit

My opinions given here should not be overrated as I lack many of the qualifications usually expected from wikipedians engaged in FAC discussions. :-)

I feel the article tends towards overlinking (MOS:OL). Some of the writing is not Plain English. Sometimes, linked names are dropped without introduction and with insufficient context.

Removed some of the clustered blue links and added explanatory tidbits here and there. Ergo Sum 04:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a bit long. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 2 to 3 paragraphs for the article's text length (15 kB), not 4. On the other hand, the body could perhaps be extended to cover the subject better.

I've trimmed the lede. Ergo Sum 20:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph. If a mentioned place is immediately followed by a wider localisation, then IMHO the wider localisation should not be linked as this comes near MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It is therefore proposed to unlink Washington D.C. and Rome. —The short Propaganda Fide is easier for the reader than the full Latin name, which I believe to be too cumbersome to use in the article. However, if deemed necessary, it should be given at the first occurrence in the text (or possibly the lead) with the short name between parentheses behind it.
  • 2nd paragraph. The mention of Połock after two northern-Italian towns surprises. Perhaps add some brief explanation ("now in Belarus"?). One might also wonder whether Polotsk would not be more appropriate (or give both?). If I understand it right, Połock is the name in Polish, whereas Polotsk is the transliteration of the Russian and Belarusian name. Polotsk has the advantage of ensuring the right pronunciation of the second syllable. At the time Polotsk had just been acquired by the Russian Empire, but the school might have been teaching in Polish by tradition. —I think that "natural sciences", "mathematics", "astronomy", "rector", "Peking", "London", and "Lisbon" should not be linked in this context. —The geography in the last two sentences is confusing as Lisbon and London are mentioned, but then Coimbra, which is not in Lisbon, and Stonyhurst, which is not in London. Perhaps there is an occasion here to shorten the lead a bit.
    • I've significantly reworked this part of the lede so that many of the more minor details are not mentioned. I've also added that the Polotsk college was in the Russian Empire, since that is not something that is common knowledge. While many European readers have no use of linking European cities, I think it's generally useful to link them for a global readership. I've removed some of the other links. I've also changed the spelling of Polotsk. Ergo Sum 20:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4rd paragraph. Propaganda Fide as already been linked. The last sentence again gives the full Latin name. It might not be clear to all readers that these two are forms of the same name. (more to come) Johannes Schade (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section Early life and education should perhaps be extended and clarified by additions.

  • 1st paragraph. The first sentence is too short to describe the region of his origins. Schilpario is a village in the Alps of north-eastern Lombardy that in Grassi's time was part of the Venetian Republic. The Italian version of the article does this quite well: "Schilpario in provincia di Bergamo (allora parte della Repubblica di Venezia)". The reader might find that "Lombardy" and "Venetian" contradict each other as Schilpario in not in the modern Veneto. —Somaschi and seminary in Bergamo. As you give a location for the seminary the reader might wonder where the Somaschi school he attended was. I would think also in Bergamo. But your use of "going to" might be understood to mean that it was elsewhere. Perhaps: going to -> entering? or attending? —It would be helpful to indicate the year when the pope suppressed the Jesuit order.
    • The source is not clear that it was actually a proper school, but rather that he studied under the Somaschi Fathers, so I can't give a location of where exactly it was. I'm a bit hesitant to go beyond simply the Venetian Republic because there's a whole article that explains it. Added the year of suppression. Ergo Sum 20:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph. "Therefore" is difficult to understand. The reader might first need some background about the suppression of the order that allowed the exception of Russia. You give this later. Perhaps you could move it forward? —Simple vow. Is it really necessary to introduce here the distinction between the simple and the solemn vow? Most readers will never have heard of it. I feel it should be sufficient to say that he had to go to Polotsk for his further training. —Replace "With Polock becoming" -> "where Polotsk became". Besides, the article about Gabriel Gruber uses Polotsk (Russian) rather than Połock (Polish). —Unlink "natural sciences" and "rector".
    • Moved up the explanation of Catherine the Great. While the distinction between simple and solemn vows is not huge in modern Catholic canon law, at this time, there was a big difference, so I think it's worth noting. Ergo Sum 20:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section European voyage abounds in needless detail.

  • 1st paragraph. Beak up the sea of blue (MOS:SEAOFBLUE): Jesuit Superior General, Gabriel Gruber, to St. Petersburg -> summoned to Saint Petersburg to see Gabriel Gruber, the Superior General. —Last sentence Peking by sea? Confusing as Peking is not a seaport. What is this "departing Russian delegation" Which are "those cities? I think we do not need to know about them. Hence: Gruber wanted Grassi and his two colleagues to sail to China rather than to travel overland (or something similar).
  • 2nd paragraph. 1st sentence: "General" -> "Superior General" or "Jesuit General". General alone might be misleading. —"gifts to give to the people" -> "gifts for the people". —2nd sentence: unlink sled. Is it useful to mention the Swedish interpreter? —3rd sentence "They set out for London, where the Superior General arranged" -> "They planned to go to London where Gruber had arranged" —The sentence "Shortly after departing, three of the party fell ill, including Grassi, and they stopped for ten days at a small town on the Russian–Swedish border, where they were attended by a doctor." seems needless to me or could be shortened to "They were delayed by sickness". —"22 March" -> "22 March 1805". Dropping the year from dates looks sometimes elegant, but IMHO it should not be extended across paragraph boundaries as it becomes too difficult for the reader to establish which year it was when reading the paragraph on its own.
    • Fixed date continuity. Trimmed.
  • 3rd paragraph. The 1st sentence can be shortened to: "They eventually reached London on 25 May 1805." —2nd sentence Peking -> China. —3rd sentence "who unsuccessfully attempted to convince" -> "who however failed to convince".
  • 4th paragraph. The sentence "Their journey was delayed when the captain stopped in Cork, Ireland;" can be omitted. —Unlink "astronomy". —They seem to have met Damoiseau in Lisbon where he taught them some astronomic calculations that they thought would be useful when in China to correct the Chinese calendar. Give more detail to make this understandable.
  • 5th paragraph. Nothing to report.

The heading of the section American missionary is perhaps misleading. Grassi did not go West to christen the Indians. He mostly was a teacher at an established school and a priest serving established Catholic parishes. The word "missionary" probably refers to the Maryland Mission, a Jesuit administrative subdivision, which became the Maryland province in 1833. The heading should be shortened to "American mission", or even to just "America".

You may underestimate just how "missionary" Maryland was at the time in the eyes of the church, especially rural Maryland, which is where most of the Maryland mission's institutions were located. The Maryland Mission was classified as such (rather than as a province) by the Jesuit order because it was located in a place where church was not yet very established. The Jesuits sent missionaries all over: China, Siberia, South America. There's nothing unique to the Indian missions that makes them missions. Ergo Sum 21:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. The reader might be surprised by the change in name from Gruber to Brzozowski. I propose "In 1810, Tadeusz Brzozowski, who had succeeded Gruber in 1805 as Superior General, ..."
  • 2nd paragraph. 1st Sentence: "became naturalized" -> "would become naturalized" using future-in-the-past tense to stress that it would happen much later than where the main flow of the narration is now. —2nd sentence: introduce Francis Neale already here as the rector of the school. —Spanish: unlink. How could he teach Spanish? At that stage he probably could speak Italian, Latin, Polish or Russian (or both?), Portuguese and English but not Spanish.

The section Presidency of Georgetown College

  • 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. Mention that Charles Neale was brother of Frances Neale. Helps the reader not to confuse them. —Final vows. The link refers to the article Religious vows, which says, under Catholic, that Jesuits' first vows are perpetual. I am confused. Perhaps some additional explanation is needed. —Correct typo: Caroll -> Carroll.
    • Fixed typo. Clarified relationship. I'm not an expert on the minutiae of vows under canon law; the get very complicated very quickly. I know there is a difference between first and final vows in the Jesuit order (see here), but I will leave it to an inquisitive reader to research that outside the corners of this article. Ergo Sum 21:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph. Faculty: perhaps link to Wiktionary: this American English sense was unknown to me. Unlink "algebra", "mensuration", and "arithmetic".
  • 3rd paragraph. Nothing to report.
  • 4rd paragraph. Replace: Leonard Neale -> Archbishop Leonard Neale, another of the Neale brothers. —Proposed: "Following the papal restoration of the Society of Jesus in 1814," -> "After the pope had restored the Society of Jesus in 1814," (less static)
  • 5th paragraph. 1st sentence: we seem here to jump backward to the time when Carrol was archbishop. We just learned Leonard Neale had succeeded him in the role. Probably move that sentence up. —"an increase in both the religious and ethnic the diversity of students" -> "an increase in the religious and ethnic diversity of students" —Proposed: "and he was succeeded" -> "when he was succeeded".
    • The fifth paragraph is not part of the temporal sequence but is instead a conclusion of the section, giving an overview of his presidency. I think to break it up and intersperse throughout the section would be more confusing to the reader. Rephrased per suggestions. Ergo Sum 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The heading of the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide should perhaps better read "Mission to Propaganda Fide in Rome" (or similar). The section is supposed to explain Grassi's mission to Propaganda Fide, but is difficult to understand and involves Charleston, South Carolina, and White Marsh, Maryland and some punished priests, in mysterious ways.

My concern with "mission" is that in the technical canonical sense, it wasa not a mission. I've trimmed some of the extraneous detail about White Marsh so that it keeps to the point of the section better. Ergo Sum 04:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph. 1st sentence: replace "tasked Grassi with going to" -> "sent Grassi to" (be concise). —The reference to "White Marsh" is not understandable at all. What happened there? The linked to article White Marsh, Maryland describes a place in Baltimore County, Maryland and says nothing about Catholics and Jesuits there. I hope that is at least the right place. —The entry in the "Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani" talks about the "scisma di Charleston". This schism is also mentioned in the article on Leonard Neale. Should be extended and reformulated to makes his mission understandable to the ordinary reader without going into undue detail.
    • As the Leonard Neale article explains, it was a rather complicated and tedious affair. I've removed mention of it altogether because it's not terribly relevant to Grassi except to say that Neale had removed the priests. I also caught a silly typo. The controversy was in Charleston, South Carolina, not Charlestown, Maryland. I might look into writing an article about the schism to have a place that both articles can link to. Ergo Sum 21:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph. "ecclesiastical superiors" -> "church leaders" in the interest of plain English. —"While in Rome, he also successfully argued before the Propaganda Fide for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England." -> "While in Rome, he skilfully pleaded for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England at the Propaganda Fide and appeared to have obtained it for a moment but new obstacles were later raised by the English Vicars Apostolic." (or something similar).

The section Confessor and provincial superior mentions a profusion of offices and responsibilities given to him. He probably quit some of them before taking up the next duty which sometimes seems not to have been mentioned. The timeline is sometimes difficult to follow. Perhaps not all these offices were essential. Perhaps some were honorific only?

Yes, the timeline is a bit tricky. The sources are not great about supplying dates for the offices he held in Italy, and they rarely mention when he left an office. I've tried to organize them as clearly as I can, such as indicating when he left a certain city (and hence relinquishing an office he held there). None were honorific, as far as I can tell. Ergo Sum 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph. The first sentence is long and difficult to understand and does not work well as an introduction to the subject of "Confessor and provincial superior" indicated by the heading. It might be better to split it. The 1st part might be: "Grassi became the procurator of the Jesuit province of Italy." However, it still would need to be explained what his responsibilities were. The link to the article for Procurator does not seem to be very helpful in the given context. The second sentence might be "He also was appointed 'socius' (assistant) to the Provincial Superior of Italy." —"who Grassi had assisted" -> "whom Grassi had assisted", besides, what does this mean? What influence had Grassi on the succession to the throne? Seems to need some explanation.
  • 2nd paragraph. The first sentence is overloaded and should be split. Clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school. He seems to have been transferred from being rector of the "College of Nobles" (mentioned in the section's 1st paragraph) to being rector of the "College of the Holy Martyrs".
  • 3rd paragraph. "Recalled Grassi to Italy in 1835". He had not crossed any frontier by going from Turin to Chambéry. At the time Chambéry was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia just like Turin. Sardinia would cede its parts west of the Alps to France in 1858. —Again, full name of Propaganda Fide: not a good place for it. Keep with the short one. —Filiberto Avogadro di Collobiano, explain: "an Italian politician". —Pignatelli, the reader might have forgotten; remind the reader briefly: "his teacher at Colorno".
    • Good catch. I've left it simply as " recalled Grassi." This is the first mention of the Propaganda Fide College (not to be confused with the congregation) in the body, so it only makes sense to use the full name. Added those brief explanatory details. Ergo Sum 04:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Schade (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I am on vacation and will get to this as soon as possible. Ergo Sum 01:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johannes Schade, for your very thorough comments. I've tried to address them all. There are a few instances in which I haven't adopted your suggestions and have provided some explanation. Ergo Sum 04:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ergo sum. Thanks for pinging me. Not being a subject-matter expert, I had indeed confused the College (school, Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide) with the Congregation (organization, Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide,Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione). Thanks for taking my criticisms so graciously, for sifting the wheat from the chaff among them, and for sometimes going even beyond my suggestions in adding needed detail. I have reread the article and will soon start another traverse of comments below. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second traversal of the lead.

  • 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence; proposed "appointed the rector" -> "appointed rector"; "Polotsk, located in the Russian" -> "Polotsk in the Russian". —2nd Sentence. I propose to reformulate entirely: "In 1805 he was selected to go to China as a missionary, but spent five years travelling through Europe without being able to secure a passage to the far-away country." (or similar). —3rd Sentence. The problem here is that he only studied at Coimbra, but studied and taught at Stonyhurst.
  • 3rd Paragraph. Last sentence; add "(a school for missionaries)" after the "Fide", so that readers can avoid the mistake I made.

Second traversal of the the section Early life and education

  • 1st Paragraph. —1st sentence. I would add "near Bergamo" after "Lombardy". I would also add "then" before "in the Republic of Venice". —2nd Sentence "going to" -> "entering". —Last sentence: add "near Parma" after Colorno. To Europeans Bergamo and Parma are known places but Schilpario and Colorno are not.
    • I generally try to keep like articles alike; in this case, the like articles would be the other Georgetown presidents articles. I think most towns most people have never heard of. If a reader is interested in its location, they can always follow the link. Ergo Sum 02:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Paragraph. —Penultimate sentence: "there" -> "in Polotsk", needed as the last place named was Colorno, but you mean Polotsk.

Second traversal of the the section European voyage

  • 2nd Paragraph. —2nd Sentence "ultimately arrive in London" -> "go to London". —Last sentence "China, who failed" -> "China, failed" —Penultimate sentence: "ships that would take them to Peking" -> "ships that would take them to China" as Peking is not a port city.
  • Last Paragraph. —3rd Sentence: "causing the it" -> "causing it".

Second traversal of the the section American missionary

  • 1st paragraph. —Last sentence: "distrustful of the Jesuits" -> "wary of Jesuits".
  • 2nd Paragraph. The paragraph is too short to appropriately narrate his arrival at the college, introduce Francis Neale and describe the problems Grassi finds there. I think Francis Neale must be introduced here and not later. Something like "Arriving at the college he met its president Francis Neale and joined its staff as a teacher. He soon found that the school was struggling. Enrollment had dropped and the college was running at a deficit. etc." See the article about Francis Neale. At that stage Neale was approaching his seventies, was overloaded with other duties in addition to the presidency of the school, and was often in conflict with Carroll, the archbishop. It seems also that he was a heavy-handed disciplinarian and not liked by the pupils. —Last sentence (gradus). This sentence stays unclear despite the explanatory footnote. Perhaps omit it.
    • There's really no reason to bring up Neale here or go into detail about his presidency. I think that's suitably covered in the Neale and Carroll articles. Gradus is not terribly important today in the Jesuit order (as I understand it) but was important at this time, so I think it's worth mentioning. That's another example of one of those things I think an interested reader can research on their own since it is obscure enough to not be readily described here without going into too much detail. Ergo Sum 03:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second traversal of the the section Presidency of Georgetown College

Second traversal of the the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide

Second traversal of the the section Provincial Superior and confessor

  • 1st Paragraph. —4th sentence: "appointed the confessor" -> "appointed confessor".
  • 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "which forced" -> "that had forced". —3rd Sentence: "the the" -> "the". —Last sentence. "eventually when" -> "eventually broken when".
  • 3rd Paragraph. —1st sentence: clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school.
  • 4th Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "Wanting him to choose a permanent residence, the Superior General recalled Grassi in 1835" is not clear did he call him back to Turin? The Italian does not seem clearer. Is there another source?

So far. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade: Thank you for the ongoing feedback. I hope there's not too much more or else I might start to doubt my writing abilities. Ergo Sum 03:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to see if you had anything else to add, Johannes Schade or if you were inclined to !vote on the nom. Ergo Sum 19:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ergo Sum. I will read it another (hopefully last) time. Third traversal of the Lead

  • 2nd Paragraph, 1st sentence: this sentence agglomerates origin, studies and appointment as rector in one sentence, which sounds almost funny. I propose to leave out Venice (we are told above that he is Italian and that may be good enough for the lead) and start the paragraph with "He excelled in the natural sciences ...". —Last sentence: "began teaching at the University of Coimbra and studying at Stonyhurst" I do not think he taught at Coimbra.
  • 3rd Paragraph: "Congregation de Propaganda" is half English and half Latin. Should it not be "Congregatio de Propaganda Fide" (without the 'n'); or otherwise "congregation of Propaganda Fide"?
    • I admit it sounds strange, but the phrase "de Propaganda Fide" is quite commonly used in English (or at least it was while the congregation was still officially named that). Many Vatican documents and scholarly articles adopt the construction "Congregation de Propaganda Fide," simply because the latter part appears to have become something of a term of art. Ergo Sum 19:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third traversal of the section European voyage

Third traversal of the section American missionary

  • Last Paragraph, last sentence: Gradus. You say that gradus was important and must not be left out, but then you provide an explanation in a footnote that reads "Gradus referred to two grades of membership in the Society of Jesus". This is not understandable and possibly even misleading as Gramatowski distinguishes gradus in societate from gradus in litteris, the one(s) given by the order the other(s) by a university. I wonder whether the Gradus tabled by Pulcinelli were not the fourth vow mentioned in Jesuit formation. Puccinelli just gives a date, we know nothing about the context, but it seems likely that it was a gradus in societate. Padberg talks about many "grades". If no new source about this can be discovered I would say delete or say something vague like "a high and rare honour. So far, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I slept over this and came to the conclusion that if you maintain that his gradus is important, then you must research it. That looks like something that is known. Puccinelli obviously expected people would understand. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I don't think more research will yield any greater clarity. The source is not clear about which precise meaning of gradus it refers to, and since Grassi wasn't the Superior General or a bishop, there just do not exist the kind of highly detailed and comprehensive descriptions of his life that would discuss his attaining gradus. On quite a few other FAs and GAs of Jesuits that I've written, this Latin Jesuit publication is the only one that refers to the individual's rank of gradus, and my research indicates the same is true here. So it appears to me that the question is either include the sentence with the explanatory footnote (which is what I've done for the other FAs) and let an inquisitive and motivated reader attempt to discover any more detail that they might or remove it altogether. My inclination is to keep it since it does not really detract from the article. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ergo Sum. I understand, but I wonder whether such knowledge would not be expected at FA level. —There is another issue that needs to be covered: Grassi's involvement in slavery. There are lots of recent publications on the Jesuits and slavery. The order has acknowledged the facts and apologised. Georgetown College was partially financed by income from plantations in Maryland that were worked by slaves during Grassis's presidency. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cognizant of the recent interest in the American Jesuits' activity in slavery. There is already a mention of Grassi's views on slavery. I have also added mention of his concrete interaction with the institution of slavery as superior. As for the gradus, I will attempt one more time to research it but if, as I suspect, nothing can be found about it, I will remove it altogether. Simply, it is not a so very important point; my opinion is that more information for the reader is better, but that is just my opinion. Ergo Sum 15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannes Schade: I have looked through other Jesuit records from this time and have reread the Grammatowski explanatory document carefully. I have gathered that gradus here refers to the fact that he completed the examen ad gradum and thereafter professed his final/fourth vow. I have explained this in the article. Ergo Sum 19:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ergo Sum. I found that the American Cyclopaedia has a long and thorough article about the jesuits that explains the examen ad gradum. https://archive.org/details/americancyclopd04danagoog/page/n626/ Best regards. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, this is very helpful for future articles. That topic was always a bit murky for me. I don't find anything relevant in there for the Grassi article, but I will keep it at hand. Ergo Sum 20:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Z1720

edit
  • "Born in the Republic of Venice, Grassi proved to be a promising student" -> "Born in the Republic of Venice, Grassi was a promising student" Sounds more encyclopedic to me.
  • "in which was ultimately unable to secure passage to the distant country." -> "in which he was unable to secure passage to the distant country."
  • "where he eventually became the superior of the Jesuits' Maryland Mission" Delete eventually
  • "For significantly improving its curriculum and public reputation and obtaining its congressional charter," Too many ands. Maybe, "For significantly improving its curriculum, public reputation, and obtaining its congressional charter"
  • "which had been officially suppressed by the pope since 1773." why is this important to Grassi's biography?
    • It was pretty important becausee it ties together why he had to go to Russia to join the order, i.e. it was suppressed everywhere except Russia, where it continued semi-officially. Ergo Sum 19:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I did not connect that the Society of Jesus are the Jesuits. Maybe when it says "Society of Jesus" for the first time, the article can include "(colloquially known as the Jesuits)" or "(also known as the Jesuits)" just in case the reader doesn't click on the wikilink or know who they are. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " only to pronounce their simple vows." What does pronouncing mean in this context? Is there a wiki article for this?
    • Pronouncing is just the language that is typically used in the Catholic context. Sometimes one sees "taking" or "making" their vows, but pronouncing is usually the most common. Ergo Sum 19:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because Empress Catherine the Great had declined to suppress the Jesuits,[a] the order fled Western Europe and survived in the Russian Empire," I don't think it's best practice to start a sentence with "Because". Perhaps, "Empress Catherine the Great declined to suppress the Jesuits,[a] and the order fled Western Europe and survived in the Russian Empire"
    • The perennial debate. I believe most modern linguists accept sentences starting with conjunctions such as "because" as long as it introduces a dependent clause at the start of the sentence (instead of starting a uni-claused sentence). I generally shy away from it, but here, I do think it's the most concise way of conveying the information. Ergo Sum 19:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is often recommended to refrain from starting a sentence with a coordinating conjunction (the "fanboys": for, and, nor, but etc.) but starting one with a subordinating conjunction (because, if, though, when, etc.) is perfectly fine. Don't you agree? Johannes Schade (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's right. (Although I'm pretty sure there's some except for certain instances of "for" but I can't quite recall the precise rule). Ergo Sum 13:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, Grassi went to the Jesuit College in Polotsk in 1801" Delete therefore.
  • " Grassi proved to be an excellent student " Again, "proved to be" might be an idiom. Why not, "Grassi was an excellent student"
  • "summoned to Saint Petersburg by, Gabriel Gruber," Delete the first comma
  • "Therefore, the trio departed by sled for Sweden," Delete therefore.
  • " Lord George Macartney, the former British ambassador to China, who failed to convince the directors" Delete who
  • "Therefore, the party set sail for Lisbon, Portugal, where they believed they could secure passage to Macau." Again, delete therefore.
  • "the Superior General finally decided that he would no longer permit their mission." Delete finally
  • "He set sail from Liverpool on 27 August," -> Grassi set sail from Liverpool
  • "Washington was an even greater contrast to the cities of Europe he was used to," Delete even
    • The point of "even" is to contrast his impression of Baltimore with that of Washington, which he found even more dissimilar. I think it adds something thatt would bee lost without it. Ergo Sum 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also established a museum, that housed these devices among items, which drew members of the public, including senators and congressmen." Awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "He also established a museum that housed these devices, among other items, which drew members of the public, senators, and congressmen." I'm not thrilled with the amount of commas but I think it's necessary.
  • "He maintained good relations with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Andrey Yakovlevich Dashkov, who frequently visited the college, as well as with the American political leaders." Did Grassi maintain relations with other American political leaders, or Dashkov? Please clarify in the article.
  • "His presidency came to an end on 28 June 1817" -> "His presidency ended on"
  • "Despite the calls of Peter Kenney, the visitor to the United States on behalf of the Superior General, to return Grassi to Georgetown, he would remain in Europe for the rest of his life." -> "Grassi would remain in Europe for the rest of his life despite calls from Peter Kenney, the visitor to the United States on behalf of the Superior General, to return Grassi to Georgetown."
  • "While in Rome, he also successfully pleaded before the Propaganda Fide for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England." Delete also as redundant
  • "this promise would later be broken when Charles Albert expelled the order from the Kingdom of Sardinia." Delete later as redundant.
    • I don't have a date for when Charles Albert expelled the Jesuits. The source only indicates that it was at some later time. I think "later" is necessary to convey this. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""for a total of 25 years," -> "for 25 years"
    • I also think the phrasing adds something. By simply saying 25 years, it suggests that it was 25 more years, when those 25 include the ones he already spent. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even though it required that he reduce his duties as provincial." what does "reducing his duties as provincial" mean? Please clarify in the article.
    • I'm not really sure of a great way to phrase this. The source says that he had to reduce his duties but doesn't explain how he did that or which ones he forewent. This seemed like the most generic but source-faithful way of putting it. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the sources in "Further reading" not included as references in the article?
    • One is his writings on America, which would most likely constitute WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and also wouldn't really add anything to the article without going into excessive detail. There is already a brief summary of this writing in the article that relies on a secondary source's analysis. The second one is just an English translation of his writing. The third is just another academic analysis of his writing. None of them contain information that isn't already stated in the article or would just be much too detailed. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my first readthrough! Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Z1720. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I added a note above about the Society of Jesus/Jesuits, but that won't cause me to withdraw my support. I also suggest that "Horgan 1964, p. 12" in ref 47 be a bullet point, too. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the wikitext actually allows me to make the first one a bullet. Ergo Sum 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used a template to create a bulleted list in this edit. Feel free to revert if it is not helpful. I would suggest that either all the sources are bulleted, or just list them with a comma separating each reference. Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
They do - apologies.
  • "File:Połacak, Jezuicki. Полацак, Езуіцкі (1800) (2).jpg"; "File:Ritratto di Carlo Felice - Google Art Project.jpg"; and "File:Berger - Maria Cristina of Naples and Sicily - Castle of Agliè.jpg" - add a US PD tags.
You missed King Charles, but I have added it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Citations

Sources

  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for printed matter. But I think we've had this discussion before, so I won't push the point.
  • For works with multiple authors, I suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. But up to you.
    • I only see a ref with 2 authors, in which case, my general preference is for minimalism. I think ampersands may be useful when it becomes hard to read the ref without additional punctuation. Ergo Sum 14:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curran 2012: ISBN only partially hyphenated. I'd also take out the chapter title, since it doesn't seem to add much; incidentally, the page range given is for all of part 1, not merely chapter 1.
  • Garraghan 1937: The Catholic Historical Review can take a link.
  • Pizzorusso 2002: May as well translate the title, as you did for others.
    • The title is actually just his name. The Italian phrase I think you are referring to is the name of the encyclopedia it was published in. Ergo Sum 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking of the title of the encyclopedia, which could be rendered as "Italian Encyclopedia of Science, Letters, and Arts". But looking at the {{cite encyclopedia}} template, it doesn't look like there's a parameter for translating the title of the encyclopedia (as opposed to the title of an entry). So much for that great idea. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russo 2017: Why the "Chapter 3" at the beginning? You seem to cite other chapters (e.g., Curran 2012) without the prefatory indication. Also, ISBN not hyphenated.
  • Schlafly 2015: Ditto re "Chapter 20".
  • Shea 1891: Ditto re "Chapter VIII". Chapter subtitle missing. Where does the book indicate that it is volume 3 of a larger work? OCLC not really needed; the point of the OCLC is to help locate a work in a library, and that's not needed given that the book is freely available online.

Further reading

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as always, Usernameunique. Ergo Sum 15:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Ergo Sum. Responses above (although looks like you've already seen them). The only one requiring action is the lingering retrieval date for Curran 2012. Also, I'm not sure if you overlooked my comments about the OCLCs, or saw them but just preferred to keep them. Fine if you prefer them, just making sure you saw the comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I think having some identifier is helpful, so I've left the OCLC. Ergo Sum 16:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Just going to take a look with a view to promotion if all well but first: not an expert but the fragment in the lead "a promising student of the natural sciences, especially mathematics and astronomy" struck me -- is mathematics a natural science? Would this be better expressed as "a promising student of the natural sciences, especially astronomy, and mathematics" or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered it so. There is definitely a hotly contested (albeit low stakes) debate in the philosophy of mathematics about how to categorize mathematics. By way of avoiding that entirely, I'll rephrase the sentence. Ergo Sum 02:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that, and your rephrasing is an improvement on mine... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 10 July 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2021 [97].

Treaty of Guînes

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. 17 years after the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War a draft treaty to end it was signed. This was supposed to be finalised and ratified in front of the Pope six months later. But by then the French King had changed his mind, hostilities were renewed and the war lasted a further 101 years. There is limited information in the sources on this curiosity, but I believe that I have worked in what there is and that the article is substantial enough to be up to a FAC. Other opinions may be available, so have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BasedMises

edit

I would like to preface this with the unmistakable fact that I am not very experienced in grading featured articles. I cannot comment on whether or not it is a FA, although I can assure you, it likely is. However, I would recommend some very minor changes:

Done.
  • Remove "that" from unnecessary areas
Several removed. IMO the eight remaining are all "necessary".
  • Occasionally it feels underlinked, but this is purely from a reader's perspective
Well, possibly I pay too much attention to MOS:OVERLINK. and at the margin it is a subjective decision. I have gone through the article and added several Wikilinks, although in several cases it seemed that I was stretching. See what you think.
Certainly seems better. It is likely the optimal amount of linkage.

BasedMisesMont Pelerin 17:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BasedMises, don't worry about inexperience too much - although thanks for flagging it up - we all have to start somewhere, and all constructive contributions are grist for the mill. Many thanks for these thoughts; I shall address them as soon as I can and ping you. Meanwhile, if anything else occurs to you, don't be shy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BasedMises, your points above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SusunW

edit
  • Comment: A read through shows inconsistency of commas. I know that punctuation is different in BE and AE, so perhaps this is a situation of variance in style, but in any case, you should either use commas consistently after dates or not use them. Same for Oxford commas and introductory clauses, either use them or don't. My preference would be to use them in each of those situations, but that is preference and certainly not required.
Well spotted. It must have been me who did that, in a fit of sub-literacy, but I am struggling to believe it. Extraneous commas removed.
Methinks it was gremlins.

Lede

  • Link Guînes in the 1st sentence and not in the 2nd paragraph.
Done.
  • "… A truce was agreed" reads awkwardly to me. Can a truce agree to something? I would perhaps use brokered or negotiated, but maybe it’s a BE vs AE thing? (See also this wording in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.)
Truces aren't agreed in the US. How odd. Google finds a 100,000 instances of "A truce was agreed" - [98].
You are asking me how wars are settled? Me? Maybe truces are agreed, it just sounds weird to me. Terms are agreed upon, but the actual truce seems like it would just be accepted or rejected.
  • Why was Guînes an important town?
I have added "a strategically located strongpoint". Does that work?
yes
  • Link Innocent VI
Done.
  • This "Negotiations were reopened and a peace agreement whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory was rapidly agreed and the draft formally signed on 6 April" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps: "Negotiations, whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory, were reopened and a peace agreement was rapidly drafted and signed on 6 April."
I prefer sentences where events are in chronological order. How about "Negotiations were reopened and the English emissaries suggested that Edward abandon his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory. This was rapidly agreed and a draft treaty was formally signed on 6 April."?
fine
  • "…round of warfare may leave", might leave? Because may typically is iffy but probable, whereas might is used for hypothetical situations, but maybe it's a BE vs AE thing?
Changed to "might".

Background

  • "…declared they were forfeit" is confusing. What was forfeited? English title to lands, perhaps?
I have changed to "declared that these lands were forfeit". As it says "regarding the status of English-held lands in south-west France" in the previous sentence I hope that us clear(er).
yes
  • "This marked the start" seems very passive for beginning a war. Perhaps, "His action started (or sparked)"?
It was very passive. There were years of bad tempered negotiations both before and after what was only with hindsight recognisable as the outbreak of serious hostilities.
fine
  • I think the sentence "In 1340 the English king…" reads clearer as "In 1340, the English king Edward III, as the closest male relative of Philip's predecessor Charles IV, laid formal claim to the Kingdom of France in order to permit his allies who were also vassals of the French crown to lawfully wage war on it."
Done.
  • What other aims?
Cough. Good point. Specified.
Thanks
  • "It was to run for nine months…" what does this mean? The term of the truce was for nine months or it was successfully adhered to for nine months? (I think you mean term, as the following sentence says clashes continued, but 9 months seems an odd period to negotiate.)
I can't see what is wrong with the original, nearly all late-Medieval truces ran for specific periods, and this one was for nine months. But trusting you that something is awry I have changed to "It was agreed that it would expire nine months later". How is that?
fine
  • What is a freelancing soldier? It sounds like someone who goes out and wages war independently, i.e. terrorist. But I am guessing it is more like a mercenary?
OK. The etymology of free lance. See Lances fournies for what a "lance" was. (A small unit that accompanied a knight when he went into battle during the 14th and 15th centuries, a lance might have consisted of one or two squires, the knight himself and one to three foot soldiers or archers.) The knight would usually be bound by an oath of fealty to a feudal superior. If not, he, and his lance, would be described as "free". During war time they may sell their services and thus be considered "mercenaries", but not much more so than soldiers today who fight for pay. (Swift homage to Houseman's poem.) These free lances were loose cannons when there was little or no fighting going on. They would frequently strike off on their own on unauthorised looting sprees. This became known politely as "freelancing". When doing this they were the opposite of mercenaries. Possibly they could be equated to freebooters or pirates; or even more loosely to privateers. I have had this discussion before and am loath to describe them inaccurately. I could suppose go with something like "a band of English soldiers on an unauthorised expedition ..."?
You should word it how it makes sense from a standpoint of military history, of which I clearly do not have a grasp. Perhaps just linking to Lances fournies would allow the reader to ascertain the context.
Good idea. Linked.
  • Perhaps: "…desperate measures to raise money, set about raising an army, and resume the war"?
Instead I have expanded the last sentence to "Thus the opportunistic capture of Guînes resulted in the war resuming."
fine

Prelude

  • Difficult to approach the castle”? I am sure this is my misunderstanding of military operations but it seems really passive. Unless there were obstacles—men, moats, weapons in the way—what was stopping them from walking up to it? Do you mean take/storm the castle?
Just as you surmise. The source: "surrounded by moats or marsh on every side" ... "almost inaccessible by land".
Can we just clarify that in the text, i.e. "Difficult to approach the castle by land or some such?
Done.

Treaty

  • "…ex-archbishop of Canterbury among others", are you saying Islip had more titles or there were other negotiators? Perhaps, a semi-colon is needed after Canterbury?
That seems an unusual grammar, but I take your point. Done.
  • Verb tense seems awkward in "After several meetings". Either offset "reconvening on 19 May" with commas, or use "would reconvene".
Went with the latter.
  • Agreement was agreed seems redundant. Perhaps "Edward assented on 30 March to the principle of a peace agreement, abandoning his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory."
Chronological order again. And your proposal loses the role of the negotiators. I think "of a peace agreement" is the problem and it adds nothing, so I have deleted it.
fine
  • Again perhaps a BE vs AE thing, but I would say "By it, England…"
Comma added, although it now reads oddly to me.
  • Same for "In the same ceremony, English…"
Ditto and ditto.
  • "…another round of warfare may leave him" see above may vs. might
Done.
  • "…1355 campaigning season"? Do we need campaigning? Sounds political, but obviously is used for military strategy.
We do, it is; but I have found a link! Does that help?
yes

I think that's it for me. Thanks for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

edit

Thoughts

  • Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War is a tertiary source. Why is it used instead of secondary sources?
Largely because there is no policy against it; WP:RSPRIMARY "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Pragmatically because secondary sources, being largely narrative, tend not to make simple statements like "The Hundred Years' War began in 1337 and ended in 1455", Encyclopedias do, and so are useful for supporting simple, uncontroversial facts. And secondary sources frequently aren't: so Rogers p. 291 (which is cited in the article in 25, 28 and 32) in his cites mentions Fowler, Perroy and another work by himself. I agree that this is not usual, but it is not that uncommon. And Wagner is a top historian himself. He cites the article "Guines, Treaty of" solely to Sumption, but there is more in his article than Sumption provides, otherwise, as you say, Wagner wouldn't be needed.
    • The publisher seems to be Greenwood Press and the front matter claims that it is out of Westport, CT in the US. The UK location is listed as London. Maybe this is a US vs UK edition?
No, it is me getting it wrong. Fixed.
  • Weirdly the ISBN brings up Faber and Faber and U. Penn. Press as the publisher of Sumption's history of the 100 years war. Is this a UK vs US issue as well?
I suspect that someone has run auto ed or a similar bot over the article. I have reinstated the ISBNs as they are on the works' title pages, but who knows when some good faith soul will "improve" them?
  • Dictionary of Battles and Sieges is also a tertiary source and seems to be from the same publisher as Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War but with a slightly different name/location pair
Dropped. Not really necessary.
  • JSTOR has some stuff beyond the books that you used that might be of interest

--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Interesting. I don't have much to nitpick about, other than a sourcing issue:

  • "Brittainy"
Done.
  • suggest "The French responded on 8 May by cancelling the truce and announcing an arrière-ban in Normandy, a formal call to arms for all able-bodied males."
Done.
  • link ratification and treaty
Done.
  • There does seem to be heavy usage of a tertiary source (Wagner, 15 citations of 48, almost a third), which isn't ideal in an FA. English Medieval Diplomacy (1985) by George Peddy Cuttino seems to have some useful material, also have you checked the back catalogue of The Journal of Medieval Military History? I'd like to see secondary sources used for some of the material cited to Wagner.
15 from 48? I count 15 from 63. All for straight forward facts. Most secondary sources go for narrative flow and so miss some of the obvious facts. I can probably hunt down most of it elsewhere, and I'll look at Cuttino. Wagner now down to 8, and I can probably lose a couple more.
Wagner reduced to 6 cites. Note that he is a leading scholar of the conflict and that the content of each article is his original contribution. I don't see that the title alone makes it a tertiary source.

That's it. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker and thank you for the review. I have addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I have much of this, and will do the necessary. Tomorrow, more horse, blackadder! ——Serial 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a cunning source sire. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FACs are of course open season, but it occurs to me that you may have been misled by my idiotically missing In actu (Guerillero)'s source review and briefly listing it as needing a source one? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

edit

A top-notch article by our resident expert on the period. A few very minor comments:

  • Prelude
  • "found it difficult to approach the castle due to the marshy terrain" – "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to" in AmEng, but in BrEng it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Changed to the safe "because of".
  • "the modern historian Jonathan Sumption described as" – but "Sumption describes" in the next para. The latter is the more usual form, I think.
Oh! I have become so sloppy without for around to correct me. Fixed.
  • Negotiations
  • an ex-keeper of the privy seal and an ex-archbishop of Canterbury ... John's Chancellor – I am well aware that if one attempts to be consistent in capitalising job titles one will assuredly go mad, but I don't see why the first two posts aren't capitalised but the third is.
Because the first two refer to generic positions, while the third refers to a specific person. Don't look at me like that, I didn't write MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • "Charles of Navarre ... murdered Charles of Spain in his bedroom" – not that it matters, but it isn't clear whose bedroom. Does the venue matter, in any case?
It was tricky. I have tweaked it and expanded it slightly. Murder, even of powerful figures, happened. The circumstances of this one demonstrate, I feel, how bad things had become in France. But it is background, so I don't want to allocate too much space to it.
  • Agreement
  • "England was to gain the whole of Aquitaine, Poitou, Maine, Anjou, Touraine and Limousin" – I'm far from expert on the period, but I wonder was it England that gained these lands or the king of England? I'm perfectly prepared to be slapped down on this.
As the King of England gained them as sovereign territory it seems a reasonable usage and follows the sources. England would have expanded to include them, on the same basis as it actually held Calais, which sent an MP to Parliament for two centuries! But I am not that concerned either way.

That's my meagre lot of gleanings. – Tim riley talk 18:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that Tim, I have missed your bringing some of the basic rules of English to my attention rather late in life. As a consequence, my standards have clearly been slipping. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion, and as usual with Gog's articles a jolly good read. Tim riley talk 19:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: As this now has three supports, two from non-MilHist editors, source and image reviews and has been open for 19 days could I have permission to nominate another one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do (now that I've finally removed your other nom from the board)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

edit

This one looks excellent overall. Going to throw in some constructive feedback for good measure.

  • I feel like "draft agreement" might not be the clearest way to explain that this was a treaty that was a precursor to the war ending, 100 years later. The first sentence isn't bad, though.
Hmm. Changed to "draft settlement", although I think that is less readily understandable.
  • Overall, there are some longer sentences that would be more readable if broken into two, if not shortened.
I have split one sentence, although I am not convinced it needed it. The three remaining sentences which I would consider "long" are lists, where IMO breaking up the sentences would do more harm than good; in two cases they are appropriately coloned and semi coloned to aid readability. How many words does a sentence need for you to consider it too long?
  • "The war had broken out in 1337 and had been aggravated in 1340 when the English king, Edward III, claimed the French throne." -> "The war had broken out in 1337 and was further aggravated in 1340 when the English king, Edward III, claimed the French throne." (using past perfect tense twice in a row sort of cancels out its usefulness)
I disagree, but done. (To say that something was "further" aggravated when you have not said that it had been 'initially' aggravated looks like poor English to me, but I am no expert.)
  • "With both sides exhausted, a truce was agreed, which despite being only fitfully observed was repeatedly renewed." -> "With both sides exhausted, they both agreed to a truce, which was repeatedly renewed despite several lapses." (active voice on who agreed to the truce is clearer, and trying to be clearer than "only fitfully observed")
If I had put that in the original, I virtually guarantee that someone would be picking up the use of "both" twice in five words. "despite several lapses" may be "clearer" than "only fitfully agreed", but it is also less accurate. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative which stays closer to the original sense?
  • "When English adventurers seized the important town of Guînes, a strategically located strongpoint, in 1352, full-scale fighting broke out again." -> "When English adventurers seized the strategically located town of Guînes in 1352, full-scale fighting broke out again." (important / strategically located are sort of redundant)
Good point. I got carried away. Done.
  • "In early 1354 a faction in favour of peace with England gained influence in the French king's council." -> "By early 1354, the French king's council saw more influential members advocating for peace." (passive voice is less clear)
I'm sorry, but I disagree. If wasn't already aware of what was meant, I would struggle to work out what your suggestion was trying to communicate. I have a rule to go with reviewers' suggestions even if I am not happy, unless I am really strongly opposed. I am aware that an oppose on 1a would see this archived, but I feel that I need to draw a line somewhere. Could we perhaps talk this one out?
  • "In 1360 the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes, but was a little less generous towards the English, was agreed." -> "In 1360, both sides agreed to the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes, but was a little less generous towards the English." (fewer commas) Done, but both versions have three commas, and your suggestion had two more words, so I am unsure what has been achieved.
  • "flared up" is fine by me, but perhaps some people might find it too colloquial. You could easily say "The war continued from 1369, and only ended in 1455..."
If it is fine by you then I would prefer to leave it. 27,000 Google hits on "war flared up" suggests that it is not that unusual a phrase. 6 mn examples of "flared up", see some of the variety of usages here.
  • The first sentence in "background" could be broken into two parts, for clarity and readability.
Done.
  • "in order to permit" -> ". This permitted" (less run-on sentences and more readability)
To my eye chopping one concept into two separate sentences reduces readability, but done.
  • "Both sides were financially exhausted and emissaries despatched by Pope Clement VI negotiated the Truce of Calais on 28 September bringing a temporary halt to the fighting" -> "With both sides strained financially, Pope Clement VI dispatched emissaries to negotiate the Truce of Calais on 28 September, bringing a temporary halt to the fighting." (improved flow)
It is also inaccurate. The emissaries were despatched to negotiate a truce, it was not known at the time if any such truce would be negotiated, much less what it would be called. If you feel it needs changing, perhaps 'With both sides exhausted financially, Pope Clement VI dispatched emissaries to negotiate a truce. On 28 September the Truce of Calais was agreed, bringing a temporary halt to the fighting.'?
  • "confirming them in possession" -> "confirming their possession"
Why? What is wrong with the original phrase. Perhaps "wrong" is not the best word, but the English "were" in possession, so your suggestion seems a tautology. The French confirmed/agreed/accepted that the English were in possession of large parts of France and so, in theory, for the duration of the truce, they would not be disturbed there. "confirmed in possession" seems to me a succinct and accurate way of communicating that.
  • "and the English" -> ". Still, the English" (full stop to improve readability and grammar)
There are three uses of "and the English" in the article. I assume you mean the one towards the end of Agreement. I don't understand why you suggest the use of "Still" so I have changed the original to "... the treaty sight unseen. The English party for the ceremony departed ..." although to my eye the breaking of one concept into seperate sentences reduces readability.
  • "fortified towers or bastions" -> just say one or the other. or to split the difference, use "fortified towers" as linked to bastions. (this sentence runs on, and this small change will help)
They are different things. If you wish them to be merged I could say "small fortified stongholds" or "small fortified positions"?
  • "they were successful in approaching Guînes undetected and launching a night attack on the French camp." -> "they successfully ambushed Guînes during the night." (less wordy / more readable)
How do you ambush a town? Even if you could, "ambush" implies the ambushee moving into the ambush, at which point the ambushers attack. This is not what happe
  • "Both parties were ill-prepared and ill-briefed; only two of the French delegation had been involved in formal negotiations with the English before." -> "Both parties were ill-prepared and ill-briefed, with only two of the French delegation having any negotiating experience with the English." (less wordy)
And flows better. Thank you. Done. I have added "previous" for clarity.
  • "they would adjourn to receive further instructions from their monarchs, would reconvene on 19 May and that until then hostilities would be suspended by a formal truce." -> "they would adjourn to receive further instructions from their monarchs, reconvene on 19 May, and suspend hostilities until then." (sentences that list actions like this are improved by grammatical parallelism -- same tense is a good start)
I have already broken this sentence, in line with your comment above "there are some longer sentences that would be more readable if broken into two". See if you feel that your comment still applies to the revised version.
  • "French central and local government collapsed." -> "French government collapsed, both locally and in the capital." (avoids splitting the subject, the French government)
I am not sure that I understand. Local government was a different thing, run by different people for different ends to central government. At times they were at war with each other!
  • "The principle whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory was agreed; Edward gave his assent to this on 30 March." -> "There was an agreement in principle, where Edward would abandon his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory. Edward assented to this on 30 March."
Why? This seems to me to lose the main point of the sentence.
  • "By it," could probably drop this for no loss in meaning
True. Done.
  • "The truce was to be immediately publicised, the treaty kept secret until 1 October" -> the way this is written, it feels like these two statements contradict each other. If it's just trying to communicate a timeline, this could probably be stated more simply.
In what way do they contradict each other? One thing - the truce - was to be publicised; a different thing - the treaty - was not. I am happy to entertain specific suggestions to improve comprehension, or to explain how I have missed the point.
  • "Avignon was put back" -> the words "put back" are unclear here. Do you mean "delayed", or maybe "rescheduled"?
How is "The date for formal ceremony in Avignon was suspended."?
  • "Planned negotiations in Avignon to finalise the details of the treaty did not take place in the absence of French ambassadors." -> "In Avignon, a planned meeting to finalize the treaty did not take place, due to the absence of the French ambassadors." (clearer flow)
I don't see how introducing a pair of commas (the word count is the same) and mentioning the meeting before you tell the reader what it is about improves the flow.
  • "taking to the field in" -> "fighting"
Done, although note that Edward III did not take part in any fighting.
  • "In 1360, the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes,[35] but was a little less generous towards the English, brought a temporary halt to the fighting." -> "In 1360, the fighting was brought to a temporary halt by the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes with less generous terms for the English." (makes this more clear. I know you're sort of working around the citations, but you could probably pack them both at the end of the sentence and it would be fine.)
Done. I have added "slightly".
  • Somewhere between the second last and last sentence the jump in time is a little jarring -- most intelligent readers will infer that the war continued, but might be worth adding or rephrasing just to make that clear.
Very good point. Clarified. See what you think.

This is a great read and I was genuinely informed and interested. Feel free to WP:IGNORE any suggestions if you feel they take things in the wrong direction.

In future reviews you may wish to consider this at the start , rather than end.

Overall, this article is close to FA, if not already there. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shooterwalker and thanks for the detailed read through and comments. Your points are all responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is good work on the whole. Most of my suggestions were meant to be constructive and I don't mind some pushback where you explained what might be lost.
Thanks for that. I am always concerned that I might make reviewers grumpy when I push back.
  • "With both sides exhausted, a truce was agreed, which despite being only fitfully observed was repeatedly renewed." -> "With both sides exhausted, they agreed to a truce. Despite observing it inconsistently, the truce was repeatedly renewed." (second try. more the spirit of the suggestion than the exact letter.)
I am not seeing this as an improvement on the original.
  • I like your proposed alternative: "With both sides exhausted financially, Pope Clement VI dispatched emissaries to negotiate a truce. On 28 September the Truce of Calais was agreed, bringing a temporary halt to the fighting."
Done.
  • "small stongholds" would be a more succinct way of saying "towers and bastions".
I have gone with "small fortifications".
  • When you explained that the truce was to be publicised, but the treaty was not... I had to parse this out in my mind, but I see your point now. Perhaps there's a way to explain that the exact terms of the treaty remained a secret? I'm struggling to find an easy improvement but I leave it up to you.
Hmm. I have made more of a meal of it, which hopefully flags up the distinction for a reader more clearly.
  • I do like your suggestion: "The date for formal ceremony in Avignon was suspended."
Done.
The article was already well written and looks to be in even better shape now. I can support based on the prose, and I leave these last few suggestions to your discretion. My hope is that they improve the article, but none are so crucial to stop this article from being featured. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, thanks for the support and for the further suggestions. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

edit
  • ...English-held lands in south-west France... Consider mentioning or linking the Duchy of Aquitaine.
Smacks head. Somehow this gor lost in the copy edit and/or review process. Thank you. Start of background rewritten to include this.
  • ...historically-English territory in south-west France... Consider mentioning Aquitaine in place of this text. (I am not sure that Aquitaine could be described as a historically-English territory. Could we describe Croatia as a historically-Hungarian territory? I would say no, although the kings of Hungary were the kings of Croatia for more than 800 years.)
Rephrased.
  • Several members of the King's Council made fiery, warmongering speeches... Do we know why?
The sources don't say. Facts are difficult enough to nail down, motives more so. I could have a good guess, I imagine the sources could too, but it would be pure OR.
  • The resumption of hostilities caused fighting to flare up in Brittany... Brittany appears without introduction.

Consider mentioning/linking/referring to the War of the Breton Succession.

I think that it is unnecessary detail. I would rather replace "in Gascony and Brittany" with 'elsewhere in France' than go into more detail on a peripheral point which is not rementioned.
  • Consider introducing Geoffrey de Charny.
Done.
  • Geoffroi de Charny or Geoffrey of Charny?
"of" - changed.
No.
  • The war also went badly for the French on other fronts... Perhaps this should be mentioned in the "Prelude" section with some details.
Good point. Done.
  • Why is treaty linked?
Because Peacemaker67 requested that it be in an earlier review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that Innocent was acting at John's instigation. WP:WEASEL.
Rephrased.
  • The modern historian George Cuttino states that Innocent was acting at John's instigation. Is this relevant? Or why does he think that the Pope was acting at the French king's instigation?
IMO, yes. It is the closest we get to knowing why serious peace talks took place - as opposed to the frequent insincere discussions which led at best to ill-observed truces.
  • Who was the bishop of Norwich?
I assume that you have clicked on the link to find out and n=mean - can I state it in text. If so, done.
  • Are you sure that Simon Islip was ex-archbishop?
Good spot, my misreading of the source.
  • Link "Archbishop of Rouen".
Done.
  • Why is the term "sealed" linked?
Because readers may be a little vague as to what it means and appreciate a ready opportunity to find out.
  • Formal negotiations recommenced in early April and were rapidly concluded. Do we know the participants? All participants of the unsuccessful negotiations are listed some lines above.
I fudged it a little, as only the French delegates are known. I have now included what is known, although it looks a little lob sided.
  • Link the Pale of Calais.
Already linked at first mention.
When it is first mentioned it is hidden. Readers may be a little vague as to what it means and appreciate a ready opportunity to find out. :)
Very good. :-)) It is linked to "English enclave around Calais", I hardly consider that "hidden".
I think it should be explicitly mentioned when it is first linked. Our average non-British reader may not know that the "Pale" refers to a territory in this context. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.
  • Details of how much of the treaty was known to the French ruling elite and their debates regarding it are lacking... The cited source says that John II of France convoked an assembly, but he may have not informed those who were present about the details of the treaty.
This seems to me to be covered by Sumption's "It is not clear how much they were told or what they advised ... French policy [is] wrapped in embarrassed and conspiratorial silence".
  • By early September the French court had turned against the treaty. and The French court turned entirely against the treaty... Duplication?
oops. Thank you. Removed.
  • ...John was persuaded... By whom?
The word is not being used in that sense. Changed to "had decided".
  • Is the linking of campaigning season to season useful?
IMO very much so. It is not an area I would expect a casual reader to be conversant with, and hovering over the link will provide rapid elucidation.
Yes, if our causal reader is able to get through a lengthy article mainly about non-military seasons.
Oops. I messed up the anchor in the target. A reader is now taken direct to "Military campaigning seasons".
  • ...with both Edward and his son, Edward the Black Prince, taking to the field in separate campaigns in France. In which month/season?
I could of course give and source this detail, but why? It hardly seems germane. There is a large amount of information I could give about each campaign - entire books have been written about them - but it would all be peripheral to the Treaty of Guines.
  • The Hundred Years' War finally ended in 1455, 101 years after the Treaty of Guînes was signed. Is 1455 correct?
Yes. (Why do you query it?)
Both my memories and the article about the Hundred Years' War say that it ended with the fall of Bordeaux to the French.

If the end of the war is mentioned, perhaps its outcomes should also be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the Wikipedia article carefully avoids giving an end date for the war. But going through more sources, you are correct - the consensus is for 1353 and the final fall of Bordeaux. Changed.
I am not sure that the details of events more than a century later could be claimed as staying "focused on the main topic", nor relevant to it.
I think it is quite relevant that the English lost Aquitaine at the end of the war (although the Treaty of Guines had confirmed their possession of the duchy). Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka and thanks for your diligent scrutiny. I think that I have now addressed all of your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this interesting and well-researched article. I enjoyed reviewing it. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 3 July 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) 9 July 2021 [99].

2009 Football League Two play-off Final

edit
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having successfully promoted the article on the first play-off final won by the team I support, I now present the second (and, to date, most recent). Once again, despite it involving my team, I feel I have managed to write the article in a neutral fashion and without excessive jargon. I eagerly await feedback, which will be actioned as soon as humanly possible. Fun fact: at this particular play-off final, the dignitary who had the job of presenting the trophy to the victorious captain at the end was someone who had been in my class at school....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit
  • ".... the semi-finals; the semi-final between ..." repetitive.
  • "as the scores finished level" ah, over two legs, on aggregate and after extra time??
  • Link ref in the lead.
  • "until the last minute. In the 90th minute" kind of saying the same thing...
  • "would spend only" why not "only spent"?
  • "would spend three" similar...
  • "In the 2008–09 Football League season, the teams finishing..." I know the league table is there, but I usually give a passing mention to the promoted clubs and the distance behind the two play-off finalists ended, to put some context sometimes into how far off automatic they were but yet still had a chance/got promoted.
  • "in fifth place in... two places..." could switch one of these for "position"?
  • "The "Shrews" had" dislike nicknames, especially if not adequately introduced.
  • Link "lobbed".
  • Link cross.
  • Link foul.
  • Extra time, sending off?
  • 1996 Football League Trophy Final has an article.
  • "Shortly before kick-off" the kick-off of the final, not the preceding match you just described which was a regular league game.
  • Odds can be linked to fixed-odds betting.
  • "final who had" parses badly, it should be "same as" somehow, not "same who"
  • "Stimson opted not to make any changes to his starting XI and Miller was named" you already said he made no changes, so maybe jusut cut to "Stimson named him as a sub" or similar.
  • 2005 FA Trophy Final doesn't have an article but it should, so I would link it.
  • Link "sent off".
  • "Shrewsbury kicked off the match" what time?
  • ""looked unsettled" according to whom?
  • Link penalty area.
  • Link header.
  • "the key men " bit POV.
  • "the 15-minute mark ... the 15-minute mark" repeat.
  • "first serious goalscoring" bit POV.
  • "to receive attention"" perhaps be clear it was medical attention.
  • "Following the foul on Chadwick..." feels odd to have the sentence before this one interjected between the natural chronological flow.
  • "defeated, BBC Sport's interactive" overlinked.
  • Ref 15 scoreline needs en-dash.
  • Ref 16, needs pp. for multiple pages.
  • Curiously the match isn't linked to in the "2008–09 in English football" template so that shouldn't be there (or the play-off finals should be added to the template!)

That's all I have on my first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All done I think, apart from the one about ref 16, which I don't understand because it doesn't list multiple pages...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, it doesn't. Odd coincidental line break! I'll re-check over the weekend. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this and the modifications made following my suggestions, so I support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

edit

Having reviewed the other Gillingham play-off final, it seems inevitable I end up having a look at this one too. Not too much to say actually, the article looks in good shape. Just these comments:

  • was philosophical about the fact --> not sure this is the right tone for an encyclopedia
  • The teams finishing between fourth and seventh inclusive competed in the play-offs for the fourth and final promotion place. Brentford, Exeter City and Wycombe Wanderers were promoted automatically. --> might be just a personal style preference, but I would swap the order of these 2 sentences. And perhaps say something like "Champions Brentford". Just something to at least consider.
  • Shrewsbury Town finished two places and six points lower. --> I'm not sure a team can finish 6 points lower.
  • in which BBC Sport commented --> to my foreign eyes that "in" looks a bit odd. It's probably ok, but just checking
  • Shrewsbury's Chris Humphrey (pictured in 2016) --> link Chris Humphrey
  • Shrewsbury had previously played at the new Wembley in the 2007 League Two play-off final --> should that not be a capital F in final? I never quite understood why all the article titles of play-off finals have a capital F for Final, but okay, they all seem to have it, I suspect because they are proper names for events. But then I think we should be consistent and have an F here too. Not sure if the same rule applies a bit further on, where it reads "higher than the 35,715 registered at the previous year's League Two play-off final". That one doesn't look like a proper name to me, so maybe the f is fine here, but I'm just guessing now.
  • leading scorer among all League Two players with 20 goals in the league --> I had to read this twice to figure out what is going on. Would be good to try and get the number 28 in first, so that it contrasts better with Jackson's 20
  • and 7 in the Football League Trophy --> link Football League Trophy
  • Defender Graham Coughlan played a prominent role for his team in the first half. --> add for which team he played
  • Simeon Jackson scored the only goal of the game --> add Gillingham's
  • ref #48 (The Independent). Why is London here? The other newspapers don't seem to get a location.

That's all I could find. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I see you have changed the "philosophical" bit into the rather neutral "chose not to dwell" which is okay, but perhaps something along the lines of "did not blame the referee for their defeat" is a bit closer to the essence of his statement. I hope to be able to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight adjustment made -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources spot check:

  • #4 ok
  • #5 all fine except for the BBC says the game was played at Oteley Road. It doesn't mention New Meadow
    • @Edwininlondon: This is an odd one. At the time, the stadium was officially called the Prostar Stadium due to a sponsorship deal, but it seems that BBC policy was to use unsponsored names for stadia (as is WP:FOOTY policy). However, because the stadium was newly built and had acquired a sponsored name basically straight away, there wasn't 100% confirmation of what its unsponsored name actually was. Our own article at the time was called "New Meadow", but the BBC seem to have decided to use the name of the road it's on. This Guardian article from 2008 calls it New Meadow, as in fact does this BBC article which uses it in the context of the very game being described here. Not sure what to do there - use "New Meadow (also known as Oteley Road)".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Odd indeed. But I'd be happy with simply adding a source that puts New Meadow on Oteley Road. For example this BBC article. No need to change the text I think. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Done, and for good measure I also added the BBC Sport article I linked above which specifically references the Shrewsbury-Gillingham match earlier in the season as having taken place at New Meadow, hope that's OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #8 ok
  • #13 (all first half occurrences): all ok
  • #17 ok
  • #49 ok
  • #52 ok
  • #53 ok
  • #54 ok
  • #56 ok

That should do it. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. Support from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

Takin' a butcher's now then....

  • Post-match analysis showed that referee Oliver had erroneously awarded the corner kick... - why not just "wrongly"?
  • Gillingham finished the season in fifth place [in League Two] with 75 points... - bracketed bit redundant?

Otherwise no prose-clangers stick out really (and above are really minor quibbles) - comprehensive ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
alright then. looking good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: - hi co-ordinators, this nom now has three supports, and I was wondering if that meant I could start another nom? I normally hang out at FLC, where three supports on an existing nom would be sufficient to allow for second one, but I'm not so sure what the etiquette is here at FAC and don't want to do anything I shouldn't. Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also need image and source review passes. Edwininlondon, just checking whether your review was intended to include a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a source review to me, so on a Duck Test basis, sure, you may nominate another. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 3 July 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) 9 July 2021 [100].

Charles Heaphy

edit
Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a biography of Charles Heaphy, a British explorer and soldier of the 19th Century, active in New Zealand from the 1840s through to 1880. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for an action during the New Zealand Wars. He was also an artist, and produced many early artistic representations of life in New Zealand, many of which were used to attract colonists to the country. The article was promoted to GA in 2014 and successfully went through the MilHist A-Class process in 2016. I now bring it forward for consideration for promotion to FA. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Te_Rauparaha,_N.Z._chief,_photographic_print_of_wash_drawing_by_Charles_Heaphy,_1839.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Matukituki_Valley,_1847.jpg
  • File:Charles_Heaphy_-_Wellington_Harbour,_N.Z._-_Google_Art_Project.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I have added alt text to all images, and also added US tags. I swapped out the Wellington Harbour image for what I believe is a more striking image, but one which also has a US tag. Thanks for looking at this. Zawed (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried another tag but I really don't know what I'm doing here. Heaphy died in 1881 so his work should all be PD. Similarly for the Fox painting, he died in 1893. It is going to difficult to find evidence of when the paintings were first displayed, which I think is what you mean by publication. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have replaced the images with ones that have publication dates I can verify. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great article, interesting guy. A few points:

Lead
  • suggest linking New Zealand in the first sentence, many people around the world sadly have no idea where it is
  • decap Invasion if "Invasion of the Waikato"
  • "As well as being the first soldier of the New Zealand armed forces"
  • is there a link to an article about the NZ militia that could be used?
  • There is no article that I believe is suitable. Articles on NZ's early military history, including the various militia units, are pretty patchy and it would be pretty tricky to write up a cohesive one. Zawed (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "he was the first recipient from any militia force."
Body
  • comma after "who was a professional painter"
  • link London and Birmingham Railway
  • suggest "It is unlikely it was a serious wound, for a few weeks later he went on a trek back in New Zealand to the Taranaki Region, where he produced some of his more notable landscapes."
  • state that Arthur Wakefield was yet another brother of Edward
  • suggest "It had clashed with Māori in the Wairau Affray in the Wairau Valley to the south-east of Nelson, and several company employees were killed, including Arthur Wakefield."
  • suggest "Food sources included roots and berries; birds were snared and eels caught from streams. Along the coast, shellfish and gull eggs were added to the diet."
  • suggest "As they believed they were only 32 kilometres (20 mi) from the coast, their dwindling provisions prevented them proceeding to the mouth of the Buller River."
  • link South Island and Whanganui
  • suggest "They continued along the coast, climbing steep cliffs and fording rivers as they went. Their movements were held up at times due to rain and high tides."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • could we be a bit more specific regarding his "artworks"? What medium(s) did he use?
  • link captain (armed forces)
  • decap Invasion if "Invasion of the Waikato"
  • riverways
  • link Maritime pilot
  • suggest "As the British advanced deeper into the Waikato, he was attached to the staff of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Havelock."
  • "being killed by the Māori"
  • suggest "They were eventually relieved by reinforcements, but the two wounded men that Heaphy and the soldier were trying to protect died of their injuries."
  • in the VC section, you need to add the info from the lead about the status of the VC and source it
  • suggest "Grey, who was serving a second term as governor, despite knowing that neither Heaphy or another man recommended for the VC for an action earlier in the campaign, were in the British Army or Royal Navy."
  • suggest "Heaphy refused to accept this and began to agitate with the British government, with support from Grey, Havelock, and General Duncan Cameron, commander of the British forces in New Zealand."
  • the table regarding his term in Parliament is superfluous, just include that he was an independent in the text
  • "A parliamentary colleague was William Fox"
  • except when used in the sense of the full formal title, Commissioner should be commissioner, per MOS:JOBTITLES
  • suggest "The enquiry cleared Heaphy of corruption, although he was criticised for taking payments from young trainee surveyors in return for work."
  • link justice of the peace
  • Just wondering if Infobox officeholder is the right choice for this chap. He is notable for a range of things, but I'm not sure that politics is really the leading one. Perhaps Infobox person with embedded modules if needed?

That's it. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

Interesting article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "create art for advertising the country" - bit clunky
  • "around the centre of the country" - was NZ was a 'country' at this time? It's not clear to me what's meant by its 'centre'? I'd suggest tweaking this to something like 'around the inland of the North and South Islands' or similar
  • "he travelled extensively around the country " - as above
  • How did the NZ Company disseminate Heaphy's art in the UK?
  • "He took nearly six months to reach London," - this makes it sound like he dallied, when this was actually how long it took to make the trip
  • "On 11 February, soldiers of the 40th Regiment of Foot were bathing in the Mangapiko Stream near Paterangi and were ambushed by a raiding party. Heaphy, commanding some men of the 50th Regiment of Foot, came to the aid of the defenders and moved to cut off the Māori line of retreat. He then overcame the Māori reserve, before leading his men to the ambush site, to assist the British soldiers. Despite being outnumbered, the British repulsed the Māori and began to pursue them into the bush." - I find this a bit hard to follow. Are you sure that the British troops were 'ambushed' rather than 'attacked', and if the Māori line of retreat was cut how did they manage to escape?
  • I went back to my source and revised. What I don't think was clear previously is that Heaphy was in charge of some of the reinforcements, not the entire party. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he was a hard working representative for the people of the Parnell electorate, Heaphy's time in parliament was undistinguished" - can any examples of what he did for his electorate be provided?
  • What were 'native reserves'? (and is this still an appropriate term given 'native' is a term best avoided unless it was the actual name of something)
  • Have there been any recent interpretations of Heaphy's role in the British conquest and administration of NZ? I can see a few reasons this might not be fondly remembered by Māori. Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in that context; modern scholarship is more focussed on his art. I have expanded the legacy section to be reflect this. Nick-D, thanks for reviewing this. I have responded above and with edits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, but I've made some slight tweaks. Nice work here. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Zawed (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Card Carrying Parrot

edit
Well written. Also, you need to link Australia. This isn't really a deficiency, but I feel like maybe there needs to be one more photo or painting of the man himself (not necessarily needed, but if there is one it would probably be an excellent idea to include it). Excellent job overall. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I have linked Australia. RE another illustration of him, there is no painting of him, and supposedly only three photographs of him exist (one is obviously in the article, and there is another one of him taken at the same time where he is standing. The third is one from his politician days but I haven't been able to find it. Zawed (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Great job overall. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • What's going on with the strange pagination in #5?
  • Capitalize first word in the title of #46
Sturm, Thanks for the source review. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 4 July 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) 9 July 2021 [101].

2001 Football League First Division play-off Final

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the single most valuable association football match in the world. This one, played two decades back, was in the "Millennium Stadium-era" and winning the game was estimated to have been worth around £30 million. I'll address all constructive comments as soon as practicable, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
Thanks Buidhe! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

edit
Comments
ChrisTheDude yo, thanks for that. I've addressed and responded to all the above. Let me know what you think and/or there's anything else I can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Source review - pass

edit

Will do one soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vaguely remember asking about this before at a football FAC, but I have no idea which one it was and don't remember what the answer was: what are the credentials for the Football Club History Database?
  • Other sources are reliable for what they are citing
  • Source formatting looks fine.
  • I spot checked five or so citations for source-text integrity and copyright and saw no issues.

Aside from the question about FCHD above, the sourcing here looks fine. Hog Farm Talk 05:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FCHD is brought up periodically, it's considered reliable, see this archive. It's non-controversial stuff it's used for in any case. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amakuru

edit
Route to the final
Background
Summary
Details
  • Are there no kit colours? We usually see those on articles of this nature. We sometimes see little flags next to the players too, to indicate their nationality, although I don't know if any of that's a formally agreed part of the FOOTY style guide.
    I'm dead against the inclusion of trivial and decorative flags which form no part of critical commentary. They are often unreferenced as well. As for kit colours, sure I'll need to find someone to do that for me as I have had no joy doing it myself. Unless you want to help?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
Lead

No issues that I can see.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru kit detail aside (can you help?) the rest has been addressed or at least attempted to be talked away...... Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of kits, based off photos of the event. We can tweak the colours a bit if you think they're off, but otherwise all your fixes look acceptable. Re detail of coverage, I could probably dig some more facts out if I were to get back on to the British Library's microfiche reader as I did with the Swindon Advertiser, but it's a matter of judgement anyway so I'll not let that get in the way. Happy to support, good work.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: with three supports and both an image & source review passed, could I list another nomination? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild you appear to be the only FAC delegate making more than the odd sporadic edit, what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon that you may. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 6 July 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) 9 July 2021 [102].

Level Mountain

edit
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a comprehensive and well-researched account of Level Mountain, one of the largest volcanoes in Canada and one of the more obscure volcanoes on Earth. In late 2015, I rewrote and expanded this article greatly which was followed by a lot of copyediting that has lasted into this year. I have significant knowledge regarding the volcanoes of British Columbia, having researched them for the last 14 years or so. I have also brought other BC volcano articles up to FA class in the past and look forward to bringing this article about Level Mountain up to that standard. Cheers, Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Done. Volcanoguy 01:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen an FA article with a topographic map as a lead image. It also doesn't show the entire mountain. As for the map, it is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus

edit

Going point-by-point through WP:WIAFA:

  • 1a: With the caveat that I am not necessarily known for my prose skills, this seems fine to me.
  • 1b: As far as I can tell, every topic I'd expect to be covered is covered here. Maybe details on climbing/mountaineering would be cool but in my experience reliable sources for such topics are hard to come by.
There is nothing about climbing/mountaineering at Level Mountain, which isn't surprising due to its remoteness. Volcanoguy 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: I see some sources mentioned here are not used in the article - from the summaries I think many say too little about Level Mountain or only bespeak technical details, but I assume we checked this? I have to AGF on some sources as I don't have access to them. Inline citations used through the article.
Yes I have already checked those sources. Most mention Level Mountain only briefly and aren't very useful to use as sources. A few in that list are already used in the article. Volcanoguy 15:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d: I see no indication of NPOV problems, keeping the caveat about source access mentioned above in mind.
  • 1e: Fits.
  • 1f: The "drop a couple of sentences into Google" technique finds nothing untoward.
  • 2a: Seems to fit; topics mentioned in the article also in the lead.
  • 2b: Seems to fit.
  • 2c: I see some citation errors and some citations have retrieved dates and others don't.
What citation errors and citations are you referring to? Volcanoguy 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several show "Cite journal requires |journal=" errors, such as Holland 1976 and Gabrielse 1982. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? I didn't have those errors so I'm not sure if they're still there. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: I think the ALT text on most images here is a little too much about what the image is and a little too little about what information it conveys. Does File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg have a source map? Images are appropriate for the sections they are in.
The map is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some improvements to the alt texts. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Parking an uncommitted !vote here for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, provisional support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor

edit
  • Lead
  • "It is located 50 km (31 mi) north-northwest" - should be endash for north northwest
Done. Volcanoguy 23:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extensive north-south trending volcanic zone" same note as above.
Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An extensive wild animal community thrives in the area of Level Mountain." - a very vague statement to make; I think this would read much better as "A wide variety of animal species thrives in the area of Level Mountain, with caribou being the most abundant."
Agreed. Volcanoguy 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Humans had arrived at Level Mountain by the early 1900s, followed by geological studies of the mountain from the 1920s to the 1970s." - does including "had" before arrived add anything here? I'm not sure it does
Removed. Volcanoguy 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geology
  • "The rocks of these two terranes are displaced and autochthonous in nature.[7]" - maybe misunderstanding, but aren't displaced and autochthonous opposites? If so, what are you trying to convey with this sentence
You understood it correctly. It just meant that the Yukon–Tanana and Cassiar terranes consist of both displaced and autochthonous rocks. Since that sentence isn't needed, I've deleted it. Volcanoguy 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most common and best mechanism used to explain NCVP volcanic activity" - best according to whom?
Rewarded. Volcanoguy 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This volcanic edifice forms a broad, oval-shaped, north-south trending lava plateau" - same note as above
Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although some estimates of its areal extent are as much as 3,000 km2 (1,200 sq mi).[3][4]" - is there any brief explanation in these two sources about the discrepancy here? If so, I think it's worth noting here
No there isn't. Volcanoguy 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other planar fracture, Nahlin, is an east-dipping thrust fault" - what do you mean by east-dipping? Unclear to me.
Dipping is already linked in the article; see strike and dip. It's basically a thrust fault that is tilting towards the east. Volcanoguy 17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of U-shaped valleys have been carved into the volcano" - Since you say "a series OF ... valleys" this should be "has been carved"
I don't think so. "A series of" implies that there's more than one, thus plural. Volcanoguy 15:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Level Mountain has experienced volcanic eruptions sporadically for the last 15 million years, making it the most persistent volcano of the NCVP." - Not sure how I feel about the use of persistent here; is there a better term we could use instead? Maybe the longest living or something more along those lines?
Replaced "persistent" with "long-lived". Volcanoguy 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renewed volcanism sent a series of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit and have a total thickness of 76 m (249 ft). " - second half of the sentence does not match grammatically
Reworded to "Renewed volcanism deposited a 76 m (249 ft) thick sequence of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit." Volcanoguy 01:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These lava flows, comprising the third unit, are spheroidally weathered." - spheroidally weathered? What does that mean?
Linked. Volcanoguy 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The liquidus temperatures of these flows were in excess of 1,200 °C (2,190 °F) with viscosities as low as 100,000 poise." - Link liquidus
Done. Volcanoguy 04:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography
  • "The caribou at Level Mountain form a herd that is part of a larger population ranging west of the Dease River " - ranging doesn't work here
Changed "ranging" to "extending". Volcanoguy 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human history
  • "there is a human population of more than 630 who live within 100 km (62 mi) of the volcano.[2]" - any more details on this?
No. Volcanoguy 02:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Level Mountain was demonstrated in the 1920s as a possible source" - need a better verb than demonstrated
What would be a better word to use? Volcanoguy 21:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The recognition of Level Mountain as a long-lived volcano in contrast to the small Tuya field volcanoes has given it status as a separate volcanic centre.[27]" - I think you're missing an "its" after "it" and before "status"
I don't think so. Volcanoguy 15:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility
  • Looks fine.
  • Monitoring and volcanic hazards
  • "Like other volcanoes in the NCVP, Level Mountain is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." - too wordy, just say "it is not monitored closely enough to ascertain its activity level"
Done. Volcanoguy 00:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this from my first pass. Think the geology section is a bit jargon-y and dense for a lay reader. Will try to keep making small changes while these are discussed/addressed. ceranthor 00:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I've already tried avoiding jargon as much as I could but it's not possible. Geology is a technical subject, something not everyone can understand. This ain't Simple English Wikipedia. Volcanoguy 02:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support will try and run through and copyedit once more, but I think this is well-written and comprehensive. ceranthor 19:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit

Jargon will be a problem. Several other similar FACs have stalled/failed on their inability to bring explanations within the article to the readers, and that's a MOS issue, one which a FAC co-ord has picked up on. You'll need to expect to be asked to explain a lot of the things you believe are "common terms" within this article I'm afraid, and while I note you refute that position above, it's currently non-negotiable per MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, footnotes like on Huaynaputina that explain certain jargon terms might resolve the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: What terms need to be explained exactly? I could add footnotes. Volcanoguy 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox has many entries separated from their references by a space.
That is an issue with {{Infobox mountain}} itself that I cannot fix. I have brought it up on the template's talk page. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spaces have been removed. Volcanoguy 05:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "E-W." shouldn't that be an en-dash?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lava flows; these lavas created" no need for "lavas".
Deleted. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "includes slab windows, mantle plumes, crustal extension and deglaciation." I think I can guess at what the last one means, but the others need explanation.
I've deleted that sentence since it isn't important. Volcanoguy 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discontinuous breccias, sporadic tuff horizons and local lenses of fluvial, lacustrine and" way over-jargon.
Deleted. Volcanoguy 00:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that local streams flow on" on which local streams flow.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appears remarkably flat" tone issue there, is that someone's opinion?
I fail to see what is wrong with the tone here. It isn't someone's opinion. Volcanoguy 17:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of an encyclopedic stating that something was remarkable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would "unusually flat" work? Volcanoguy 17:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Smaller but related volcanoes" excuse my ignorance but what makes them "related"?
They were formed by the same geologic processes and are part of the same volcanic zone. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phonolites are vesicular and pumiceous in nature, although phonolites with trachytic texture are also present" essentially meaningless to someone without clicking away or without expert knowledge.
Added notes for "pumiceous" and "trachytic". Volcanoguy 20:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Tertiary basalts along" odd time to link basalt.
Agreed. I have moved the link to a spot earlier in the article. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stone stripping" what is that?
I am no expert but I assume it is the fracturing of rocks as a result of freezing and thawing of groundwater. There appears to be no article for "stone stripping", nor could I find a definition. So I do not know what to do here. Volcanoguy 16:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we find an expert to explain it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source again and it appears "stone stripping" was just a typo on my part for "stone striping". I have fixed this and added a link to the stone stripe article. Volcanoguy 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "confined to nivation and solifluction" more unexplained and unguessable jargon.
Added notes for both nivation and solifluction. Volcanoguy 21:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to Volcanic history. Hopefully you can begin to see the kinds of terminology jungles that are in here which are intractable to all but the most learned readers, which contravenes MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have added notes all throughout the article. Volcanoguy 04:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.0001 km3..." etc, why are we using such tiny fractions of cubic km when we could more easily (and better for the readers) use cubic metres? Especially when later you have "to 94,000,000 m3 (3.3×109 cu ft) in the" which arguably could be in cubic km!
Because that is what the sources use. Volcanoguy 18:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's fine for the sources, it makes no logical sense here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mafic shield-building stage.[3] ... Lava flows of the mafic shield-building stage" reptitive.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 20:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "columnar jointed" should be hyphenated.
Done. Volcanoguy 18:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the headwaters of Kakuchuya Creek were the site of" struggling to parse this.
Problem? Volcanoguy 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "peralkaline trachyte and comendite" do these not have articles?
Yes they are already linked. Volcanoguy 18:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.0117 million" why not 11,700 years? (although the linked article says 11.650...)
I did that for consistency since all the other dates are in millions of years. Volcanoguy 20:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocene article says the epoch began approximately 11,650 cal years Before Present but 1950 is considered the commencement year of Before Present. So 11,650 cal years BP + 71 years = 11,721 cal years. Volcanoguy 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a subsurface horizon " I don't understand this.
How is this difficult to understand? Horizon is already linked in that paragraph. Subsurface is below the surface. Volcanoguy 22:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "temperatures and precipitation gradients" temperature (singular).
Fixed. Volcanoguy 19:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "June 22, 1900 from" comma after 1900.
Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there is a human population of more than 630 who" repetitive, perhaps "but more than 630 individuals live..." or similar avoid repeating "human population".
Done. Volcanoguy 20:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "30,000 ha" needs adj=on to add the required hyphen before "acre".
Done. Volcanoguy 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More definite evidence" definite or definitive?
Definitive. Volcanoguy 19:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the crash mapping program" what's one of those?
Removed "crash". Volcanoguy 23:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "December 21, 1944 as " comma after 1944.
Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "August 14, 1952 upon" ditto.
Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of 1890s fame" doesn't feel encyclopedic in tone.
Reworded. Volcanoguy 21:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect ISBNs to be consistently formatted.
All ISBNs are formatted the way sources use them. Volcanoguy 19:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just convert them to one consistent format. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do I convert them? Volcanoguy 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
isbn.org has a 10 to 13 and reverse converter. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I've converted all ISBNs to use 10-digits. Volcanoguy 21:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • #1, 4, 5, 17, 25: Add archived URLs as backups?
The source templates do not allow archived URLs. Volcanoguy 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. I've linked it to the correct article. Volcanoguy 14:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #8, 9, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33: Retrieval dates not needed, since you're relying on the archived URL.
Removed. Volcanoguy 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #10: I'd link Canada Department of Mines to Minister of Mines (Canada). And this is a 95-year-old work; any chance it's available online?
Linked. I couldn't find it online. Volcanoguy 15:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find the copy of the work you relied on? At a library? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #10, 13, 15, 19, 29: Are there any identifiers for these works, such as OCLCs or ISSNs, that you can add?
No there isn't. Volcanoguy 15:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring only to ISSNs; didn't know what OCLCs were. Volcanoguy 02:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: I was able to find OCLCs for all of these sources. Volcanoguy 03:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoguy, OCLCs aren't worth much if they aren't connected to books held by libraries; their main use is that they link you to a list of which libraries hold a book. Thus, for Bilsland 1971, I would use OCLC 1131206258 (listing 20 libraries) rather than OCLC 866011885 (listing one library). The other three you added aren't linked to libraries at all. But there is another OCLC available for Gabrielse 1998 (linked to a copy held by Stanford). Hamilton & Scarfe 1977 does not have an OCLC linked to a library, but this is because the work is miscited; it is actually a chapter within a book, and, as luck would have it, the book is available online (with a DOI, to boot). Mark 1987 (for which you did not actually add an OCLC) does not appear to have one—understandably, since it appears to be grey literature—but it is available online here, so a link should be added. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Volcanoguy 06:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #11, 14: Are "S.", "T.", and "G." middle initials? If so, they should go in the |first= parameter, not the |last= parameter.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. I'm surprised I missed that. Volcanoguy 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #23: I'm a bit confused by this one. Should the Archives of Manitoba be the publisher, and "Hudson’s Bay Company Archives - Biographical Sheets" be the website? Also, the link is still live here, so reliance on the archived URL (other than as a backup) isn't needed.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #27: Does the publisher really have the exact same name as the journal?
That's what it seems like according to the American Journal of Science article. Volcanoguy 15:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #29: What is Ash Fall?
Ash Fall was a newsletter of the Volcanology Division of the Geological Association of Canada. Volcanoguy 15:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added the url and archived url for this source. Volcanoguy 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #31: Is a library really the publisher?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 15:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 27, 28: Why initials rather than first names? I generally prefer first names over initials; it can become a real pain to try to figure out later on who initialed authors are.
Simply because the sources use initials rather than first names. Volcanoguy 15:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilton 1981: Same points re: initials, and identifiers such as OCLCs.
  • General: For works with multiple authors, you might get some traction with the "|name-list-style=amp" parameter. Up to you.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoguy, further comments above. In going through the second comment, I realized that it appears a number of the materials you cited are available online, even if they don't have links in the article. Some examples are mentioned above, but there are more, such as Fenger et al. 1986, which is available here. I would go through your references again, to make sure that what is available online carries a link. After you do that I'll take another look. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find many of the sources online but not all of them. I have added urls and dois to those I found online. Volcanoguy 06:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Rambling Man, just a reminder while I was checking this. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, yes that is the correct source. I've added the url and correct page number (not sure how that happened). Volcanoguy 20:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Gog the Mild, just an update that I'm signed off on sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 29 June 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) 5 July 2021 [103].

Indian roller

edit
Nominator(s): BhagyaMani (talk · contribs), LittleJerry (talk · contribs), Aa77zz (talk · contribs), Shyamal (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right folks, we scoured the world for sources. And got a thorough going-over at GAN. I think in terms of comprehensiveness and prose this is on a par (or at least within striking distance) of other bird FAs. Let us know of any outstanding issues and we'll fix pronto. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee

edit
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: yes -is a collaborative project and all input is welcome Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, rufous is linked, but I still have no idea what rufous-white is. Rufous is a shade of brown, and seems to be a pretty dark shade of brown. That seems like something that can't be called -white. Yellowish-white, sure. Even bluish-white, as there's no color word for that. But blackish-white would just be grey, reddish-white would be pink, and I feel like brownish-white is just tan. Maybe a rufous shade of tan? —valereee (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And in fact the word rufous isn't even used in the body -- it says pinkish buff. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subspecies do not commonly have a common name and are often hard to distinguish to all but experts. Mentioning them in the lead is fine - naming them individually probably doesn't need to happen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

edit
  • Two subspecies are recognised. The Indochinese roller was formerly included as a subspecies. punctuation here isn't great.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linnaeus based his description on the "Jay from Bengal" that had been described
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...who in turn had received a drawing from a namesake relative who resided at Fort St. George, India. - Would cut this altogether. I mean, who cares.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • also described a roller from India under - drop also
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which actually lies within the range of the southern subspecies, - never say "actually"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two subspecies are recognized:[8] - As this is followed by a bulleted list...maybe The two recognized subspecies are:[8]'
This formatting is more typical. LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Gog. There has been a lot of further input and work since my comments, that I half kept an eye on via watchlist. I'm not close enough to the article to support, but have no objections if this is promoted. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. Read again, and made trivial edits. Support on prose. Ceoil (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Femke

edit
Resolved
  • states of India may be a better link than India in second paragraph lede.
Done. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain anting. Shouldn't that picture be in the next section?
I've moved the pic, I'll let the noms decide how best to explain it. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I overassumed on the anting. changed to sunning now. new location is fine.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and called Little King among villagers in Khuzestan Province -> relevance for conservation? That name might fit better in the taxonomy section.
I've moved it to "in culture". where I think a separate section for names could be added... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: then we'd have two separate sections for names - taxonomy includes scientific and common names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the section Taxonomy should contain info about scientific names and classification. But common names, i.e. names used by people in various regions and cultures, should be placed in the section In culture. Common names are not at all relevant in taxonomy. So I agreed with Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI to move the common names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the International Ornithologists' Union makes a big deal of giving official names and (sometimes) aligning them with taxonomy. True if names have some folklore have put them in cultural sections, but anything that is just a name we've put in taxonomy, well for the last several dozen bird/snake/plant articles I've taken to FAC and others I have seen as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On sleeping on it have moved back to culture anything that is not strictly name only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely sure we can use such an old source here for protection in Iran.
amended with ref. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
has been done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of subspecies has inconsistent bracketing
I'm pretty sure that bracketing is correct because Linnaeus described the nominate subspecies benghalensis as a Corvus species, but indicus as a Coracias species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bhagyamani is correct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain type locality
None of the 2 authors -- Linnaeus + Edwards -- provide any more detail about localities than just India + Ceylon. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining common jargon is allowed without it being explicit in the sources. Given the fact that type locality is not the exact link, hovering over the term doesn't give an immediate understanding either. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped. And yes, I also like it better that way, but separate. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the state bird of three Indian states, but only one of them is given a navbox at the bottom. Do the other two also exist?
added 2 missing navboxes. Or should all 3 be removed? After all: none of the other countries in IR range are not navbox'ed either? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they are in because of the symbolism. I have no strong feelings whether they are kept or removed. I don't think we need them on other countries Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, the 'Indian roller in Kerala' photo would be better placed in 'Distribution and habitat' (making sure the refs aren't pushed to the left)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is linked - you want explanation was well? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I couldn't figure out what it meant approximately from context. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I did this - looks a bit cumbersome to me but then again is an area I am familiar with so a neophyte's view is welcome :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review - pass
edit
  • There are a few non-english words in the article. Is it possible to use the lang template with those languages (f.i. neelkanth and pɑːla-pitta)?
now templated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that the alts don't repeat the caption, this would typically cause the text-to-speech software to repeat itself. If the caption is sufficient to understand the picture, you can add 'refer to caption' (or leave it blank?). Ask yourself: what relevant information do readers miss if they can't see the picture. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't know that's how tts software worked. I assumed it would look for and read only the alt text, not the caption. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass
edit
    • Formatting looks good;
    • FN 59, 60 do not have information about Karnataka.
added a ref. @Shyamal: may know a different one? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ZSI ref. Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a common winter visitor to the marshes and mudflats of Shadegan County in Iran, though not reported since the early 1970s; I don't think the latter is in the source, as its scope seems to be the 1970s. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded it to remove implication it has not been reported since Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the Kol people is cited to 1946. Should it be reworded so that it's unclear whether this is still the case (These things are always a bit awkward to word nicely).
Have changed to "traditionally considered" to place it in folklore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

edit

I've seen this striking bird in several places, with the greatest density on irrigated fields in Dubai. You've done a really comprehensive job, even including predators and parasites, which I always look for in bird articles A few minor comments:

  • I tend to have predators and parasites as a separate section, but your call
  • Differences with other species heading; I'd say " differences from..."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a weight for the egg?
  • The "In culture" section should mention its subject near the beginning like the other sections, I don't think we can just carry over "it" from another section.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A local Hindi name is neelkanth — local to what part of India? or do you mean it's a general inidan vernacular name?
    Local to where Hindi is spoken, redundant and now dropped. Shyamal (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JJE

edit

As usual, a point-by-point review:

  • 1a: Prose seems OK to me.
  • 1b: Seems to fit.
  • 1c: Going to have to take the nominator's word on this as I know nothing about this bird. Inline citations are used through the article and none of the references jump out as inappropriate.
  • 1d: Going to have to take the nominator's word on this as I know nothing about this bird.
  • 1e: Fits.
  • 1f: The "drop random sentences into Google test" shows no issues.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For future reference, you can use this tool. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 12:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • 2a: Seems to fit.
  • 2b: I dunno, maybe the plumage and not the voice would warrant a subsection.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source is given in the image page LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re the alt text - see my messages and Femke's above, in her comments. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, supporting this with the sole caveat that I don't know anything about this bird. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments
  • Perhaps combine the first 2 sentences with "which". Consider removing Indonesian roller from lead as distracting. Maybe mention in lead that the subspecies are northern and southern. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Indochinese roller in lede. But if combining the 1st 2 sentences with "which", this "which" maybe misunderstood as referring to Coraciidae? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

edit
I'd think so, especially as Indochinese roller not mentioned, which makes me think authors are assuming they are still a single species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 28 June 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) 5 July 2021 [104].

Martin Rundkvist

edit
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC); Chiswick Chap (talk)[reply]

Martin Rundkvist has excavated a Viking boat grave, a sixteenth-century sword, and, last summer, a mead hall from the time of Beowulf, where he discovered nearly two dozen gold figures. And then there were the times he won six games on Jeopardy!, and spent a week at the helm of Sweden's official Twitter account, @sweden. Cool stuff.

This article, too, has an interesting history. It lasted for less than a month when it was created in 2008; within days of its recreation in 2020 it was brought back to the gents at AfD, where it again failed their discerning gaze. This year, Chiswick Chap and I thoroughly reworked the article, incorporating dozens of new sources and soliciting the input of half a dozen users with experience in this space, including Midnightblueowl, Johnbod, KJP1, The Rambling Man, and Amitchell125, even before MeegsC gave it a thorough good-article review. The benefit of this process is that the article is in pretty much the best shape it could possibly be in; it is therefore featured-article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

edit
  • It's not a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep this one. The relevant guideline, for its part, says that "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged". And the OED lists both forms.
  • Link the first mention of Stockholm in the prose.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.

Well done. I only found some minor issues with the article. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hurricane Noah, I appreciate the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination now. NoahTalk 23:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Spicy

(Not an image review). I have concerns over the licensing of the lead image. This was uploaded to Commons with the source listed as 'Directly from photographer' and the author listed as 'Kristina Ekero Eriksson'. The uploader doesn't seem to be the same person as Erikson, so this would require an OTRS release from the copyright holder. Spicy (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, permission has been received. Spicy (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spicy, given your previous input, would you have any interest in conducting an image review for the article? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24

edit

How fascinating! Looking through now. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Lead[reply]

  • Hmm, may be picky (and perhaps incorrect) of me, but "He is particularly known for research into the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages of Scandinavia, and for significant excavations in the province of Östergötland" doesn't sound right. These are obviously huge spans of time and seem like a fairly large topic to be "particularly known for". My initial reaction is that people are particularly known for more specific things, such as "He specializes in medieval music and is particularly known for his work on Guillaume de Machaut—am I making any sense here? Maybe rephrase to "his research focuses on/lies in", "he studies" or something...
  • "research into" seems a bit vague, is there a qualifier for what kind of research we're talking about here? Archaeology seems like a broad subject for such a statement
  • Is there a name for this group of people Rundkvist is discovering all these things on?—or are they merely the inhabitants of said areas?
  • It feels a little odd to exclude almost all the universities he has been associated with in the lead

Early life and education

  • I presume nothing is recorded on his parents or secondary schooling?
  • "has lived entirely in Stockholm", just to check, though a researcher at Exeter and Chester for ~10 years, he still lived in Stockholm?

Career

  • "In January 2020"—would be nice to avoid the two sentences in a row that begin with "In"
  • The Bronze buckle is a nice picture, but confusing and out of place as there's no explanation for why it's there, what it is, or indeed anything about Barshalder until a later section. You may want to add to the caption, text or perhaps move it downwards
  • Any date for the pic of Rundkvist?

Research

  • Completely up to you, but it's been a while since Williams was mentioned, so I almost wonder if his full name should be used here again for his first mention (though me forgetting who he was could have easily been the result of returning to this article they next day). By no means necessary though
  • I think using just the last name suggests that he was mentioned previously—and that someone trying to figure out who he is should look above—whereas a full name might suggest that he was not mentioned. So if anything, a second link is probably the way to go rather than a full name. I'm happy either way. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, should be fine how it is then
  • "Reported as far away as India" seems a bit odd, I mean, India has a huge media system and probably reports on a ton of archeological subjects. And either way, it might be more meaningful to say something like "widely reported in the media"
  • Maybe a wikitionary link for oblong? I had to look it up and I suspect others would have to as well
  • Would a link to "Late antiquity" for the Late Roman Period make sense? Might be a stretch but am not sure

Aska mead hall

  • I feel a bit awkward to say I didn't know what "pendant" meant—so it could warrant linking—but this may just be me. As an aside, this seems like a broad category—is there a more specific characterization that could be used?
  • I'm not sure what the "stamped" either in this context. Does it literally have a stamp of somekind?

Other

  • Well the "Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities" is dup linked, but the distance between is far enough that it could be warranted
  • I don't think the duplicate linking was intentional, although I'm slightly inclined to keep the second, since arguably the link is more important there. But I could also be convinced to take it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be retrieval dates missing from ref 6 and 7 of the Primary section
  • These are archived URLs where the originals are dead. The "archived on" dates are thus the relevant ones: whatever day the archived URLs are accessed, they will still appear as the sources appeared on 11 February 2015 and 3 September 2014, respectively. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. My rationale was merely that other archived refs have retrieval dates, so I assumed this was an oversight
  • Most of the URL-sourced references have archived URLs as backups; only primary refs 6 & 7, and secondary refs 5 & 10, have dead URLs, and rely on the archived URLs in the first instance. Those four are the ones that don't have retrieval dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responded above. Thanks for the support, Aza24.

Placeholder Support from KJP1

edit

Apologies, life is intruding, but shall certainly be back with comments, although probably not before the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor suggestions on this at the informal PR. It was a very good article then, and has been improved since. It is well-written, exhaustively researched and impeccably cited, nicely illustrated, and guides the lay reader through some, quite technical, concepts. I’ve re-read it for FAC, think it fully meets the criteria, and am pleased to Support it. KJP1 (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, KJP1! Appreciate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Edwininlondon

edit

I am no expert in the field, and also apologies beforehand for any odd comments regarding prose, as I'm not a native speaker. My comments:

  • wikilink Ph.D. to Doctor of Philosophy
  • terms "the most-read archaeology blog on the Internet" --> given that this is now 14 years ago, should this not be past tense?
  • Rundkvist has lived entirely in Stockholm --> this reads odd to my foreign eyes. I expected "his entire life"
  • received his Ph.D. from the same institution --> in which field?
  • its connection to archaeology --> wikilink archaeology
  • these were primarily research-related, but included contract work --> I don't get the "but": I have known people doing research as a contractor
  • I agree they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it appears that for Rundkvist, contract work did not generally include research; he uses "but" himself ("I have made a living in archaeology since my graduation in 1992, now and then in contract work but mainly doing research into the Iron Age of Sweden's southern quarter."). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He likewise served --> like what? I don't understand what is being compared
  • Rundkvist's research deals with the Bronze through Middle Ages in Scandinavia. --> a bit further on we have "Barshalder 3 detailed the Stone Age finds from the site", so I'm not sure this opening sentence is accurate
  • Changed to "focuses on". As far as I can tell he doesn't do much Stone Age-related research; Barshalder 3 appears to have been more for the sake of completion than anything else, and Rundkvist admits in the introduction that the Stone Age is not his bailiwick ("In working with the Iron Age graves for my doctorate and preparing a basic report of the excavations, I ... had to bring order also to the Stone Age finds. I found this to be an excellent opportunity to learn something about Neolithic matters."). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • analyzed --> is there a reason this is in American English? Given Rundkvist's connection with Exeter and Chester, BrE seems more appropriate
  • where mead halls may have stood --> there is an earlier instance of mead halls that should be linked; and a bit further on there is a superfluous link: a mead hall measuring 47.5 metres
  • I'm not sure about some of the quotes. Why is "the ostentatious manorial buildings where the Late Iron Age elite lived their lives and played their roles" a quote? Since there is a quote from an interview in the same paragraph, I think it would be better to reduce the number of quotes here and paraphrase.
  • the Society's executive board --> I don't think that capital is right, and come to think of it, should it not be "the association's executive board?

That's all I could see. I'll have a look at the sources later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a bit more as promised (sorry for the delay). Looking the sources now.

Source reliability:

  • What makes the Aardvarchaeology blog a reliable source to be used here?
  • Aardvarchaeology is Rundkvist's own blog, and is cited sparingly. [R 9] (first cite), [R 42], and [R 43] are "self-published sources on the article's subject", and are used for his various positions and the precise dates thereof, which are uncontroversial. [R 9] (second cite) and [R 12] merely offer Rundkvist's quoted perspectives, but state nothing as fact (besides the fact of his words). Finally, [R 36] and [R 37], which add several details about Rundkvist's excavations at Aska, are "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"—a standard which, appropriately enough, takes the shortcut WP:BLOGS. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check:

  • R 1: ok
  • R 2: ok, except source has 2014 not 2015 as start year Talinn Uni
  • R 3: ok, except for source does not seem to cover "as a project leader, field archaeologist, and artefact specialist for Värmdö Municipality from 2007 to 2008"
  • R 4: ok
  • R 5: ok
  • 34: the link does not take me to the review
  • 35: ok
  • 37: ok
  • 38: ok
  • 39: Neither the original nor the archive link leads me to this book review. Google Scholar doesn't seem to have it, so not sure. What page is the book review on? The link shows the index
  • R 23: ok
  • R 30: I couldn't find anything that validates "near the town of Vadstena"
  • That's taken from the article on Aska (and confirmed via Google Maps). It's an uncontroversial point that I added for clarity, but I can remove it (or look for a better source) if you prefer. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • R 32: ok
  • 50: ok


Formatting:

  • I must admit I'm not so sure about the use of — — —. Just makes it a little too academic for me. Are there other FAs that use this format? I'm open to be convinced about it, but have not come this style across before.
  • It seems a convenient notation, avoiding the need to repeat the subject's name many times down the list of sources. It's not obvious what else could take its place, as the symbol must look suitably blank so as to be unambiguous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ——— (2020) needs a language tag and translation
  • (1999) Grave matters: misspelled Göteborg
  • (Spring 2010) and (April 2015) --> I would just say (2010) and (2015), but maybe this is a matter of taste. But if months are given for journal articles, it should be for all journal articles. A few in the Other section do not have a month and ref #35 #40 also do not have months.
  • The convention here is to use the date listed on the cover or title page of the journal. Some journals—particularly those published once a year—have only the year, while others have a month or (particularly for quarterly journals) a season. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last 2 works, ——— & Koskinen, Julia Schulte, are these self-published?
  • They're excavation reports, so essentially yes. There was some discussion of this at the DYK nomination. Basically, their use is acceptable when "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", as is the case here. But in any event, the language in the article was tweaked slightly (e.g., "Their survey reported") to reflect that these are not peer-reviewed works. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #13: Thunmark-Nylén 1995, Abb. 53:2 What does Abb. mean? Is this German?
  • It's short for "abbildung", and means "illustration". (Note the title of the book: "Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (I): Abbildungen der grabfunde", which translates as "Gotland's Viking Age: Illustrations of the grave finds".) It's the equivalent of "pl." for "plate". It's obvious when the work is in hand, because each illustration is labelled "abb." followed by the number. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #44: needs a language tag and translation

That's all I could find. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Edwininlondon. We've responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with your explanations and changes, on prose and sources. I Support the nomination. A nice piece of work, well done. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Edwininlondon! Appreciate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

3D artistic items - which includes items such as coins - need two licences. One for the photograph and one for the original work. In the cases in this article where the latter is missing the objects portrayed are obviously out of copy right, but this still needs to be stated. See File:Stele des Polybios.jpg or File:CILI(2)p47fgtXXFastitriumphales.jpg for examples of how this might be handled. Images which seem to lack full licencing include the buckle, the chess piece and the foil figures. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild. Added the licenses. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

I imagine Edwin's comments above are equivalent to a source review, but if necessary I will do one. Substantive comments (I have only a short time tonight and more will come tomorrow):

  • If he has lived in Stockholm almost all his life, then how does he fulfill the academic positions at non-Swedish schools?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only two minor things:
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities is linked twice.
Ping me if I'm needed to do a formal source review, though I imagine what Edwin did is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: No rush, of course, but just a heads up that all comments have been resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:20, 30 June 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) 5 July 2021 [105].

Santería

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a religion that formed in Cuba, drawing upon both traditional West African religions (primarily those of the Yoruba) with elements of Roman Catholicism. It has since spread to various parts of the Americas and also to Europe. Having previously brought Heathenry (new religious movement) and Rastafari up to FA status, I'm hoping that I've done enough to allow this currently GA-rated article to become an FA too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review+ other comments

edit
  • Length is an issue with this article. It's 10524 words. Personally I think its readability would benefit a lot from reduction around 20% by increased use of summary style. (t · c) buidhe 10:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ellegua.jpg Dubious licensing. People often upload photographs as "own work" even if they're not the copyright holder of the underlying work. This is a fairly sophisticated piece of artwork and I think it would need OTRS for me to be convinced it's freely licensed.

Coordinator comment

edit

This seems to be attracting little attention. If there is not considerable movement towards a consensus to promote by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Vaticidalprophet

edit

This is a great topic and a great article, and I'd hate to see it archived for lack of interest. I don't have my sea legs about FAC yet, so I'm approaching this quite cautiously, but I've read through and have an eye to support. I'll come back to pick some nits. Vaticidalprophet 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Vaticidalprophet
Beliefs
edit
  1. It features 16 prominent deities, some female and others male I'm not sure that these clauses are best combined. "features 16 prominent deities" seems best-paired with the currently-choppy first sentence on polytheism, while the gender of the deities slots in with the later-in-the-paragraph discussion of their characteristics.
I've made the change you suggest here, merging the "16 prominent deities" part in with the opening sentence and moving the mention of gender to a later point in that same paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Practitioners believe that some oricha were created before humanity, but that others were originally humans who became oricha through some remarkable quality This is not, I think, a "but" matter. They're combined ideas, rather than contradictory ones. "...were created before humanity, while others were originally humans..."
That's much better. Good suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. he is the messenger between humanity and the oricha and most ceremonies start by requesting his permission to continue This feels to me as though it's missing a comma after 'oricha', but may be personal style.
I can certainly add a comma in here, that's no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The religion maintains that all people have multiple egun accompanying them at all times, and that these can be either benevolent, malevolent, or a mix of both Superfluous 'either'.
A fair point. I've taken out "either" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Several academics have described Santería as having a "here-and-now" ethos distinct from that of Christianity, and the social scientist Mercedes C. Sandoval suggested that many Cubans chose Santería over Roman Catholicism or Spiritism because it emphasizes techniques for dealing with pragmatic problems in life There's a set of ideas here that doesn't quite emerge in the article and feels like it wants to emerge. You discuss earlier that Santeria is not an orthodox religion. Here, you stop just short of calling it an orthoprax one. The article doesn't drop the word 'orthoprax', simply heavily hints at it. Do any sources discuss orthodoxy vs orthopraxy in Santeria explicitly?
Not in so many words, unfortunately. I think that we could maybe throw in a wikilink to the Orthopraxy article in-text somewhere, but perhaps not use that word itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Practices
edit
  1. Santería is a practice-oriented religion; ritual correctness is considered more important than belief Same as for before -- this is almost, but not quite, explicitly saying 'orthopraxy' and comparing the concepts. Orthopraxy is a pretty unfamiliar theological concept to a lot of people in English-speaking regions, and I think it's worth explicitly discussing more what that means, and what makes Santeria different -- even unfamiliar -- through the lens of people working off Christian assumptions.
As I don't think any of the sources actually use the term "orthopraxy" (I would have incorporated it if they did) I'm not sure if we can explicitly include the term here, but I've added a wikilink to our article on the topic here, which hopefully does the trick. I'm open to expanding the text here, but not quite sure how to do so, given the constraints imposed by what is in the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink is fine. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Most of its activities revolve around the oricha, although it also displays a focus on solving the problems of everyday life Are these actually distinct ideas in orthoprax religions? "Although" sets them off as counters.
I've changed this sentence to the following: "Most of its activities revolve around the oricha and focus on solving the problems of everyday life." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since at least the 20th century, some initiates have kept libretas, notebooks in which they have written down material relevant to the practice of Santería The article does not make clear the relevance of this sentence. "Some initiates" beginning in relatively recent years, and without later discussion of the concept, doesn't explain why this is encyclopedically relevant.
I thought it appropriate to discuss the notebooks (and their connotations of literacy) straight after mentioning the oral component in Santería teaching. I don't have a problem with moving this sentence elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where they might go that might be more suitable. Perhaps at the bottom of the "Initiation" sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a better fit -- it's a bit disjointed where it is. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Most Cubans do not understand the Lucumí language, barring a few words that have filtered into Cuban Spanish, the daily language of most practitioners Is the last clause of this sentence necessary? The needed ideas are expressed without it.
I've removed "the daily language of most practitioners." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The casa will typically also include a place to store ritual paraphernalia So...this article uses the term 'paraphernalia' a few times (including in the caption of the image right here). It is, in the abstract, a perfectly respectable word, and likely to be the best one possible. But -- the common association with the term is drug paraphernalia, to the point if you google the word alone you get this. Considering there are already drug-culture associations with Santeria in the popular consciousness, I'm not sure this wording won't attract snickers from peanut-gallery readers.
Difficult one. I'm certainly open to using a synonym here, but "equipment", "utensils", and "implements" all also have connotations of other types of activity (indeed, more so than "paraphernalia", at least in my experience). Terms like "stuff" and "things" are just too vague. On the balance of things, I'd say "paraphernalia" is our best option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Altars or shrines to the oricha are typically found both within the igbodu, and in practitioners' homes Not sure this needs a comma.
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. anthropologists have observed practitioners who have included Taoist figurines, or statues of wizards, on their altars As above re. comma.
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are specific rules of engagement that are laid out for taking part in the toque de santo; dancing poorly at the ritual is considered an insult to the oricha This is a great line, exactly the kind of thing that catches a reader's attention in a long article. Is there anything more on the bad dancing?
In her ethnographic account, Hagedorn discusses how one practitioner she observed began doing the moonwalk. Other participants thought that this individual was basically just trying to show off rather than being genuinely possessed by an oricha, and were disapproving as a result. I don't know if that's the sort of thing that we could add here or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a great line -- I'd definitely add it. Human interest, y'know. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some practitioners have also reported becoming possessed by an oricha in non-ritual contexts, such as while sleeping or walking through the streets, or in some cases during drumming performances carried out for non-religious purposes "In some cases" seems superfluous.
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History
edit
  1. They largely adhered to what is now known as Yoruba traditional religion -- is this WP:PLEONASM? There may be a better way to discuss the Yoruba religions.
I'm not sure about this. Today's Yoruba are largely Christian and Muslim, so it would not be unreasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the chronologies of Abrahamic conversion in West Africa to assume that a lot of the enslaved Yoruba who were taken to Cuba were Christian or Muslim too. Explicitly stating that they were largely adherents of traditional religion just keeps things crystal clear for those readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you're coming from, but I think it sounds off how it's currently phrased. "They largely adhered to their traditional religions, rather than the Abrahamic religions they would later convert to" ...that's a quick rephrase and not necessarily a good one, but that's the sort of idea I think it's better pointed at. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned that introducing Christianity and Islam among the Yoruba here might be a little off-topic; I've had a go at rewriting this sentence, merging it into the subsequent sentence. Do you think that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the 1920s, there were efforts to incorporate elements of Afro-Cuban culture into a wider understanding of Cuban culture, such as through the afrocubanismo literary and artistic movement Should Afrocubanismo be capitalized?
It certainly can be. I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Regarded largely as a U.S. phenomenon rather than a Cuban one I'm not sure how relevant it is to this paragraph, then. The rest of the section seems to focus on Santeria as practiced in Cuba, rather than as practiced in the United States.
I've deleted this part of the sentence; it is not essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. One of the most prominent figures in this revival, Ava Kay Jones, had for instance previously been involved in King's Orisha-Voodoo "For instance" seems either superfluous, or needing to be moved forward in the sentence.
I've taken out "for instance" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics
edit
  1. However, there are a greater number of people who are not initiates but turn to santeros and santeras for assistance on practical matters Strike "however".
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This section broadly seems to use older numbers, although I recognize it may be a limitation of what sources exist.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any more recent data on this subject. After a big rush of scholarly research on Santería coming out in the 2000s, things have died down a bit in the past ten years (academic fads moving on, I suppose) so there's no contemporary discussion of demographic information to draw on. Hopefully some more work will be done on this topic in future, which we can then incorporate into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
edit
  1. I think there may be room for expansion here, particularly in the last paragraph, which has a lot of ideas and seems to be compressing them. There's at least one very long sentence trying to deal with multiple different ideas ("the Catholics and the animal welfare activists both opposed" type stuff).
The Reliable Sources haven't really dealt much with the broader social impact and reception of Santería, strangely enough. (Whereas the sources on Haitian Vodou tend to dwell on these issues to a greater extent). I'm certainly open to an expansion of this section, although the article is already pretty much at the upper end of its recommended WP:Article Size at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a strong article. I'm hoping these can be resolved so I can support. Vaticidalprophet 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to read through this article and offer your thoughts, Vaticidalprophet. I hope that you enjoyed doing so and found it informative. I believe that I have responded to all of your points but let me know if any more come to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good -- just made a couple replies. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. I need to go back and look at the Hagedorn ethnography but I've responded to your other two points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All significant concerns I have are resolved, and I'm happy to support this outstanding work. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (incl. source review) from A. Parrot

edit

To avoid taking up time and space on the FAC page, I've made a lot of prose edits already. They're numerous but very granular, so it should be easy to check what I did; feel free to undo or rework them if you see fit. The article seems pretty comprehensive, so my questions are few.

  • Creyente seems to be used as both singular and plural in the article body, as per Lucumí, but the lead uses "creyentes". Should that be corrected?
  • Linguistics and languages are not my strong point, but (having done some delving on a search engine) it does seem that the plural should be creyentes in the Spanish language, so I have standardised that spelling throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…between a few dozen through to hundreds" is awkward.
  • Fernández Olmos & Paravisini-Gebert 2011 has oyugbona instead of oyubona (which is in Mason 2002). Should oyugbona be added as an alternate spelling?
  • Is there a distinction between the necklaces that are laid on the soperas and those (aside from the distinct collar de mazo) that are given to initiates? The text lists three terms for the latter but only one for the former, making it seem like there are two types with somewhat different terminology. Also, it's not clear how many necklaces initiates receive, though the comment about their colors seems to suggest each initiate receives one for each oricha.
  • In all honesty, I'm not completely sure about the distinction between these two different types of necklace; I believe they are effectively the same, but I could be wrong. I am not an initiate of Santería, so my knowledge relies on the secondary sources, none of which go into particular detail regarding these necklaces. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • If santería is a semi-formalized version of a cluster of longstanding Afro-Cuban beliefs and practices, as the history section indicates, how did it come to be regarded as distinct from the other Afro-Cuban traditions?
  • As I understand it, that varies depending on the tradition in question. Palo, for instance, arises primarily in the east of Cuba and has a system of belief and practice that it very distinct from Santería, largely because it derives from Kongolese, as opposed to Yoruba, traditional religion. Abakuá operates as a sort of closed or secret society, which thus distinguishes it from Santería in an organisational manner. The situation with Arará is a bit more complicated; it is sometimes regarded as being part of Santería, and sometimes as something separate. The article used to mention that, but I removed it when trying to get the word count down. Would you like me to re-add it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the distinctions need to be clarified as much as possible. The fluid nature of these traditions raises the question of how they came to be regarded as separate traditions with distinct names. Also, do the sources say anything about how these traditions came to be concentrated in the geographic regions that they are? A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored mention of the different interpretations of Arará's relationship with Santería. As for the geographical dispersal of these traditions, I can't recall anything specific in the literature; I would imagine that it may have something to do with where certain ethnic/national groups from West Africa congregated on the island, with Kongolese being predominant in the east and Yoruba in the west, but it could be a good deal more complicated than that. There's a chronological dynamic at play here too, with Kongolese predominantly brought to Cuba in the eighteenth century and Yoruba in the nineteenth. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…Argüelles Mederos and Hodge Limonta…" I think their full names and (if possible) academic field should be supplied.
  • I've added the personal names of these two and described them as "scholars of religion." I'm not sure if that is the specific field they are most closely associated with; I couldn't find a great deal of information on Argüelles Mederos, but Hodge Limonta appears to have a doctorate in social history and now works in a Center for Psychological and Sociological Research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

I'm not acquainted with the scholarship on this topic, but the all sources cited seem as strong as one could ask for, especially given the difficulty of studying religions of this type. Although many of the sources are inaccessible to me, I've spot-checked 15 citations to those I can access, and all check out, which is impressive. Here is my only point of concern:

  • Citation 203b: Some of the wording of this passage is a bit uncomfortably close to the source, but it could be reworded to shorten it and reduce the resemblance: "Many practitioners will also enshrine their family ancestors on the floor under the bathroom sink. The ancestors are thus located below the water pipes, allowing the spirits to transition between the realms via water, their preferred medium for travel."

Excellent work, and I'm very close to supporting. A. Parrot (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My last point: the further reading section is pretty extensive. That brings up a question about the FA criteria that editors rarely discuss: "thorough" in criterion 1c could be read as meaning "including everything", which is impractical for large topics. In practice, editors treat 1c as if it said "extensive and representative", which means that leaving RSes unused is OK as long as the coverage is neutral and discusses everything it needs to at the appropriate level of detail. But Flores-Peña and Evanchuk 1994 seems like it might answer my question about necklaces. I'm assuming you didn't cite the book because you haven't been able to obtain it. If so, it's not a major problem, but it's worth keeping in mind in case you or some other editor is able to obtain that source—even an FA can be improved. A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; where I haven't included a source it is because it proved impossible or highly impractical to obtain a copy. That does not mean, however, that I (or someone else) will never be able to access said sources at a later date, and if so, information from them could be utilised in this article. David H. Brown's Santería Enthroned, which has been out of print for nearly twenty years now, but which I believe is set to be reprinted, would be one definitely worth drawing on here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Z1720

edit

Please consider me a non-expert.

Many of my comments below regard the citations. Most of the citations are completely necessary, but a large amount of footnotes in the prose makes the material hard to read. I suggest consulting WP:OVERCITE (specifically WP:REPCITE) which, although is an essay, explains my concerns in better detail and describes why too many footnotes can be distracting to a reader. I have listed places below where I think the refs can be merged or deleted which I hope will be considered. There are other concerns listed, so please read each bullet point.

  • "regarded as subservient to a transcendent creator deity, Olodumare. Olodumare is believed" It's weird when the same word is put twice in a row. Perhaps, "regarded as subservient to Olodumare, a transcendent creator deity. Olodumare is believed"
  • "The three facets of this divinity are understood slightly differently; Olodumare represents the divine essence of all that exists, Olorun is regarded as the creator of all beings, while Olofi dwells in all creation.[50] In taking a triplicate form, this deity displays similarities with the Christian Trinity.[50]" These can possibly be merged.
  • Is this Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert the same person that is referenced in the Ache section? If so, wikilink in the prose.
  • "The casa will typically also include a place" Delete also
  • "The casa refers not only to the building where ceremonies take place, but also the community of practitioners who meet there.[155] In this sense, many casa trace a lineage back to the 19th century, with some santeros and santeras capable of listing the practitioners who have been initiated into it.[155]" Perhaps merge
  • "greater importance, sacrifices are often of four-legged animals,[68] including dogs.[220]" Why are dogs given a special mention here?
  • "this varies depending on the client,[237] but is often equivalent to a year's wage.[238]" Since both of these citations are to Hagedorn 2001, can they be merged to prevent OVERCITE?
  • "Each initiation varies in its details,[239] which are often concealed from non-initiates.[240]" Both [239] and [240] reference Mason 61, so 239 can be deleted.
  • "During this preparation, a misa espiritual will typically take place to gain the blessings of the ancestral egun,[247] and an ebó de entrada ("opening sacrifice") will be made to the oricha or the egun.[247] " Delete the first [247]
  • Ref 265 needs a page number for Fernández Olmos & Paravisini-Gebert 2011.
  • "An animal sacrifice usually follows,[269] involving at least five four-legged animals and 25 birds.[270]" Since these are all cited to Mason, they can probably be merged.
  • "The following day is el Día del Medio ("the middle day"),[271] when guests—including the initiate's family and friends—pay homage to them.[272] It includes drumming and a feast.[272]" These references can be merged.
  • "This baptism entails washing the drums in omiero and making sacrifices to Osain.[294] It also involves affixing an afoubo, a small leather bag containing items including a parrot feather and glass beads, to the interior of the drum.[294]" first 294 can be deleted.
  • "Praise songs are sung for the oricha,[305] with specific songs associated with particular deities.[306]" Since both cited to Hagedorn, these can be merged.
  • "Particular focuses of Santería healing include skin complaints, gastrointestinal and respiratory problems, sexually transmitted infections, and issues of female reproduction;[324] some practitioners provide concoctions to induce abortion.[324]" the first 324 can be deleted.
  • "Practitioners believe that each species of plant has its own aché which holds healing power; medicinal plants are deemed more powerful if harvested from the wild rather than being cultivated, for the latter can lack aché.[132] Adherents often believe that different types of plant have different temperaments and personalities; some are shy or easily frightened and thus need to be approached with the appropriate etiquette.[132]" First 132 can be deleted.
  • "Charms and amulets are also used as a general prophylaxis against illness; one example are ears of corn that are wrapped in purple ribbon and placed behind a doorway.[344] Other rituals are designed to protect against sorcery, as for instance with the scattering of petals of the gálan de día in the house or the placement of okra by the door.[344]" first 344 can be deleted.
  • "During the session, offerings will be given to an overseeing oricha;[355] the diviner will then cast small objects onto a board or table and interpret the way in which they fall.[355]" Delete the first 355
  • "Obi, also known as biagué, involves the casting of four pieces of a dried coconut shell, with the manner in which they fall being used to answer a question.[358] Any practitioner can utilise this technique,[203] which is also used in Palo.[358]" These can be merged, as they are cited to the same author and successional similar page numbers.
  • "Dealing with the dead" I find this title a little awkward. Perhaps "Death ceremonies", "Death rituals" or something similar?
  • Tricky one. I agree with you that "Dealing with the dead" is a little awkward. However, finding an appropriate alternative is also difficult. The section discusses not only funerary rituals but also various practices designed to facilitate interaction with the spirits of the dead. How about "Funerals and mediumship" as a title for this sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This brings me to History, which I will continue later. Thanks for considering my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of these citation suggestions. Citing each line for FAs is common—otherwise people come in later and add a "citation needed" tag to a sentence that is cited later in the paragraph. Also things like "These references can be merged." is extremely counter productive... why on earth would we ever want to decrease the ability for readers to verify information? I don't see how any of these has to even do with the FA criteria, it seems nothing but the insistence on (good faith) personal preferences. Aza24 (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've adopted some of Z1720's suggestions, but not others (and would like to thank them for taking the time to read and review the article). Where a specific citation recurs in a single sentence, as happened a few times in the "Initiation" section, I agree with Z1720 that we would be better getting rid of one of the citations. In other examples, such as where there are two consecutive sentences that give different pieces of information but share a common citation, I have agreed with Aza24, that it is better for the citation to recur at the end of each sentence. Otherwise, as they noted, it won't be long before someone comes along and slaps a "citation needed" tag onto the former sentence. In those instances where I have agreed with Z1720, I have left a comment; where I have disagreed I have not written a direct response. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Per WP:CITETYPE, a inline reference can be placed at the end of a sentence or the end of a paragraph. If other editors add citation needed to sentences then they can be removed if it is cited in the next sentence. There are exceptions to this of course: direct quotes need a citation, as well as controversial statements or extraordinary claims that are likely to be challenged. Per WP:CITEBUNDLE, sometimes citations can be merged or bundled to help the flow and readability of an article. I won't oppose if the citations remain as-is, but I am highlighting this concern so that the nominator can make a decision on if these citations are necessary. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, thanks for your response. I think we both know I did not say you couldn't put refs at the end of paragraphs, I rather gave a very specific rationale for why not doing is valid option. I will make it clear that the primary reason I even brought this up is because you yourself adding a lot of cn tags to Chinua Achebe for FAR, even though almost all of them were cited later in the paragraphs. I don't say this to try and go "got you!" but merely to highlight that even experienced editors can be mislead by such a citation style, so choosing to make it clearer is in no way a negative thing. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I want to reiterate what I've told Aza24: I won't oppose if references are not bundled, merged, or deleted. I appreciate that you have already considered some of my suggestions, and fully support your disagreement on any of my comments. I consider the nominator to be the "expert" of the article and I usually default to their judgment (and if I disagree, I will try to cite the policy or guideline I am using to justify my comment). I am going to continue reviewing the article now so expect more comments soon. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "In Cuba, traditional African deities perhaps continued to be venerated within clubs and fraternal organizations made up of African migrants and their descendants." Do the sources express doubt in where African deities were venerated? If not, delete "perhaps".
  • As far as I understand the sources, there is very little evidence for what the Afro-Cuban clubs and fraternal organizations actually got up to, as they did not generally document their activities in written form. Historians surmise that it was in these groups that orisha continued to be worshipped clandestinely, although this has not been conclusively proven. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although drawing on older West African orisha cults it was, as described by Clark, "a new religious system"." Awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "Although it drew on older West African cults, Santeria was, as described by Clark, "a new religious system". I'm not thrilled with my suggested phrasing because it uses too many commas, so feel free to improve upon it.
  • "Santiago de Cuba—which lies at the eastern end of the country—" Is it important for the reader of this article to know where Santiago de Cuba is? This might be especially unnecessary if, as stated in the demographics section, the religion is predominately practiced in NW Cuba. If this statement isn't needed, delete the info in the dashes.
  • I included it so as to try and demonstrate the general drift of the religion from the west of the island to the east over the course of a century or so. I think that without mentioning the general location of Santiago de Cuba, few readers would be aware of where it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priests of Santería, Ifá, and Palo all took part in government-sponsored tours for foreigners desiring initiation into such traditions,[421] while Afro-Cuban floor shows became common in Cuban hotels.[421]" Delete the first [421]?
  • "In 1991, the Communist Party approved the admission of religious members,[429] and in 1992 the constitution was amended to declare Cuba a secular rather than an atheist state.[429]" Delete the first [429]?
  • "Based on their research, the scholars of religion" Delete Based on their research. If the article introduces a scholar's opinion, it is self-evident that this would be based on their research.
  • "Wedel noted from his research in the 1990s" delete from his research, as the reader will assume a scholar's statement is based on their research.

Those are all my comments! Once everything is addressed I will take another look. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking a look at the article, Z1720! Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to my concerns! I'll highlight some things mentioned above that need to be resolved:
  • "Dealing with the dead" heading can be changed to one of our suggested titles above, or something else.
  • The mention of Santiago de Cuba is included in the article because it is demonstrating the drift of the religion to the eastern part of the island. I did not intuitively comprehend this information (probably because the preceding information talked about the religion's spread to the countryside) so this should be more explicit in the article.
  • There are some places where the same citation is used multiple times in a sentence. I won't withhold my support over these concerns below, but per OVERCITE I highly suggest that, in the examples below, one of the references be deleted unless there is a justification for keeping it. The examples are:
    • " Practitioners believe that the dead must be treated with respect, awe, and kindness;[118] they are consulted at all ceremonies.[118]"
    • "Funeral rites, called itulu,[203] are designed to appease the soul of the deceased.[203]"
    • "A year of additional rites for the dead individual follow,[203] a period ended with the levantamiento de platos, the breaking of a dish, to symbolise the deceased's final departure from the realm of the living.[203]"

Another readthrough did not produce other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Z1720! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

edit
  • "cowrie shells" – link?
  • "Most casa are established" – Should it be "casas"?
  • a person's own obi – What is an obi?
  • a misa espiritual will typically take place – maybe translate this term, difficult to understand from the context what precisely it is.
  • I was asking myself if the drums (batá) are traditional African instruments, or if they have been invented in Cuba.
  • protective charms known as resguardos. – I do not quite understand what kind of charm these are. Potions?
  • No, the resguardos are physical objects. Wedel calls them "talismans" rather than "charms", which is probably the better term to use here given that a "charm" can often connotate a verbal device for healing or protection, so I'll replace the term "charms" with "talismans" in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • most slaves were either convicted criminals or prisoners of war captured in conflicts with neighbouring groups – This seems to be valid only before the large-scale slave-trade conducted by Europeans? It sounds as if a majority of slaves brought to Cuba were convicted criminals; I doubt this is the case.
  • This is a big issue and one that obviously needs its own Wikipedia article to be dealt with properly. We really need better coverage of issues to do with the slave trade and its relationship with older European and African systems of enslavement; the current Slavery in Africa article, which is linked to here, does not really do the job in a precise enough fashion. I'd agree that those captured in conflict would have represented the majority of enslaved Africans who were transported to Cuba, but if I understand the sources correctly there would have been some individuals among those transported who had been forced into slavery as a form of punishment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, as a quick fix, just switch to "prisoners of war or convicted criminals", to put more emphasis on the prisoners? Something like "mostly prisoners of war, and to a lesser extent convicted criminals" would be even better I think. The current wording is a bit misleading in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this reached a fever pitch in 1904 after two white children were murdered in Havana in cases that investigators speculated were linked to brujería. – Maybe briefly add what the consequences were?
  • In both cases, male Afro-Cuban suspects were arrested. In one case, the accused individual was sentenced to death but found hanged in his cell prior to the execution; in the other the police arrested two men, who were then garrotted. I'm not really sure how to integrate this into the text without it going a bit off-topic, but am happy to discuss this further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 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) 3 July 2021 [106].

Kids See Ghosts (album)

edit
Nominator(s): K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the album Kids See Ghosts by the duo of the same name, which consists of successful rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi. The album was a widespread critical success and was ranked amongst best-of lists, while it also experienced commercial success in various countries. After having promoted this article to GA status in September 2019, I have frequently monitored it and stayed hard at work, with the article having gone through a peer review and two unfortunately unsuccessful FA candidacies as well as becoming part of a GT and the main article of another! I have looked thoroughly at the previous FACs, assuring to take on as many issues as I can, but I am willing to listen to any further comments made on this one. K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shoot for the Stars

edit
Resolved comments from User:Shoot for the Stars

The article looks great Kyle, but the sources are the reason it keeps failing. Sources like HotNewHipHop and Hypebeast are perfectly fine for GA but not are not considered "high quality" sources for FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot for the Stars The album sources classify HNHH as reliable so this one is not really an issue and I will start going over the Hypebeast material properly soon; once this is resolved, would you switch to support? --K. Peake 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle, the people at FAC do not care what the album sources classify. Only the "highest quality" sources are allowed. And HNHH is not one of them. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot for the Stars It is debatable whether that's a high quality source though, plus do you support yourself or not??? Also, get on with reviewing "Say You Will", as you've been quite active and that review was opened days ago. --K. Peake 08:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot for the Stars I have removed HotNewHipHop from this article altogether and done the same for numerous similar sources; are you willing to support now? --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support! You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot for the Stars Thanks a ton, that's really satisfying to hear after I worked so hard on removing the sources from the article adequately! --K. Peake 05:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

edit

I greatly respect the effort being made to improve the article, especially on overshadowed topics regarding black music and musicians. Hope this gets through this time! 웃OO 18:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TheAmazingPeanuts

edit
Resolved comments from User:TheAmazingPeanuts

Why integers from zero to nine are not spelled out in words? They are supposed to be that way per MOS:NUMERAL. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts Read MOS:NUM advice on comparative values; doesn't that imply these should be written as numbers when integers of 10 and larger are used in the same sentence? --K. Peake 14:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: I don't think that doesn't matter, the guidelines says numbers from zero to nine should be spelled out in words, even integers of 10 and larger are used in the same sentence. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Done now, do you support? --K. Peake 08:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Yes, wish you luck by getting this article to featured article status. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass

edit
Resolved comments from User:Heartfox

Version reviewed

Quality—addressed

  • What makes the following sources worthy of inclusion in a featured article?
    • The Fader
    • Rap-Up
    • HotNewHipHop
    • Highsnobiety
    • HipHopDX
    • Fact
    • Atwood Magazine
    • Rough Trade
    • Dazed
    • Analog Planet
    • Hipersonica
    • laut.de
    • The Line of Best Fit
    • Sonic Magazine
I am going to start by responding to the assessment of the sources, as I will be going out soon so am not able to go over all of your points in one go. The Fader, Rap-Up and HotNewHipHop are all listed as reliable at album sources plus they all have a proper staff team and editorial process that reports facts unless clearly differentiated as opinion pieces; more of these are published by HNHH but none are in this article. Highsnobiety never came up in the last FAC but I do believe it is reliable due to covering news in subjects including music, also the source changed away from being a blog a while ago. The staff are over 100 strong, so it does not have a problem with lack of an editorial team. HipHopDX focuses on both the album and the performers' genre of hip hop, reporting news regularly to do with rappers and the well-regarded Warner Music Group has ownership of it plus there is an editorial process. A wide range of US music culture is covered by the nearly 20 years old magazine Fact, which established reliable source The Guardian has named as influential thus showing it is worthy of inclusion. Atwood Magazine is a magazine with 40 writers that are based in various countries, with the content focusing on many different artists and it is run by an editor-in-chief. Furthermore, the magazine sets out to provide writing that is authentic and it also was a Webby Award honoree for Best Music Website, helping establish reliability. Rough Trade is the site of an independent record label that has been around for decades and pressed releases for many artists, so it should be clearly reliable. The website for Dazed launched in 2006 digitally for the magazine that has been around since 1991, setting out with a dedicated editorial team including various writers. Blogs are clearly separated from other content on Analog Planet, so the source is not a WP:SELFPUB violation and best-of lists are often published by the website. Hipersonica seems like an unknown quantity due to it being a Spanish website, but the source is dedicated to music and publishes proper articles rather than blogs. Music is dealt with exclusively by laut.de, including hip hop, plus 14 music journalists and programmers work with the magazine and I think that shows reliability. The album sources page I linked to earlier also classifies The Line of Best Fit as reliable, plus reputable aggregator Metacritic has used the site's reviews and established reliable sources such as NME and The Independent have mentioned the reviews. Sonic Magazine has been around for decades and set out to provide well-written music journalism specifically, also it has a proper editorial team. --K. Peake 10:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HotNewHipHop—In the previous FAC, both Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria expressed concerns about this source. Even Shoot for the Stars above didn't think it was "high quality". You're going to need a stronger justification than them having a staff to persuade everyone.
  • I will replace or remove this in all areas to the best of my ability come to think of it, as the publication has repeatedly been questioned like you said. By now I've got round to wiping all usages of HotNewHipHop as a source from the article, managing to replace the majority by using reliable sources! --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fader—I am not seeing a staff page or evidence of editorial process.
  • I tried hard to research this but they have all contributors listed on separate pages, including the staff that are listed as a contributor rather than members by name. The source has now been omitted from the article by me, which has thankfully not caused any major content removal! --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rap-Up—What concerns me is that the article has no author listed and I am not seeing a staff page/editorial process.
  • I have replaced this source with a Billboard one, as it is better to use a well-regarded source than one with its reliability in question when both report the same info. --K. Peake 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HipHopDX—Because they are owned by Warner (but not when the articles cited were written) and have a visible editorial process etc. I am willing to accept, but I suggest you provide further evidence in case others take issue with it.
  • Rough Trade—I think I was confused because you linked to a record label. It appears the link should be Rough Trade (shops), not the record label website.
  • I suggest you elaborate on the justifications for the non-struck sources. Have reliable publications cited them recently, have they been used in books by reputable publishers, do the authors have strong credentials, etc.? It is not enough to have a staff list and not be a blog.
  • I have replaced Fact with Exclaim! now, plus in that part of music and production the booklet is used to help source every sentence from the Plain Pat one so I invoked it only once from there onwards per overcite guidelines. Will look at the other sources tomorrow. Sonic Magazine have managed to secure interviews with many popular artists including Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie and Jay-Z, helping establish them as reliable alongside their co-signs from major Swedish newspaper Göteborgs-Posten and well renowned journalist Jan Gradvall [sv].1 The German languages and literature department at the Uni of Michigan ranked laut.de number one on a recommended list for online magazines, plus the publication's coverage was acclaimed by a portal of major German newspaper Rheinische Post; these accolades should indicate reliability. I have now replaced the usage of Atwood Magazine under themes and lyrics with reliable sources that are used elsewhere in the article too. Highsnobiety won the Cultural Blog/Website award at the 2017 Webby Awards, has collaborated with Xbox and Puma, plus here is proof of an editorial process; it says "online editorial", also the about page specifies that the company is drawn to the ideas rather than claiming to present them. Don't all of these combined demonstrate reliability? Taking a look at the about and contact pages of Analog Planet, the website lacks a proper editorial team, authors with strong credentials or any similar recognition, so I have removed it. Hipersonica do not even have an about us page, plus the other pages on the website do not establish reliability themselves and it has now been omitted from this article by me. The new addition of Mondo Sonoro may raise eyebrows due to it being a foreign source, but the magazine is distributed in clothes shops, discos, pubs and music venues in as wide a range as eight regions of Spain, each area for which it has a local edition. Two uni students were the founders and the pulication even evolved from a fanzine to a magazine, plus it has collaborated with Terra Networks and Matadero Madrid, while the contact page specifies the editorial process for the 25 workers. All of this should be solid proof of reliability, but I've either removed or elaborated on my defense of the sources you questioned. --K. Peake 07:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonic Magazinne—I suggest adding a link to the Swedish Wikipedia page.

AllMusic—addressed

  • fn 23 → citing a user review on AllMusic?
  • fn 26 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "On June 1, 2018, a week before the release of Kids See Ghosts, West released his eighth studio album Ye as the second album of the "Wyoming Sessions"."?
  • The GQ source is used for the sessions part, while the release date is backed up by AllMusic.
  • Can you use something other than AllMusic for the release date? Surely Billboard or something has an article with the Ye release date?
  • fn 32 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "A week after its release, fellow rapper Nas released his eleventh studio album Nasir as the fourth album of the "Wyoming Sessions""?
  • Pitchfork might be slightly better to cite for this. This article also gives Nasir as the fourth album.
  • fn 33 → consensus at WP:ALLMUSIC seems to be it is mostly only reliable for reviews. Are there alternative sources that can be used for the K.T.S.E. release date? Why does it need be cited for track listings (fn 46)? Surely you can cite liner notes or a different source. I suggest limiting the source to the review part only. I don't think this is unreasonable either as this is not an obscure release. Also, attributing the reviewer to the rest of the page (tracklist, release date, etc.) is inaccurate as they're not the author.
  • Done for the track listing even though I was using it due to the source displaying the order online, but I think it is usable for release info since that sidebar is not written against like genres plus the dates are from review sources. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • June 23 is written in text, but AllMusic says June 22, as does this Billboard article?
  • No idea where I got June 23, 2018 from, probably misread something and got it stuck in my mind. I replaced with the Billboard ref for the release date, while invoking the PF one you listed here too because it supports the album's placement in the sessions. AllMusic has now been removed entirely from the article by me, apart from the KSG review that is seen as usable. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks—addressed

  • fn 1 → good
  • fn 10 → "who had since admitted himself into a rehabilitation facility after battling with depression and suicidal thoughts following a Facebook post" → this wording is a bit weird. He made a Facebook post and then entered rehab? That's not what the source says. Additionally I think this is too close to the article text of "had checked into rehab after battling depression and suicidal thoughts".
  • fn 11 → does not apply to the sentence after the comma
  • Can you explain what fn means, as I am confused what you are specifically referring since not all of these numbers are in order with the refs? --K. Peake 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the number between the brackets [11] from the version reviewed link at the top of the section.
  • "with the tour being cancelled after the rapper brought Cudi out to perform at his Sacramento show" → which source supports this?
  • I don't know how those September 2016 sources ended up there to be honest, have now added a Complex ref that supports the cancellation and Cudi's appearance; interestingly enough, this was one of the sources used to replace The Fader. --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 14 → good
  • fn 16 → which quote in the article supports "In March 2018, Cudi was spotted recording with West in Wyoming"?
  • fn 27 → Cudi is not listed
  • fn 31 → ok
  • fn 35 → ok
  • fn 42 → ok
  • fn 48 → ok
  • "showed two caricatures that appeared to be of West and Cudi stood by a ball of smoke with a face" → this is really close to the article text "The image shows what is seemingly two caricatures of West and Cudi standing next to a ball of smoke with a face"
  • fn 52 → ok
  • fn 63 → source only says GOOD Music; Def Jam is only mentioned is the Apple Music thing at the bottom, which is a separate source. Wicked Awesome is unmentioned in either.
  • Changed to a PF source which mentions both GOOD and Def Jam, plus the Wicked Awesome label is included for numerous releases due to being on the back cover like me and TheAmazingPeanuts discussed; should the booklet be added as a secondary ref to back this up or is it fine now you have full context? Also, the NME ref for the digital download and streaming part in release and promotion mentions the label. --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Pitchfork article does not indicate digital download release; it only gives streaming services. I would add the back cover citation as well. Which NME ref are you referring to?
  • In the current revision, I am referring to ref 49 that mentions Wicked Awesome as one of the labels. Also, the source backs up the album as being released for download since it mentions Apple Music. --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add ref 49 and the booklet to the citation cell where ref 59 currently is?
  • fn 65 & 66d → where are you seeing August 3, 2018?
  • fn 65 → only Def Jam is given, not Wicked Awesome or GOOD Music
  • fn 66a → source says August 22, 2018, not September 28, 2018
  • Comment I changed to just 2018 since none of the Amazon sources give a specific date apart from the US and Australia ones (the latter says September 28), but does them all listing 2018 as the original release date properly source this? --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The year only is fine. However, you have rowspanned the 3 labels but the Amazon sources do not support that. Amazon.com and .de give Def Jam, .co.uk gives Virgin, .au gives GOOD Music.
  • What should I do here, as the album was obviously release through GOOD Music and Def Jam Recordings on all of the ones that list either but some listed GOOD and others listed the distributor in Def Jam; maybe merge these ones into a various citation for the labels and add the UK one separately as Virgin?? Or do you have any other suggestions? --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh right, done. This thread applies to the four points below too, as the citations are all part of the same ref like they were in the old revision. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 66a → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam
  • fn 66b, fn 66c & 66d → source says 2018, doesn't specify September 28, 2018
  • fn 66b → only Virgin is given, not GOOD, Wicked Awesome, or Def Jam
  • fn 66c → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam

Formatting—addressed

  • fn 61 Consequence is unlinked, but it is linked in fn 73?
  • fn 91, 93–95 → is there a reason url-status=live is absent?

More to come... Heartfox (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cudi was featured on the tracks "Ghost Town", alongside PartyNextDoor and 070 Shake, and "No Mistakes", alongside Charlie Wilson and Caroline Shaw." → "appeared" may be a better wording as he does not seem to be credited as a featured artist, but "associated performer".
  • There appears to be a pinky vinyl version missing from the release history section according to RecordStoreDay.
  • Comment should I list this as being released by GOOD and Def Jam since the source mentions only the latter, but it is known that was the label used for distribution so maybe I can add GOOD Music without this mentioning it due to WP:OVERCITE guidelines? --K. Peake 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 7, 20, 25, 82, 86, 92, 98, 99, 100, 105 → is there a reason url-status=live is absent? They are all live URLs. Some I could understand bypassing paywalls but some of these are freely accessible.
  • They are all actually live even if paywalls exist, so I added the parameter. Not sure if this wasn't there initially due to me or another user forgetting to add, or the bot missing the parameter for these URLs. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling Stone articles are url-status=limited.
  • fn 26 → "via" is for when the source comes from another provider, like ProQuest. As the url is from Tidal, and it's citing Tidal, you can write publisher=Tidal and remove the via.
  • fn 87 URL is dead.
  • Oh you meant the status needed changing, sorry I thought you were taking issue with the original URL being dead... thanks to TheAmazingPeanuts but I'd have changed it anyway if I knew what you were talking about initially. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More spotchecks

  • fn 25 → title italicizes Nasir.
  • "Nas released his eleventh studio album Nasir" → which source says it's the eleventh?
  • Comment does a source really need to be provided that explicitly states this or does it fall in the same category as info like Nas and Pusha T being rappers, for which no source is provided due to this info being basic? --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eleventh part must have been a mistake on my part from misreading somewhere else, have now changed to twelfth since chronologies for albums are basic info really. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West's 2018 "Wyoming Sessions" recordings" → source does not specify 2018; are you sure all of the "Wyoming Sessions" albums were recorded in 2018? Maybe just omit "2018" from the sentence.
  • The following prose mentions all of the albums being released in 2018, but removed from this part of the sentence because it is a bit too monotonous for a FAC when I've mentioned the exact release date of the album in the same sentence. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Plain Pat contributed production to "Feel the Love", "4th Dimension", "Reborn", and "Kids See Ghosts". Evan Mast helped produce "Feel the Love", "Fire", and "Reborn". "Feel the Love", "4th Dimension", and "Kids See Ghosts" include production from record producer Noah Goldstein. Production was contributed to the tracks "Fire", "4th Dimension", and "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" by record producer BoogzDaBeast. Record producer Dot da Genius, Cudi's WZRD bandmate, co-produced the tracks "Reborn" and "Cudi Montage" for Kids See Ghosts." → not in source
  • I did address earlier that after I removed The Fader, all of the info from the Plain Pat sentence onwards in this para is at least partially sourced by the booklet, but I have invoked that solely at the end of the para after this point per WP:OVERCITE. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By only citing one reference at the end, it gives the impression that it supports everything. Please add references that support the rest of the sentence to the end of it. Heartfox (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and added the booklet every two sentences before, but it's only at the end of the para afterwards since every sentence following this is only sourced by it. --K. Peake 06:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can also do this for the first two sentences of the paragraph; only the one at the end of the second sentence is necessary as it's the same and only thing cited. Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 9 → ok
  • fn 27 → ok
  • fn 33 → ok
  • fn 39 → ok
  • fn 49 → ok
  • fn 60 → ok
  • fn 64 → ok
  • fn 67 → ok
  • fn 72 → ok
  • fn 75 → ok
  • fn 86 → ok
  • fn 97 → ok
  • fn 98 → ok
  • "Kids See Ghosts was West's 10th top-five album and Cudi's 6th top-five album in the United States." → not in source
  • "On the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, the album entered at number one" → not in source. the thing at the bottom is not an actual chart, it's their measure of rap/hip hop albums on the BB200. cite fn 148 instead.
  • fn 110 → ok
  • fn 111 → ok
  • fn 115 → ok
  • fn 121 → ok
  • fn 125 → ok
  • are the sample credits sourced from the liner notes?
  • fn 139 → it gives this week and last week; how do we know last week at #76 was the peak?
  • AGATA does not provide chart histories for artists like others, plus citing weekly Billboard charts is acceptable here so this should be as well. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point moreso was that citing weekly chart issues is acceptable when there are no chart histories published by the organisation, so isn't this fine? Citing every single issue on which the album was present just to show the peak would be very tedious. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not specifically do so like a chart history but the position of last week is mentioned as being lower so that's the closest to this, also AGATA is a reliable source therefore with these two pieces of info and my earlier explanation, can't this citation remain? --K. Peake 05:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 152 → ok

If everything above is addressed, this will be a pass. Heartfox (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the above comments, only not making changes where I do not believe I should do; feel free to elaborate if you still disagree with anything. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barring issues indicated by other editors, I will say this is a pass. Congratulations on getting the article this far and I would say the sourcing has improved significantly during this review. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox Thank you so much, I have collapsed your comments since they are now resolved, but would it be ok for this sub-section to be retitled with the support part like the other ones to be clearer for all readers? --K. Peake 08:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't review to make a general support it's just the source review pass. Heartfox (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fair enough my apologies for the misinterpretation, feel free to add any further comments about this article! --K. Peake 20:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LOVI33

edit

Definitely ready for FA in my opinion. The sources seem okay to use for me, the prose looks amazing and I don't see any MOS issues. Great job! LOVI33 19:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Thanks a lot for your support; I am still having to fix sourcing at points since other editors have different standards! --K. Peake 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from isento

edit
Resolved comments from User:Isento

I recommend replacing "rappers/producers" with "rapper-producers", since the single "s" at the end plurlizes the compound construction as a whole, while the dash serves the same function as what the slash is meant to but without the possibility of meaning "either/or". isento (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend condensing the lead's discussion of the duo's pre-history and being more specific to engage readers about the story, since the background section paints some nasty emotions between the two. Something like, "West and Cudi had collaborated on each other's solo recordings since 2008, but experienced personal quarrels stemming from creative tension as well as mental health issues prior to Kids See Ghosts. After reconciling in 2016, West and Cudi recorded the album at the former's ranch in Jackson Hole, in sessions that also produced West's 2018 album Ye ..." The next paragraph reads a bit monotonously, listing names and credits off without much insight into the recording process. I recommend revising it with details from the music and production section. isento (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isento I have rewritten the lead similarly to what you said but did not mention Ye or the Jackson Hole sessions in the first para, as that info is provided properly in the second one plus the 2016 recording was before the Wyoming Sessions started. Also, I've given more details from the musical section but does the loosely styled part read fine, or should I reword to something else? Thank you for the comments. --K. Peake 06:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better! I'll revisit the article later with some more reviewing, but given the above reviews, I'm leaning toward support... isento (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I replaced "loosely styled" with "fragmented" on my own behalf since that flows better, thought I await any more comments and the hardest part has been sources, but I've finally fixed all bad ones today! --K. Peake 19:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In "background and recording," mention their mental illness in the paragraph leading up to the recording, since it has more connection as background to the two artists. And rearrange the Pusha T album detail somewhere else, since the first sentence of a paragraph should introduce the paragraph's main idea(s). isento (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to address that concern above myself, but feel free to copy-edit yourself as well... I would also ask that you check each paragraph for repetitions of years in the month-day-year dates. It is only necessary to mention the year the first time in a paragraph if subsequent dates in the same paragraph are from the same year. isento (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isento Copy editing is fine to do for FACs when it is only light as you've contributed, so thank you but make sure not to get carried away if you have any further concerns. I did change the prose of the Pusha T sentence despite keeping it in your set position, as saying the album is among the releases from the sessions and then calling it the first of them in the same sentence reads tediously. We have come to contrasting stances about how often the year should be mentioned when it reoccurs consecutively, with you and me believing once a para and once every two sentences, respectively. In this article, I have tried to cut down on the number of times repeated years are directly written in prose since your comments by mentioning only the month and day at points in as many places as possible, plus have used phrasing like "the same month as..." on more occasions than before. Hope this is sufficient, as it is a reasonable compromise of our two ideologies! Also, I would suggest that you strike out comments when they have been resolved like the other users have done... makes it a lot easier to see what has got done! --K. Peake 07:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, well I usually see brief points struck out, not entire paragraphs, but I will confirm here that the above has been addressed... But some of the subsequent text needs more than lightweight copy-editing tbh. In "Themes and lyrics", "Fighting demons" isn't encyclopedic/formal writing - I would suggest "battling sources of mental health illness" or something of that nature. Replace "delays" with "impediments". Remove "deeply" from the sentence on "Kids See Ghosts" unless you can go into depth about how it does it "deeply" - otherwise it's useless to readers. Rephrase the next sentence to avoid the "sees" construction, as that isn't formal writing either. isento (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In instances where you refer to "release" (such as "prior to release"), please specify the subject of the release or use the determiner its. ex. "prior to the album's release", or "prior to its release". To avoid ambiguity. isento (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I do understand why you may not want to strike through full paragraphs so that is fine! Regarding the first issue, I did replace "fighting demons" with "battling against their mental demons" since the demons may not be real but they are what appears to be haunting Kids See Ghosts in their head, plus I need to follow the source to a certain degree per WP:OR. I did take on all of the other suggestions fully, apart from the one instance in which I used "prior to the release" in the third sentence of the lead instead because that comes directly after the release sentence for the album. Hopefully I will be able to get your support soon enough. --K. Peake 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. Just a few more items: "demons" (as you see is defined there) in this context refers to a person's "fears or anxieties", so replacing it with "battling their fears and anxieties" would be faithful to the source and more academic in tone. The last thing I would suggest is, in "Commercial performance", replacing "pushing" with "registering" or "recording", since "push" primarily refers to the physical action and in this context the meaning is again figurative. isento (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "demons" to "fears and anxieties", but kept "mental" in prose to be specific... plus used "registering" for the certified units. Ready to support, I guess? --K. Peake 20:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel comfortable offering my support to this article now. Great work on a good album from a couple of talented and good-hearted, if flawed, human beings. isento (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isento Thank you so much, it is a true honour to have your highly significant endorsement!!! --K. Peake 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, buddy. isento (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from magiciandude

edit
Resolved comments from User: Magiciandude

I don't really have much to go on since the grammar in the article is fine to me and I'm not really an expert on the prose. One thing I noticed is that the past FACs mention keeping non-free files to a minimum. While not mentioned previously, I would remove the album's artwork on the artwork section since the album cover is already presented and the rationale doesn't justify it being outside of the infobox. Since the article describes the artwork that is the same as the album cover, the image doesn't need to be posted twice. Alternatively, you can just use a public domain image of Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji since it's mentioned as being influential for the album's artwork. Erick (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magiciandude Thank you for your comments but they are supposed to be added in a sub-section, which I have fixed for you. However, I have implemented what you suggested by adding an image from the series to illustrate what the mountains in the cover art's background are based on. This is one that does not have its own article because that would cause issues with wikilinking when we don't know what print the artwork is based on specifically but the mountains showcase relevance... do you support this nom now? --K. Peake 16:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gladly give you my support! This article is otherwise fantastic and it'd be a shame if it failed again because of NFCC (which the FAC takes very seriously). Erick (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Magiciandude Thank you a lot for helping me switch to a better image and eventually supporting, plus I've retitled your sub section to make this clearer to viewers of the FAC and collapsed the comments to save space. --K. Peake 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ReVeluv02

edit

Everything seems to be already good! The fact that other Wikipedians already supported this for candidacy on being a "FA" is already great! You seem to have frequently monitored it as you said, and that means you really worked hard on making the article a "FA". The structure of the article itself is already genuine! You have my full support on this one. Great work Kyle! ReVeluv02 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReVeluv02 Cheers for the support and nice observation of the responses from others, especially since they show that I have taken a lot of comments on to bring the article to top shape! I see this being a FA soon, plus sweet catch on the structure comment. --K. Peake 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Fair use rationale for the album cover in the infobox looks fine, others images are freely licensed and nothing stands out as looking problematic in the file licensing. Hog Farm Talk 21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm That is really good to hear, a proper image review after a source review had already been conducted is a very worthy addition to this FAC!! --K. Peake 06:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I had. Thanks Hawkeye7. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 4 July 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) 2 July 2021 [107].

Jason Sendwe

edit
Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose to national political prominence and fell in a series of disputes before being murdered under dubious circumstances; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March 2018, and though it failed FAn that November, I've since expanded it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro

edit

Can't say I've read the article in depth, but from a skim-through I'm already noticing insanely-long paragraphs, especially the first paragraph of "Rise to prominence." These could easily be split. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've split two of them, including that one specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping this article gets far more attention than the last time. I'm not a history buff but I'm hoping I find some stuff to comment on here. Let's also make sure commenters don't get into spats about nonsensical things like what happened with Tony and the nominator last time, and keep it focused on article content instead of behavior and beliefs of editors. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

edit

The images should have alt text per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox, has this been satisfactorily addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: No; nothing has changed. Heartfox (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good now. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ceoil

edit

Reading through; first impression is that the lead is very strong from a prose POV, while the text in the body covers very complex political and sociologic dynamics, but is largely clear and precise. The references, from 10 minutes of looking, seem from the first quality of sources, but more later. Quibbles to follow, beware. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be worthwhile, as you have the sources fresh in mind, creating an article for Association Générale des Baluba du Katanga.
  • These sources are not employed in the inlne citations: Clarke, Stephen John Gordon (1968), East Africa and Rhodesia. 39. London: Africana 1977 - consider employing or moving to further reading
    • Removed.
  • I agree with the point above re overlong and thus dense paragraphs, and have split a few. Note, generally much prefer longer rather than stubby paras, but some here had been mindbending.
  • Sendwe was slated to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - "slated" should be "chosen"
    • Done.
  • On 19 October, three days after Tshombe concluded a deal with Colonel Joseph-Désiré Mobutu to "neutralise" Lumumba, Sendwe was incarcerated by central government officials. The United Nations (UN) quickly secured his release on the basis of parliamentary immunity. As we are so specific re three days, can we better define "quickly". Also the scare quotes around "neutralise" seem coy.
    • The three days points to the time span between the Lumumba deal and Sendwe's detention, not the time between his detention and his release. "Neutralise" is not meant as scare quotes, it's meant to convey the ambiguity of the word in this context-death or some form of political incapacitation.
      Presumably so, as it was UN sanctioned, we know the day of release, so you can state. The scare quotes seem to avoid the issue; the article test does not indicate this "this context-death" you are here implying. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the "quickly"; Gerard and Kucklick do not provide a date for Sendwe's release. And to clarify, "neutralize" is the term used by the source, quoting Mobutu. The full quote is "neutralize Lumumba completely, if possible physically". Thus, the word is meant to be open ended. I didn't see the point in explaining all of this in the text of this article since that fact mostly pertains to Lumumba. Gerard and Kucklick seem to frame Sendwe as Mobutu's bargaining chip with Tshombe, so I'd rather focus on what happened to him then all of the intrigue behind Lumumba's downfall.
  • the only figure with enough clout in Katanga to challenge Tshombe - "clout" is vague, state if either or both "political or popular clout...."
    • Qualified as "political".
  • This article needs a content review by an expert or at least a very well informed editor; there are passages that indicate romanticasation. Best I can offer here is spot check on compliance with utilised sources, which will move onto in a week or so. Delegates pls keep open until then. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Erik Kennes and who made him boss, and of what. Similarly, we are given no indication of Kabuya Lumuna Sando's authority.
    • Political scientists, qualified.
  • Kabuya, noting the newer clothing worn by the soldiers...He reasoned that - "newer clothing" obviously is flimsy legal basis - "claimed" rather than "reasoned"
    • Qualified clothing claim as "allegedly" and changed reasoned to "argued".
  • through his success with national and international figures - how. Friendship, negotiation, strong arming, what?
    • Negotiation. Added.
  • In 2011 a congress of the "Luba People" declared that Sendwe was among "our valiant martyrs",[90] but there is little study of him in Congolese historiography.[91] - Noticed this too, and almost nothing in English. Why is this I wonder, if the article is give (probably) speculate on reasons from later sources?
    • Loffman mostly attributed this to the fact that Congo Crisis historiography is swallowed up by focus on Lumumba, Mobutu, and Tshombe, and that Sendwe was a "mid-level figure" in Congolese politics, and such people rarely get that much study in African historiography. My own experience in this field gives me reason to agree with him. He didn't argue that this was necessarily unusual or out of the ordinary, so I saw no need to further elaborate on it.
  • (On 28 November) a new état d’exception (state of emergency) was.... - a new one? Article doesn't seem to mention the old one. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based of the source material it had been essentially redeclared. I think an original state of emergency had been declared by Lumumba's Government back in 1960, but no extraordinary commissioner had been appointed. The Adoula Government redeclaring it makes sense (since the Lumumba government was long gone and they wanted to probably stress their own attitude towards what was going on). But this is all back story that I don't think is worth getting into. I'm excising the "new" to avoid confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To note, the below are nitpicks and am leaning support on prose. Source review to follow.
  • Over time the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga while Belgium gradually withdrew its support for it - This implies cause and effect. Bridge with "and" rather than "while" if the meaning is not "Belgium gradually withdrew its support because the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga.
    • Changed.
  • His attempts to do so as well as his hopes... - no big deal, but a bit gushy, maybe aims rather than hopes
    • Revised.
  • were stymied by the Belgian government, which disliked his closeness to Lumumba - "disliked" is a bit coy, can you spell out the political/strategic reason. Also who says "stymied" anymore..."blocked" or "frustrated"
    • Kennes writes (translated from French): "Jason Sendwe, State High Commissioner, wants to fully play his role as mediator, by trying to integrate Balubakat and Conakat representations at the provincial level and national, and keeping Katanga in the national fold. His initiatives are thwarted by the deputy chief of staff of the Belgian Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens, Harold d'Aspremont Lynden, on the pretext that Sendwe is subservient to the Lumumba government with which 'any attempt at fruitful collaboration was henceforth doomed to certain failure'. It is not certain, however, that local and provincial officials followed Sendwe in this way." As such, I've revised that part of the sentence to say were frustrated by the Belgian government, which perceived Sendwe as an instrument of the Lumumba Government, with whom they had tense relations. More info on Belgium's bad relations with the Lumumba Government at Lumumba Government. I'm not quite sure what the "strategic" reasoning was, other than that they simply didn't trust Sendwe.
  • Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - Were the millitary that disorganised; part..ie send a bunch of guys...should it be lead the "northern offensive" or something
    • More on that offensive plan (the part that was actually executed) here: Invasion of South Kasai. The ANC was very much disorganized, my impression is that a lot of the affair was simply gathering what troops were loyal enough and ordering them to attack. If I had info on troop numbers or units I would have included it.
  • The dismissal caused a substantial amount of turmoil
    • Changed to political turmoil.
  • to serve on a reconciliation commission to achieve an understanding between Kasa-Vubu...to achieve ...tasked with
    • Revised.
  • Overall the writing is excellent. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support substantive issues dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

More than three weeks in and this has attracted little attention and no supports. Unless it receives considerably more attention over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to Ceoil's deleted comment - which was fine. But Indy beetle, if you can call in any favours to get further commentary here, I suggest that you do so soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ergo Sum

edit

I am by no means a subject matter expert on Congolese politics, so I have to defer to those more knowledgable on questions of comprehensiveness. Ergo Sum 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there no link for Mwanya?
    • No, it was/is apparently a very small place.
  • Can link nationalism in the lead.
  • Can also link "the country's independence" to Congo Crisis
    • Added as a see also section link under "Rise to prominence". I don't like making Congolese independence synonymous with the Congo Crisis, there was a five day interval between those two things.
  • Can combine the two lead sentences about June 1964
    • Done.
  • Can link nursing
    • Done.
  • Optional, but could consider wrapping "École officielle pour Infirmiers à Élisabethville" and other French phrases with {{Lang}}
  • "by the lack of educational opportunity under colonial rule" - this can use some explanation. What exactly was lacking? Were there simply no medical schools, were they restricted only to certain people, etc.
    • No proper medical schools, revised.
  • Is there any more specific information available about his marriage, such was when it was or to whom?
    • No, not that I've uncovered.
    • Sadly, this information is not known for him and a lot of other mid-level Congolese politicians of this era.
  • "the stated aim to encourage" - the construction I see much more frequently is "aim of encouraging". Just something to consider
    • Done.
  • "leadership style" - what was his style?
    • Changed to "dynamism", word used by the source.
  • I don't love the vertical list of 3 political positions, but I don't believe it contradicts any MOS rules
  • Can link xenophobia
    • Done.
  • "elected with 20,282 votes" - this clause strikes me as a bit abrupt. Perhaps rephrase to "Sendwe was elected to the Chamber of Deputies with 20,282 votes..."
    • Done.
  • "abstain from sitting, thus when the assembly" - I believe this is a comma splice. The comma should be replaced with a semicolon or period.
    • Done.
  • Should link Belgian Parliament
    • Done.
  • Why is "outlawed" put in quotations marks
    • The source also puts it in quotes.
      • I think this will need some explanation, if any can be found with further research. Otherwise, it leaves a reader wondering what this means. Was it that he was not welcome but not actually outlawed, or that he was outlawed but that rule was not enforced? Ergo Sum 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do think it was more akin to calling him a persona non grata than legal outlawing him (declaring him outside the protection of the law and liable to be shot on site, as traditionally understood in most jurisdictions), but the source does not go into detail on this. I'm sure if Tshombe's government had the chance they would have arrested Sendwe. This was not a matter of lack of desire to enforce; the parts of Katanga Sendwe visited during this time (far as I can tell) were outside the control of Tshombe's government, so they had no way of getting a hold of him. Plus, seriously attempting to arrest him and harm him would have incensed the Congolese central government and the UN and probably looked bad in the foreign press.
  • "attitude against Katanga and Belgium gradually withdrew" - should probably be a comma after Katanga
    • Done.
  • Not sure government should be capitalized in Adoula Government
    • Sources are very much mixed on this style, but per MOS:INSTITUTIONS I think this is how it should be done.
  • vis a vis is usually hyphenated and accented
    • Done.
  • "at 22:00 on 23 December" - need a comma at the end
    • Done.
  • "probably so he could use them" - using probabilistic language in the voice of Wikipedia usually encounters some pushback. It would be best to specify who is saying "probably"
    • The UN, revised for clarification.
  • "executive position at a company" - is there any information on which company or in what industry?
    • Nope, the importance of this just seems to be he would get a cushy salary in a place where he could do little political damage so he would shut up.
  • " in a vote, 28–3" - can replace the comma with "of"
    • Done.
  • "On 27 May," - article has thus far eschewed commas after introductory prepositional phrases, but best not to start now
    • Removed.
  • I generally support linking words and phrases that can have technical meanings, including political concepts. When there is doubt, I tend to link. Not required, but might be considered.
  • {{Use dmy dates}} would be useful, plus a spelling convention template, e.g. {{Use British English}}, if applicable.

That's all I have for now. Ergo Sum 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the substance. I only quibble about the one remaining point above (re "outlaw") but think the article is ready for FA. Ergo Sum 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720

edit

Consider me a non-expert.

  • "with a brief interruption." when was the interruption?
    • From 15 March to 27 April 1964 he did not hold the office, this all due to political maneuverings in the province. I didn't think this was worth getting into in the lede.
  • "and his reputation thereafter drifted into obscurity." Delete thereafter as it is unnecessary.
    • Done.
  • "to a Baluba family." Baluba is an uncommon term. I would add a small descriptor of who they are at the end of this sentence to explain who this group is without clicking into their Wikipedia article.
    • It was an ethnic group. There's not that much more to say about it DUEly than that, would "ethnically Luba family" work?
      • I don't think Luba would work either, as that is another uncommon term. What about, "to a Baluba family, the indigenous peoples in the south-central region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." (or something similar) and use the [2] source in Luba people? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added something to that effect.
  • In the lede, it says he couldn't be a doctor due to "to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony" but in the body it says he was restricted by " the lack of medical schools in the Congo." These need to match.
    • Fixed.
  • "He was able amass much of their support through his dynamism and frequent interactions with the population." This sentence sounds like WP:PUFFERY and not encyclopedic. I think you should describe what he did specifically to get their support (Did he travel around to give speeches to villages? Did he organise any campaigns?)
    • This was the words of journalist Evariste Kimba, who joined CONAKAT. This point is rather vague, so I could either attribute it in text or delete, whichever you think is best.
  • I think the list of his three tenents would be better as prose.
    • Done.
  • "In May he traveled to the United States at the invitation of the American government." What was the purpose of this trip? Why is it worth mentioning in this article?
    • The purpose was probably a goodwill trip and an attempt by the US to create connections with key Congolese politicians. CRISP usually added information that was timely and relevant, but obviously the lasting notability of this trip seems minimal (in contrast to trips by other Congolese that fostered longer standing connections in Belgium or the Eastern Bloc). I'll remove it if you think it adds nothing.
  • "In the national elections before the Republic of the Congo's independence on 30 June 1960 Sendwe was elected" comma after 1960
    • Done.
  • "Invested with the responsibilities of his office," Sounds puffery and POV. Perhaps, "After assuming the role of State Commissioner of Katanga, he attempted to restore central control over the province." Also, what does central control mean? I would change this wording.
    • Revised, also "central government control".
  • "Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army" Who chose him? What were the circumstances of him being chosen?
    • See Invasion of South Kasai, it's disputed as to who planned the offensive, and thus we don't know who ultimately decided to include Sendwe. As for why they would have chosen him, he held the job of State Commissioner, which made him the designated representative of the central government in the province. So the job he had made it a logical choice for him to lead the army on a campaign to restore central government authority. He also, as a BALUBAKAT leader, would have had popularity among the Luba population in northern Katanga. But this is all just my reading of the situation.
  • "brokering an understanding between Kasa-Vubu and Lumumba" What's an understanding? A peace deal, a ceasefire, a political alliance?
    • Revised to say "political agreement". This was meant to break the constitutional deadlock that the situation left the country in (see Dissolution of the Lumumba Government), and probably would have involved a revised coalition government.
  • "to neutralise Lumumba," What does this mean? What happens when Lumumba is neutralised?
    • See Ceoil's comments above, where this is discussed at length.
      • So after reading Ceoil's comments above, I get the impression that neutralise is quoting Mobutu? If so, why not just attribute what Mobutu said to him? That will remove the impression that this is scarequotes, and conveys to the reader that the ambiguity of neutralise is coming from Mobutu, and not OR from the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Attributed.
  • "On the whole his tour improved security in the region," Delete on the whole
    • Revised.
  • "and BALUBAKAT began to organise its own administration" -> "and BALUBAKAT organised"
    • Done.
  • "the UN feared this was so he could use them to boost his support." Does the "them" refer to the UN, or to the refugees?
    • Refugees; clarified.
  • "which was reversed by the intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister." So did the Deputy PM reverse the ban, or did he convince Sendwe to reverse the ban?
    • The Deputy PM simply overruled him; revised.
  • "On 27 May 1964 a coup in Albertville by Simba rebels led by Kabila overthrew Sendwe's government." put a comma after rebels and Kabila
    • Done.
  • "including having him shot," -> including executing him
    • Done.
  • "reestablish his authority" His authority as what?
    • The fact that he was leader of the Nord Katanga government is mentioned two sentences previously, I don't think the point needs clarification, though if you insist I can add "authority as provincial president."
  • "Political scientist Erik Kennes examined various testimonies." testimonies about what? I assume Sendwe's death, but this sentence's wording is awkward.
    • Clarified.
  • "wanted Sendwe dead so as to make rapprochement with Tshombe easier." -> wanted Sendwe dead to make rapprochement
    • Done.
  • "Kennes discounted the theory, reasoning that it was unlikely" -> Kennes reasoned that this was unlikely
    • Done.

Those are my comments in the first readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Part 2

  • "He served as Second Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Republic of the Congo)" Does this sentence mean that he was PM or DRC, then the PM of RoC, or does it mean that the RoC used to be called the DRC? Please clarify in the article.
  • The "Rise to prominence" section is very long; consider breaking it up with level 3 headings or with another level 2 heading.
  • "He undertook another pacification trip in July." Was this pacification trip also in Belgium?
    • Northern Katanga, clarified.
  • "On 2 August a new government was" -> "On 2 August a new government in Congo was" or something similar, to identify which government.
    • Clarified.
  • "An état d’exception (state of emergency) was proclaimed on 28 November" Why? Why this date?
    • The logic of the Congolese central government during the Congo Crisis isn't always clear. The state of emergencies weren't always immediately preceded by some major development (sometimes they were, see Laurent Eketebi#Provincial government career). I would presume they issued the state of emergency for Katanga on 28 November 1961 for four reasons; one, PM Adoula needed to show Parliament he was serious about bringing Katanga back into the fold or he would lose their confidence; two, Tshombe was given the chance to try and reconcile his differences with the new government when it formed in August and by late November it would appear to the central authorities that he didn't care to; three, UN peacekeeping operations in August and September had failed to end the Katangese secession; and four, Tshombe's refusal to negotiate with the central government and allow CONAKAT deputies to sit in Parliament weakened and angered the conservatives, who would have by late November come around to using more forceful measures against Katanga. But that's just my opinion!
  • "Though he had the support of most of the Katanga Baluba and the BALUBAKAT deputies in Parliament, the Adoula Government sought to divide Katanga to weaken it while BALUBAKAT officials in northern Katanga wanted an exclusive polity in the region under the domination of their own party." Can this sentence be split in two?
    • Done
  • "On 15 March[68]" Since 68 is cited at the end of the sentence, I do not think you need a footnote here, as it might be WP:OVERCITE. You could also move [67] to the end of the sentence if it doesn't verify the 15 March date.
    • Done, though in the process of doing that we lose knowing what source supports what information.

Those are my comments from the second readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle, this is getting very long in the tooth, could you pls complete the responses ASAP and let Z1720 know when done? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been resolved so I support this FAC. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Source for him being second? (And this should be split to |order=)
    • Yes, Hoskyns 1965 p. 377 which is in the text. Also this is not a matter of he was the second person to hold the office of deputy premier, the office he held was "Second Deputy Prime Minister", because he was one of three deputy PMs at this time.
  • "He was educated in Methodist schools and medical institutions" - the text makes a point of saying there weren't medical schools available, would suggest rewording. Similarly the following sentence, "Unable to become a doctor due to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony", doesn't quite line up with the body text
    • Clarified; for the record, the Belgian Congo had plenty of nursing schools for black Africans, just not medical schools where one could get an MD.
  • FN66 leads to a general Google search
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
  • Colvin: verify publisher?
  • Gérard-Libois: who was the translator?
    • Rebecca Young, added.
  • Hoskyns 1969 has a double location
    • Fixed. University College has multiple campuses, so University College, Dar es Salaam was a reference to the specific branch, though that's made obvious by the formal location parameter.
  • Horizon: is there a specific article being cited here? What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • How does Kennes meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    • For one it is a PhD thesis. Two, the thesis has been cited by other reliable works such as the Provinces series edited by Jean Omasombo Tshonda and published by the Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale. Three, Kennes was already an established researcher on African affairs who had written journal articles before writing that thesis; this confirms that in 2000 he was working at the African Institute in Tervuren. This also includes more detail on him. He wrote a biography on Laurent-Desire Kabila in 2003 which has been cited by others (example). Since writing that thesis in 2009 he has written/coathuored several works published by university presses, including The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home (used in this article).
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
    • Earlier year comes first.
  • Omasombo 2014 is missing publisher
    • Fixed.
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, are you satisfied with the sourcing on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query

edit

Hi Indy beetle, have you addressed all of Z1720's points? If so, could you ping them? Similarly with Nikkimaria. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: working on it, I've been busy these past few days. I'll ping them when I've responded to all of their comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything has now been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:28, 29 June 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/July_2021&oldid=1036504631"