Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2020

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 June 2020 [1].

Lewis (baseball)

edit
Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis played in one professional baseball game in 1890, and his first name is completely unknown. He's interesting for sure, and showed how the 1890 Buffalo Bisons were doing at the time. Set several records of futility, and was described as a "failure" and "unfortunate" in press at the time. History hasn't been kinder to him. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ReviewSupport by Thatoneweirdwikier

edit

This is one of the most interesting articles in a while. Criteria 3 and 4 look fine, so I'll take an in-depth look at criteria 1 and 2. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
edit
References
edit

I'll do a complete reference sweep. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 17:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding note
edit

@Therapyisgood: That's all I could find during a first readthrough as someone not immersed in baseball. Once all the comments have been addressed, ping me and I'll change my vote. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 18:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the comments have been addressed, I will now change my vote. Well done! User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 04:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

edit

The writer(s) of this article deserve great credit for what has been done with this. I know from the cricket world that there are many players like this that have one line biographies simply because nothing – not even their name – is known. But this article does an exceptional job of providing background. In fact, I wonder do we overdo the background? At times, parts of this read more like a history of the Players League, or a report of one baseball match. There might be an argument (which I would disagree with) that much of the background could be cut. But that would leave us with another dry one line article about a long-forgotten player. As it is, I think this sets the scene extremely well for the sorry tale of poor Lewis. In terms of fashioning something worthwhile (and FA-standard) out of some of the stubby sports articles out there, this really does show a way of doing it.

I fully expect to support this article, just a few quibbles. For the record, I performed a spot checked the sources, and other than one very minor issue (see below), there were no problems. I think the prose needs a little work though, as it is choppy in places and occasionally descends into a bit of "sports-speak". That should be easily fixed with a copy-edit (which I might be able to do myself if the nominator has no objections).

A few other points:

  • “In November 1879, in a secret meeting”: As far as I could see, the date and the secrecy are not mentioned in the ref given.
  • PL and MLB not defined in main body (although they are in the lead).
  • ”After legal setbacks…” What kind of setbacks? Without going into detail, it would be good to have an idea.
  • ”Author and baseball historian Norman L. Macht attributed Buffalo's poor record to the performance of their pitchers’: I noticed from looking at other sources that the newspapers made this link at the time; I think we can attribute the opinion to more than just one historian.
  • I wonder do we need the “local boy” quote when we say he is from Brooklyn; but there’s something about it that I like, so I’d be inclined to keep it in whatever.
  • Is there any source that makes an explicit link between Buffalo’s horrendous pitching record and the desperation of trying someone who just turned up and said “Hey, I’m a pitcher!”
  • As interesting as it is for period flavour, I wonder do we really need the detailed weather report? Or what the mascots were singing? If there is a way we can link it to Lewis’s terrible performance, that would be OK, but it looks a little like padding at the moment. We don't need to know everything about the game, unless it can be connected to Lewis.
    • I think it adds some identifiers to help a researcher to identify Lewis if they wanted to. Going through old journals, books, etc. If they knew the attendance that day was 600 and the weather was cold, they could possible match it to a journal entry or a long-lost attendance log with his name in it. The weather report might explain how Lewis pitched or the batters hit, but I'm only speculating. Therapyisgood (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To potentially offset any concerns that the article goes into too much background, are there any sources that could tie it all together a little? That the PL was a slightly chaotic offshoot that meant that a few players appeared in Major Leagues who were out of their depth and would not otherwise have had a chance? And maybe that a few of the teams were frankly awful (and hence allowed poor Lewis to play for them!)?
  • I will hold fire on the prose issues (there's nothing enormously wrong, but it will require a little polish) until these have been replied to, and as I said I'm happy to give it a copy-edit myself. Sarastro (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues: I'm nowhere near opposing over this, but before I support, I think the prose needs a little work. In articles like this, there is always some need for "sports-speak", and getting the balance right can be tricky. My view is that this slips too much into baseball-speak, which might alienate the casual reader a little. Here are a few examples from the lead, which I think would concern non-specialists (and certainly non-specialists in the UK), or where I think we're falling short on Criterion 1a:

  • "a professional baseball player who played in one career game": This sounds awkward for the first sentence. Why not "played one game" or even "played once for the Buffalo Bisons"?
  • "The PL formed from a dispute after the National League (NL) implemented a reserve clause in 1879, which limited the ability of players to negotiate across teams for their salaries, and the American Association (AA) and NL passed a salary cap of US$2,000 per player in the leagues in 1885, equivalent to $49,281 in 2018.": As well as being a long sentence, this doesn't read correctly. I'm not sure a league can form from a dispute, and "from a dispute after" is lacking a little elegance. Also "to negotiate across teams for their salaries" does not seem the best way to say that they could not look for a better deal elsewhere. Why not something like: "The PL formed following a dispute between the Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players and the National League (NL); the primary issues were a reserve clause which limited the ability of players to negotiate across teams and the imposition of a salary cap."
  • "Despite starting 4–0, on July 11, 1890, the day before Lewis played his only game in the PL, the Bisons' record stood at 17–42, which was attributed to the weak pitching on the team." Leading with "4-0" might be a little too "sports-speak" here; why not "After winning their first four games". I think that having "the day before Lewis played his only game in the PL" (we've already said he only played once) is also a little messy. What about recasting this whole thing a bit? Maybe "Despite starting the 1890 season by winning their first four games, by July 11, the Bisons' record stood at 17–42 and they were bottom of the league. This poor performance was mainly the result of weak pitching."
  • "Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning, accomplished only once before in leagues considered "major" by MLB.": This is quite hard to follow as we have commas everywhere. Firstly, I think it would be better placed immediately after "...he played for the remainder of the game". And perhaps it could be rewritten to make it clearer? Maybe "In his second inning, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer; only one batter had previously hit two home runs in an inning in leagues considered "major" by Major League Baseball."
  • It was just a suggestion, and your response does not address the fact that the lead of a prospective FA contains the incredibly awkward "to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning" which is a little tricky to parse, when this could easily be resolved, even by switching some commas to dashes. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of May 2020" I think we could lose this from the lead without any great problem.
  • It doesn't give much context at all. I'm assuming it is still the case now? In June? And it will be in July? Removing it would avoid needing to keep updating this, or leaving the reader wondering why it was the case in May but is no longer the case in June. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the season, the PL folded, with teams either merging with the NL, joining the AA, or folding outright": The construction "with teams ... merging" is not the best at FA level, and it may be better to avoid using "fold" twice in one sentence. Could be just leave this as "After just one season, the PL folded"? I don't think the rest is really essential for the lead.

These are only examples, and there are one or two more minor issue in the lead. The rest of the article seems better, although there are doubtless one or two places where it could be smoothed a little. I would say there is still a little work needed to meet criterion 1a. Sarastro (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 For the record I think most of your comments are perfunctory. I'm not in favor of cutting context from the lead, and cutting it any further would make it read choppily. Not sure how the lead isn't at FA level either, looks good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 1a: As I said at the time, these are examples only, and you are overlooking the fact that criterion 1a says "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". You may quibble on some points, but I don't think it could reasonably be argued that prose such as "The PL formed following a dispute after" or "to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning" or having "fold" twice in a sentence constitutes professional prose (and you acknowledge that non-awkward prose is essential when you point out (correctly) that having two sentences beginning "in" is not a good look). I'm not insisting on "I would have done it this way" as my suggestions were just that, and there are other ways to address the problems. But I do think as written, the article falls considerably short on 1a. And if that criterion is to mean anything at FA, I don't think dismissing a prose review as "most of your comments are perfunctory" and defending the issues as giving context is the best approach. I'm switching to oppose, as I don't wish to get into a long back-and-forth, but I'm happy to revisit if someone addresses the issues raised. This may well be promoted anyway, in which case I reiterate the point that, despite the prose issues, I still consider the research that has gone into this, and the way the background has been framed to be exemplary for a sports FA of this kind. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Happy to support after the copy-edit. Sarastro (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

edit

I'll admit the idea of a featured article where almost no information about the person is available intrigued me. And am quite impressed by the effort here to make this happen. I have a few comments here:

  • In the lead I would considering adding the uncertainty of his birth and death dates into the parenthesis with his first name. Not sure the best way to do that, but I believe it should be noted as it's an important detail (or lack thereof).
  • I think the lead would be improved by reorganizing it to first detail Lewis' game, and then note the issues the PL faced. I honestly think the sentences about the PL and salary cap (currently the second and third sentences of the lead) can be removed, as it is more about the PL itself and not Lewis. It kind of distracts from Lewis himself and while it gives context of why the PL exists, is fine to be kept in the background section.
    • I disagree. The lead is meant as a summary of the article as a whole. Information about the PL comes before the information about his game, so the information about the PL comes first in the lead, after designating why he was notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be best moved elsewhere, but I do appreciate your logic and will not hold it against the article.
  • For the first sentence as a whole, I think it should be more clear about the date of his one game. Consider something like "Lewis (first name unknown) was a professional baseball player who played in one career game, in 1890 with the Buffalo Bisons of the Players' League (PL), a league considered by Major League Baseball (MLB) to have been major."
  • In the background section, have you considered adding a note to how much $2,000 is in contemporary terms? I know some use inflation calculators, but even if you note that it was a good wage for a worker or some context, that would help.
    • It looks like there was a sharp difference between wage earners and salary earners. I found average US yearly pay among all workers for 1890 and 1880. Baseball players were on salary. Found salary data for Massachusetts for 1885 but not overall US salary data. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just a little confused then, are you able to add anything or not?
Annualized salaries for salaried workers in America for the late 1800s appears to be hard to come by. I also remember a source saying that one of the reasons the salary cap was passed was because the leagues didn't want the salary of ball players being higher than the average American, but I can't find it. I inflated it. I agree that something should have been added. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I just was confused by the wording. All good.
  • Spell out PL on the first use in background section.
    • Per MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article." I define it in the lead so I'm not sure I have to define it again. Therapyisgood (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I've been asked to do the above before, but the MOS may have changed since then, so all good.
  • I'd consider moving the biographical details of Lewis (everything from "Born in Brooklyn, New York..." on) to the following section (Players' League game). Where it stands it feels tacked on, and while it is technically background it should either be its own paragraph (which doesn't seem logical as it's only two sentences), or moved to a more appropriate spot.
  • "During the third inning of the game, while he pitched, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning, only accomplished one time previously in leagues considered "major" by MLB." This can be worded better: "During the third inning of the game, while he pitched, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer; this feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning, had only been accomplished one time previously in leagues considered "major" by MLB."
  • "Brooklyn won the game 28–16, which set a record for most combined runs scored in a single MLB game. The record stood until 1922." Can be merged: "Brooklyn won the game 28–16, which set a record for most combined runs scored in a single MLB game; this record stood until 1922."
  • Should spell out and link ERA and WHIP on their first use in the body of the article.
    • Per MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article." I define it in the lead so I'm not sure I have to define it again. Therapyisgood (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It notes Baseball-Reference doesn't qualify his record among the worst due to games played, but does MLB have a stance as well?
Understanbable.

Other than that I think it does a solid job of explaining why someone was able to pitch for 3 innings and be a "failure". Kaiser matias (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question above left, but otherwise good for me. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC) That's been addressed, so supporting it now. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • Interesting choice of topic.
  • "Bisons player–manager Jack Rowe started him for the game; " I might say "on the mound" rather than "for the game". I would end the sentence there, splitting off the remainder into a new sentence. I would make a similar substitution in the body of the article.
  • Isn't professional baseball coventionally traced to 1869 and the Cincinnati Red Stockings?
  • "Baseball-Reference does not list Lewis as having played any other major or minor-league game over his career." I would change "game" to "games" and cut the last three words.
  • You should mention that Lewis got a strikeout. Also, I notice that Buffalo, not the home team, batted last. It should be explained that in the 19th century the home team did not necessarily bat last.
  • Something could be said in one of the early sections about how PL players were paid. At least in theory.
  • "though his statistics do not qualify for rate comparison amongst players on Baseball-Reference because he did not meet the minimum threshold of one inning pitched per team game for the season that the site requires for ERA and WHIP comparisons across players.[28][29][30]" This is a mess, but I don't have any better ideas. It isn't just B-R that requires one inning per game played, it is what is required generally for the ERA championship.
  • Looking over the other comments, Lewis does not hold the record for highest season ERA (among non-qualifiers). Bob Apodaca had an ERA of infinity for the Mets in 1973 and there are doubtless more (while Apodaca was only one season, and he did not maintain it for a career, I would be somewhat surprised if there were no examples in the annals of baseball of a pitcher who allowed 1 or more earned runs without retiring anyone in his only major league appearance).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The internet informs me that Harry Heitmann is an example.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. One thing on references, you probably don't need the book that is the further reading given you cite that book as a source in footnote 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly pings to Thatoneweirdwikier and Sarastro1. I would be interested in hearing more about the weather reports and the mascots. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "hearing more about" them? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – This is one of the more interesting sports articles to appear at FAC in some time. It's as richly detailed as could be given the nature of the subject, and I see myself supporting once these small matters are dealt with:

  • Background: "two years earlier the Cincinnati Red Stockings of the National Association of Base Ball Players paid salaries to ten of its players." In cases like this where you have a plural team nickname, my suggestion is to go with the plural "their" to avoid tense confusion in the prose.
  • The equivalent salary provided here dates to 2018, which is fine, but does the source have comparisons that would permit a 2019 equivalent to be used now that we're in 2020?
  • Players' League game: Since you asked for opinions on this section above, I'm in agreement with Sarastro that the information about the mascots strikes me as extraneous. Even though you may not find a source that specifically says the wind affected the pitching performances on that day, it can be reasonably inferred that it could have impacted Lewis' form, so I wouldn't mind seeing that part left in.
  • The SABR links (refs 22, 34, and 37) are more functionally similar to Baseball-Reference (as web pages) than the newspapers and books that have convenience links here, so I would think that those three refs would have access dates like the Baseball-Reference pages do.

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Has there been a source reliablity check? And an image review? Also @Sarastro1: to see if his concerns have been addressed? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: working on it. will hustle Therapyisgood (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

The sole image, a baseball box score, is certainly out of copyright if it ever was. A case could be made that it was never copyrightable as it simply represents statistics from a baseball game in a prescribed format, and contains no originality by the publisher, but we needn't go there. Image review passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I noticed a prose oppose so thought I would take a look through. Just looking at the lead I agree with Sarastro1 that the prose does not flow smoothly; I started making notes but it's going to be quicker and easier if I just copyedit. I'll work on the lead, and if you've no objection to the changes I make I'll look at the rest of the article.

OK, back now having edited the lead. The changes I made are quite substantial and I can explain why I made them if you like. I have to say that I would oppose with the lead the way it was, though the particular way I edited the lead is not the only way to fix the problems. Also pinging Sarastro1 to see if they think the changes I've made are improvements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my viewpoint, this looks much better. I'll let Mike finish his review, but I'd certainly strike the oppose and probably support based on the changes made so far. Sarastro (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do a copyedit pass on the rest of the article -- some time today, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from copyediting:

  • In the second inning Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer slightly rephrased by me from your original, but without changing the word "second"; according to the body of the article this should say the third, so one or other is wrong.
  • The comment in note 1 about the discrepancy between the recollections and Baseball-Reference is interesting -- not an issue for this article, but it might be interesting to ask Baseball-Reference if they're aware of those reports and what the basis for saying "the bottom of the third" is. SImilarly for the discrepancy over innings played.
  • A July 13, 1890 article described Beecher as an "improvement" over Lewis as a pitcher in the game: suggest 'A July 13, 1890 article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle described Beecher as an "improvement" over Lewis as a pitcher, but Sporting Life's notes on the game say Beecher "fared but little better".' Given there is so little coverage of Lewis it would be a pity not to contrast these two short comments, and (again because the sources are sparse) we might as well attribute the sources in line.

I've completed my copyedit; let me know what you think -- and also pinging Sarastro1 again for him to read through.

One other point -- I think the article could legitimately be turned into an article on the game without much effort, with the current title redirecting to the game. The game is itself notable because of the records, as is Lewis; I think it's fine where it is but it wouldn't be OK to have a separate article on the game -- everything in this could fit in a game article with no trouble.

I'm holding back support on prose till the first point above is fixed (second vs. third); the others would not prevent me from supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better now, and I've struck my oppose. I also made one tweak myself. But I'd like a response from the nominator, and a final read-through before I switch to support. Sarastro (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The last concern I had is fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

edit

Just starting through this now. Harrias talk 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • All citations are to reliable sources. (No action required.)
  • Unsurprisingly, rudimentary Google and Amazon searches do not reveal any major sources which have been omitted. (No action required.)
  • References are generally consistently formatted, but I have a couple of queries:
    1. Should ref #1 include North American Association of Sports Economists as the publisher?
    2. {{subscription required}} is deprecated; use |url-access= inside the citation template instead, see Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required.
    3. Should ref #2 include Marquette University Law School as the publisher?
    4. {{open access}} is deprecated and unnecessary, see Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required.
    5. Why does ref #13, "All our Local Clubs Won: The Cincinnatis Leave the Field, Causing a Scene" use Newspaper. Publisher. when all the other newspaper sources use just Newspaper.?
  • Per MOS:ELLAYOUT the link in the "External links" section should be removed, as it duplicates ref #12.
  • Note that in the references you use Baseball Reference, while in the main body of the article, you use Baseball-Reference. Be consistent. For reference, our Wikipedia page on the subject is Baseball-Reference.com.
  • Are all six occasions that ref #2 is referenced spread over the whole range of 15 pages cited? If not, please split the reference to point specifically to the page or range of pages that source each occasion this is used; the reader (namely in this instance, me trying to verify the facts) should not have to sift through fifteen pages in split ranges unless absolutely necessary.

That's it for the moment. Harrias talk 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot thank you enough. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the subscription required templates, the OA templates, added publisher to ref 1., cut the publisher from ref 13. I am not sure who published M. Law Review so I left out a publisher, but I'm looking for one now. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the publisher on ref 2 as Marquette University Law School. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good, thanks. Harrias talk 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks
    1. "The club owners agreed to remove the salary cap in 1887, but reneged on their promise, and instead instituted a "classification system" which limited players' salaries based on their classification on a scale from A–E, with "A" players being the highest-paid.", sourced to ref #7: checks out fine.
    2. "Despite defeating the Cleveland Infants 23–2 on Opening Day and starting the season with four consecutive wins, Buffalo had fallen to last place in the league by May 17 and, after a brief stint in seventh place, returned to last place on June 2.", sourced to ref #12: checks out fine.
    3. "Bisons player–manager Jack Rowe started Lewis on the mound.", sourced to ref #13, checks out fine.
    4. "Other contemporary papers covered the game: the Buffalo Courier said Lewis was "slaughtered";", sourced to ref #29, checks out fine.
  • Spotchecks reveal no copyvio or close para-phrasing issues, and the article accurately represents the source material. All good here now. Harrias talk 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 June 2020 [2].

Vermilion flycatcher

edit
Nominator(s): CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vermilion flycatcher is a bright red little bird found through much of the Americas. True to their name, they are aerial insectivores, and are quite nimble in flight. They are unique among the generally drab flycatchers due to their vibrant coloration. This is the second in my series of "cute birds I see outside my office window that should have FA's". I took it to GA status earlier this year, and it recently received a GOCE copy-edit, hope you folks enjoy it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

Here are my initial comments.

  • Most flycatchers are quite drab, but the vermilion flycatcher is a striking exception. - I think this can be rephrased, because it sounds weird to mention "most flycatchers" first before this specific flycatcher species.
Rephrased
  • Their song is a pit pit pit pidddrrrreedrr, which is variable and important in establishing a territory. They prefer riparian habitats and semi-open environments. They are aerial insectivores, catching their insect-based diet while flying. Their several months–long molt begins in summer. - four consecutive sentences beginning with "they" or a variant thereof. I suggest switching it up a bit. Same with They are monogamous but will engage in extra-pair copulation. They also practice intra-specific brood parasitism, where females lay their eggs in the nest of another vermilion flycatcher..
I have reworded the lead, hopefully that should do the trick.
  • including the now extinct San Cristóbal flycatcher - technically the adjectival form (and less confusing wording) is "now-extinct", but since this is not tagged as being any variant of English, this can be ignored.
I'll throw a lil dash in there anyway, for flavor :)
  • The overall population numbers in the millions—leading it to be considered a species of least concern by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. - is it possible to say this in active voice? e.g. "The overall population numbers in the millions, and so the International Union for the Conservation of Nature considers it a species of least concern".
Done, though I used "thus" instead of "and so"

Taxonomy and systematics

  • The first description of the vermilion flycatcher was in 1839 (some sources say 1838) by John Gould, who created the current genus Pyrocephalus. - OK, so which sources say 1838 and which say 1839? This makes it sound like 1838 is the wrong date. Is there a source for 1839 being the definite right date? Otherwise say "1838 or 1839"
Changed to "1838 or 1839"
  • Prior to the study it was considered a monotypic genus, but most taxonomists (including the International Ornithologists' Union), - last comma not needed
Done
  • now believe that up to three of the vermilion flycatcher subspecies merit species status (Darwin's, San Cristóbal, and scarlet flycatcher). - this sentence has 2 parentheticals which break up the flow.
@Epicgenius: I have changed to a colon, is that better? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's good. epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • Males are not easily mistaken for other species, but the drab females may be confused with the Say's phoebe.[4] - generally one-sentence paragraphs should be combined with others, unless there is a specific reason.
Combined
  • Worn feathers are replaced by molting. Molting takes between 62 and 79 days and begins in July—lasting until September - first, is it possible to combine the two sentences? It sounds strange to have the same word repeat consecutively: "molting. Molting". Second, I am unsure if the dash is necessary, or can merely be replaced by other punctuation like a comma.
Done
  • described as a pt-pt-pre-ee-een - would it be useful to say who described this?
Done
  • for example, populations in Arizona and Texas only sing from late February through July - would this be geographically related?
I see your point, but I would prefer to keep it in the song section, as I think it more related.

Distribution and habitat

  • as a breeding range they prefer cottonwood or mesquite tree canopies, although Fremont cottonwoods were not favored - "as a breeding range" also sounds somewhat strange.
Done
  • Goodding's willow was preferred as a nesting site where found. - using passive voice also sounds strange.
Done

More later. epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I've taken care of what you have raised rn, did you have other feedback? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have pushed this to the top of my list of on-wiki priorities. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While active, about 90% of their day is spent perching, and only 4–11% is spent chasing prey. - is the upper limit 11%? Because 90+11=more than 100
The 4-11% are the error bars, the 90% is a rough average, thus the "about". I'm not sure how you suggest I change this?
  • 39% of laid eggs were successfully raised to fledglings. - I recommend not starting the sentence with a numeral.
Was removed as part of Jens' comments
  • In the "In culture" section, the first paragraph seems to be talking about in captivity. Is it normal to describe the effects of captivity in an "in culture" section?
I have renamed the section "relationship with humans" to better reflect.

@CaptainEek: I guess that's all. epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I've tackled those points too. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my comments have been addressed. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit
Doing a read - placeholder. Will add some comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the subject not a proper noun? It's lower case in lede.
Most birds names are not proper nouns, no.
  • The vermilion flycatcher is a striking... I dislike this type of linking, as the term "vermilion flycatcher" and "vermilion" are for different things. Perhaps explain what the association between the flycatcher and vermilion is.
Lead changed
  • The vermilion flycatcher is a striking exception among the generally drab tyrant flycatchers. - probably needs a reword to avoid repetition.
Changed "tyrant flycatcher" to Tyrannidae, the scientific family name
  • I think the bit about how they look should be at the bottom of the lede. The part about how they have been founded and how they live is better lede material.
Starting with ID is pretty standard for bird FA's, and is the most useful thing for most birders, but I can try to move it around if you feel that necessary.
@Lee Vilenski: I believe I have tackled your comments, but let me know if I need to do more :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do a review of the prose outside of the lede, but I think it's pretty good. Happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

edit

Unfortunatly I don't have time to review much text now, but here's a media review. All photos have appropriate sourcing and licencing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The map's sourcing seems a bit unclear[3], was the map taken directly from the Cornell website, or just based on an image there? If the former, I don't think it's free. Contacting the uploader, Cephas, may resolve this, but they only seem to have a Commons userpage. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the Cornell website and it is based on the image there, not taken directly. Link, though it requires a subscription.
In that case, it should be made clearer on the file page, by for example writing self made or own work under source, and specifying it is based on the Cornell map. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Galleries should be avoided if they are only decorative, as seems to be the case here. Any relevant images that show something not illustrated in the article body already (such as the bird in flight) should be incorporated in relevant sections in the text.
I have moved the relevant gallery images into the text and removed the gallery
Looks good, I wonder if that museum specimen is really needed? Now it kind of messes up the references by creating white space on the right. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I had thought about putting it in the taxonomy section, as a left justified image? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking a bit empty there, and it was caught not that long after it was described it seems. Note some people are against images left of the taxobox because the text is "squeezed", but I have done that a lot myself, I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use an unfree external link for sound recordings, but we do have some free ones that could be used directly in the article:[4][5]
I see someone has added one in, thought the quality is abysmal. I'm going to keep the link to XenoCanto for additional recording. I tried to find another free recording on Xeno Canto, but they're all CC 4.0 non commercial licensed :( So close...
  • Here's a free photo of nestlings[6] that might be useful.
Omg, they're so cute! I have uploaded and added the photo.
Yep, I just saw you clarified the origins of the map, so should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sainsf

edit

Your second FAC :) Will add all my comments in a few days. Also, I will be listing this review in my WikiCup submissions. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 13:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to work a bit on the citations for consistency that a source review evaluates. For instance consistency in the way the authors are named (like Butler, Luke K.; Butler, L. K.; L. K. Butler or Luke K. Butler), the date formats for journal articles (year or month+year), 10 or 13 digit ISBNs and formatting checks (for instance we need italics for scientific name in ref 4). Just some advice before an actual source review is done.
  • Ref 32 doesn't take one to the bird's entry on the Red List. Should you not be using Template:Cite iucn? Or is something else the convention for bird articles?
I'd never seen cite iucn before, and now I have. Useful indeed. Fixed.
  • The Wikispecies link is for another species (okay read the Taxonomy section now, it is an old subspecies but there is a separate species entry for P. obscurus)
Entry changed
  • As aerial insectivores, they catch their insect-based diet while flying Is "insect" not a bit repetitive? How about "prey"?
Done
  • Vermilion flycatchers also practice...nest of another vermilion flycatcher You can say another "individual" or something to avoid repeating the long name in the same line
Thank you, I was looking for a better way to say that
  • Link taxonomy and genus in lead
Done
  • led to the creation of several new species Is "creation" be the right word? I think "identification" would be more appropriate
Done
Done
  • on the second voyage of HMS Beagle Beagle should be in italics, and it would be great to mention the year
Done
  • Link mottling
  • It prefers pine savanna habitats Link savanna here only, it is linked later
Done
  • Didn't know there is a link for crown in Description. It should be linked in the lead too
Done
  • The molt is fairly slow compared to other species to other species of the genus or the family or something else?
Clarified
  • In "Fremont Cottonwoods", why the capital C?
Done
  • Link Brazilian Amazon
Done
  • The section is named distribution and habitat but actually the first para is about habitat and the next on distribution. Maybe swap the words in the heading or the paras?
Done
  • in the nest of another vermilion flycatcher You may wish to reword it to "another individual" for reasons I mentioned in a similar point above, not so necessary here though
Done
  • The flycatcher is a frequent victim of brood parasitism Brood parasitism is a duplink
Done
  • Eggs are ovate For someone unsure what "ovate" means, a Google search says egg-like shape, or oval in outline. Doesn't ovate sound redundant, maybe the difficult goes away if we say "oval"?
I also thought about this. "Oval" will not work because it does not cover the asymmetry, which is only indicated by "ovate". I guess the problem is that the eggs are close to the average of bird eggs, but that there is no term for this average shape. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep it as ovate, as the more scientifically accurate term. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.6 g (0.056 oz) A tip, if converted measurements turn out too precise like this one, you can set the |sigfig= parameter in the template to 3 to round it off to 0.06 oz.
Done
  • while the female builds an additional nest I am curious, why another nest?
My sources didn't elaborate? I dunno, its a fairly common bird tactic? Instead of reusing a nest, they'll just move onto another. [7] Here's a study about multiple nests in another species, but I don't think its really something I can cite here.
@Sainsf:Well I'll be, there actually IS a paper about this, thanks to Jim who found it. [8] I have included some info from it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome :) Sainsf (t · c) 19:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • varied from 59–80% → "from 59 to 80%"
Done
  • The vermilion flycatcher is a favorite with birders. They are not generally kept in aviculture The bird is mentioned in singular in the first line and in plural in the second. Both need to be either singular or plural for consistency (else "they" technically implies birders!)
Done, good catch, don't want to walk into an aviary full of just birders!
  • You may link "metabolized"
Done
  • publishes a journal named for the vermilion flycatcher Unless the name is just "Vermilion flycatcher" we can mention it by name here
The name is eponymous
  • estimated as ranging between When are these estimates of?
Clarified
  • even though its overall numbers are declining I think this would look better if combined with the next line where you start giving examples of this, this line is already long enough with details and you mention "least concern" followed by this contradictory fact all of a sudden in a single line.
Done
  • You may link Habitat destruction and riparian as you have in the lead. Also link vulnerable species
Done
  • The audio file in the infobox says "Call of Vermilion Flycatcher", should the name be in caps like that?
Done

That's all from me. Thanks for this beautiful and fascinating read :) Sainsf (t · c) 05:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: I believe I've taken care of all your points, let me know if something further is needed :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. All my comments have been addressed and I believe the prose meets FA standards. "Ovate" might still be a problem but I don't see it as a major issue. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 18:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit

Looking alright....

  • In the Taxonomy and systematics section, you mention The type species was designated as Pyrocephalus rubinus by the English zoologist George Robert Gray in 1840 and then A 2016 molecular study by Carmi et al. changed the taxonomy of the species, splitting off several new species and renaming the original bird as Pyrocephalus obscurus - if renaming, does that mean it another binomial name was used before 2016?
No, but I've clarified the wording a bit. In essence: There was one species up until 2016, called P. rubinus. In 2016 they made the Scarlet flycatcher P. rubinus, and thus the vermilion needed a new name, so it became P. obscurus.
  • The way this is written - Before the study it was considered a monotypic genus, but most taxonomists (including the International Ornithologists' Union) now believe that up to three of the vermilion flycatcher subspecies merit species status - suggests the species are not accepted, but according to the IOC they are. soneeds a rethink on how worded - ehter past tense or another verb
I reworked to hopefully clarify
  • The In culture section would be better if you singularised the species as it is a bit jarring goting from "It.." to "they.."
Done

Otherwise looking on track....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the review! Hopefully I've tackled the issues you've raised :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Jim

edit

Very comprehensive, just a couple of things before I support.

  • Females do not usually sing—I know this is what the source says, but does the female ever sing? I checked on Cornell and several books, and I couldn't find anything about female song at all.
I looked through my sources, and I didn't find anything beyond the one mention, but I don't think we can say the female never sings. It seems understudied, likely because it is so rare, and because males are easier to ID and listen to.
  • The Galpagos sp appears to be plagued by various parasites, including a parasitic fly. Does VF have any internal or external parasites such as worms, ticks or fleas. Any diseases? Some nest parasites at least are mentioned here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that source @Jimfbleak:, it came in super duper handy! I have added a paragraph from it. I also found some sourcing about disease and added a paragraph. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit
  • Nice bird. My main concern is the "Taxonomy and Systematics" section which is difficult to follow and seems to lack information important for a complete understanding; see comments below.
  • intra-specific brood parasitism – "intra-specific" may be to technical for the lead (especially without a link), maybe avoid?
Changed to "within species" for a less scientific and more understandable term
  • The Pyrocephalus are most closely related to the Sayornis – usually genus names are without article and in singular (the genus Pyrocephalus).
Done
  • They likely share a common ancestor that belonged in the genus Contopus or Xenotriccus and later diversified. – this would mean one of these two genera is paraphyletic?
Yes, but the research isn't sure which one so I'm not going to speculate
  • Carmi et al. – "et al." is a technical word that can be easily avoided (instead, "and colleagues" is an option).
I've actually opted to just not mention the author, I think just saying "2016 study" should do the trick
  • I would place general information about the subspecies (e.g., how many) a bit earlier. As it is now, earlier sentences about the subspecies are difficult to comprehend without this background. For example, when reading The South American subspecies diverged about 0.56 mya, and the North American subspecies diverged at 0.25 mya, I thought that there is a single North American subspecies and a single South American one, and was confused later on.
I have moved the text on evolution into the subspecies section
  • The South American subspecies diverged about 0.56 mya, and the North American subspecies diverged at 0.25 mya. – A bit unclear; from what did they diverge? Thinking about it I guess it means that the ancestor population of the South American birds split into separate subspecies 0.56 mya, and the North American one at 0.25 mya? Maybe also add the date of split between the North and South American lines?
I have adjusted the wording slightly, it is more accurate to say that the South American subspecies had coalesced (emerged) by .56, and that the North American diverged from the South by .25
  • The identification was based on specimens brought back by Charles Darwin on the second voyage of HMS Beagle – here I really would like to know where these specimens were collected.
Done, it was from James Island
  • in 1838 or 1839 – why, is the publication date unknown?
Checking my sources, they seem to agree on 1839
  • The first description of the vermilion flycatcher was in 1838 or 1839 by John Gould, who created the current genus Pyrocephalus. – "first description" implies a Species description; if so what was the species?
I have expanded the section a bit with the note that he called it Pyrocephalus obscurus originally
  • The type species – of the genus Pyrocephalus, not of the Vermilion! Bit confusing, these sentences read as if this would be the article Pyrocephalus. Maybe rewrite from the species perspective.
Done
  • splitting off several new species and renaming the original bird as Pyrocephalus obscurus. – Why the new name? Wouldn't the old one have priority?
Zoologists work in unusual ways, I couldn't find an explanation for the convoluted naming
But all zoologists need to follow the code where these things are exactly regulated. But the taxonomic subtleties are of minor importance in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but most taxonomists (including the International Ornithologists' Union) now believe that up to three of the vermilion flycatcher subspecies merit species status – "most" and "up to" don't fit together imo. How many species are recognised by the IOU?
Clarified
  • which can lead to confusion with the scarlet flycatcher. – Why? Need the scientific name for the latter as well to make this clear.
Done
  • The molt is fairly slow compared to other species – species of birds in general or compared to other flycatchers?
Clarified
  • This reflects a tendency to overwinter in areas where the temperature does not go below −1 °C – But this cannot be the sole explanation, since the population in the Amazon basin, where temperatures are not below -1 °C, are not present all year.
Though I found some discussion of how their migration evolved and helped them spread, I could not find anything more discussing the reason. As with so many topics in science, it seems to be an area of future research. Birds migrate for a ton of different reasons.
  • This allows the male to outsource the energy-intensive process of egg-laying – This reads as if the male would lay eggs.
Clarified
  • Yearly nesting success in a Texas study varied from 59–80% – what is considered a nesting success? Not rising to fledglings, as those success rates are lower as stated later in the article.
Clarified, the numbers were actually for the same thing but poorly worded

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I believe I have tackled the issues you raised, thanks for the review! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

CaptainEek, are you still interested in pursuing this nom? If so we need your responses to all the outstanding comments above ASAP or I'll have to archive this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes Ian, I sure am. It kinda fell off my radar, but I have chugged along on it all morning. I should have everyone's comments done within the next day :) Thanks for the ping. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further coord note

edit

@Epicgenius: are you satisfied? And do we have a source review? CaptainEek, am I right this is your second FAC? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I think there are still three issues that should be resolved first before I officially support. epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth This is my second FAC. I am still waiting on a source review, though I have asked for one on the FAC talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • fn 2: Recommended citation is Ellison, K., B. O. Wolf, and S. L. Jones (2020). Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.verfly.01
@Hawkeye7: How do you suggest I do that with the cite journal template...? Or do you think another template would be better? Or are you saying I should do it manually? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • fn 10: is the only one in this format.
Done
  • fn 11: reformat isbn as 978-0-520-27493-8 to match the other fns
Done
  • fn 20: add ISSN (0004-8038)
Done
  • fn 21: add ISSN (0010-5422)
Done
  • fn 25: add ISSN (0101-8175)
Done
  • fn 26: add ISSN (0043-5643)
Done
  • fn 28: add ISSN (0777-6241)
Done
  • All sources are of high quality
  • Spotchecks performed on fn 2, 4, 5, 28
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Hawkeye! I believe I've tackled all of the issues except for the first, which could use a reply. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected it. Support on sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy coords

edit

Ealdgyth, @Ian Rose: I have secured a source review, image review, and a number of prose reviews, what do you folks think? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 June 2020 [9].

Rigel

edit
Nominator(s): Lithopsian, Attic Salt & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I felt bad that Betelgeuse got lots of love and attention and its buddy Rigel was ignored...so a few of us astronomical-interested editors have been buffing this article for some time. After a few pauses and deep breaths (and second looks and a productive GA review from The Rambling Man, which was great for accessibility....here we are. This is a co-nomination so queries should be responded to pronto. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive by comment: I wonder if it would be good to note that we have not found any planets orbiting these stars somewhere in the article? It's the first thing I looked for but could not find it. Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A good question....very bright stars are difficult to investigate, so many have not been investigated in this way. We'd also need a source saying that someone had (unsuccessfully) tried I think. I'll have a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to find negative results like "no planets" getting published, even harder to find a scientific journal stating that nobody even looked around a particular star. At a guess, I'd say nobody has looked; there have been searches for spectroscopic companions, but finding a sub-stellar mass around a supergiant would be quite a feat. I did find one web page explaining some of the reasons why Rigel is unlikely to have any planets and why they might be hard to spot if it did. It would be a stretch to call it a reliable source. We could use one of the public exoplanet databases, for example the NASA exoplanet archive can be searched and will tell you that there are no entries for Rigel. Would obviously be a statement subject to change at any time in the future. Lithopsian (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opening confession: I know nothing about the topic; in fact, where I come from, it hasn't been invented yet :)
In the references, you've got a number of books without publisher location. Also check book chapter for page spans, as anumber are also missing. Some journals are also missing identifiers (e.g. OCLC, doi etc) which are useful.
Is there a citation for Rigel was also known as Gin-waki, (銀脇), etc?
That has been in article for many years unsourced - I could not find a source so removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Jauzah" was a proper name of the Orion figure, an alternative Arabic name was رجل الجبار riǧl al-ǧabbār, "the foot of the great one" conveys much technical info; suggest a tweak. Perhaps, "Jauzah" was a proper name for Orion; an alternative Arabic name was رجل الجبار riǧl al-ǧabbār, or "the foot of the great one", from which stems the rarely used variants Algebar or Elgebar.
I don't get With constellation representing...; should it be Within the constellation representing...? Also, maybe describe and link Orion on first use.
much of our understanding about their characteristics; not sure about the first person—how about much of what scholars understand about their characteristics or something.
ts energy output is poorly known--->can only be estimated.
Mind you, I guess these can only really be suggestions on my part, as I may unintentionally be altering the substance by adjusting the prose. ——SN54129 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the prose changes you've suggested are good and have been used, though and pausing on the last one as everything with stars is estimated/calculated anyway. Need to think about that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The uncertainty in many of the values given in this article would astonish most people. Some of them can be seen in the ± figures in the starbox, and remember those are only one sigma ranges, so the "true" value is almost as likely to be outside the range as inside it. Astronomical error ranges also typically only capture a small subset of the possible errors, for example the statistical errors of a set of observations but ignoring any underlying or systematic errors. We need to avoid being too dogmatic about most of the claims for physical properties, distance, etc. Equally, I can see that having too many "estimated" and "about" words littering the article can be distracting. Call out anywhere you think the balance is wrong.Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that about the representation here during the GA review, although I don't see anything in the review to prompt it. I wasn't entirely happy with it at the time, but I couldn't come up with anything better. Maybe go back to the original version? Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Some comments from Sam-2727:
  • supergiant primary component A of the Rigel system. Sounds kind of awkward. Is "the primary component of the Rigel system" not specific enough?
fair point, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • then ordered the stars within each class according to a different scheme. Did his scheme vary from constellation to constellation? I assume this is the case, but it is never mentioned in the article.
yes - sometimes the order appears random, sometimes from one end of the constllation to the other (such as the Big Dipper). I thought it was too off-topic to go into more detail Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the exception is the area north of the 82nd parallel north. For clarification, could be "the exception being the part of the Arctic Ocean north of the 82nd parallel north.
err...and some of Greenland and Ellesmere Island..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but the rest of that sentence is only referring to oceans. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • source 25 doesn't support the claim that It is usually fainter than Capella. All the source says on this that I can find is that Capella "ever-so-slightly exceeds Rigel in brightness." I.e. there isn't a modifier (usually) in this statement.
fair point, qualifier removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unusual Hα line profile is observed to vary unpredictably...rarely there is a pure emission Hα line. Does this really have to be one massive sentence? I would take out the colon (replacing it with a period), and split the rest up into sentences that flow better.
split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Alpha Cygni class of variable stars, defined as.... Defined by who? Also, that quote isn't coming from the citation provided. I believe it's originally coming form the AAVSO: [10].
The quote comes from the given citation, the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (see [11]). Where do you think the AAVSO copied it from? So, defined by them. Should it say explicitly that's who defined it? They didn't strictly make the definition, but they did write it down in exactly those words. Lithopsian (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. The only thing is, the source currently in the article, [12], doesn't include that wording. So maybe change that source to the one you've provided. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Later comment: The source you provided also doesn't contain the words in that quote. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes it does - they are abbreviated to "ACYG" (sentence occurs in para after first hit of "ACYG" using cntrl- F Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'e' indicates that it displays emission lines in its spectrum, while the 'p'.... This assumes that these have already been mentioned in the article, but I can't find reference to these designations anywhere else.
The description is referring to the "Bep–AepIa" spectral type range quoted in the previous sentence. Describe in more detail? Reword to be clear what is being described? Drop completely? Seems like a random collection of letters that deserves some explanation for non-astronomers. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rigel mass-loss rate due to stellar wind. Should be: "Rigel's mass-loss rate".
Done. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is estimated that Rigel has lost around 3 solar masses (M☉) since beginning life as a star of 24±3 M☉ 7 to 9 million years ago. The citation given does give the original mass estimate, but doesn't mention Rigel losing 3 SM in its lifetime.
The paper describes that evolutionary models predict an initial mass of 24 and a current mass of 21 (both subject to a margin of error of 3 M☉). We could just state those two numbers, but it seems cruel to force people to do their own arithmetic and the section is called "Mass loss" after all. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the measurements for this object may be unreliable, possibly because it is a close double star. This and the proceeding sentence at the moment aren't exactly supported by the citation given which only mentions the general limitations with respect to binary stars, not in the case of Rigel's companion star (which isn't mentioned explicitly in the source anywhere).
I removed any mention of why the value might be unreliable (there are many reasons), only that it might be (as indicated by excess astrometric noise, for example). Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • or a distance of 39 light-years (12 parsecs) away. Again not supported by the current citation. I'm also skeptical how if the distance to Rigel is unknown, the distance from it to a nebula can be known so precisely.
We don't know how far it is from the nebula, although there is circumstantial evidence that it is "not far". The distance of 12 pc is *only* the projected distance, ignoring any difference in the distances of each object from us. I added the word "projected". Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped at "Stellar System." Might have time to get through that tomorrow. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing:
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Support I haven't had the time to go through the full article, but everything in the criteria seems to be addressed and only thing I'm finding in the comments above are ultra-minor copyediting changes (that no one will notice anyway...). Sam-2727 (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! all input appreciated... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Hawkeye7
    I'm not an astronomer, so perhaps not surprising that I found the Physical characteristics section confusing.
    Yep - trying to balance accessibility and accuracy is a...challenge Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rigel is a blue supergiant that has exhausted the hydrogen fuel in its core First of all, the term "blue supergiant", linked here, is actually used in the first sentence of the section. Suggest moving this paragraph (and possibly the next) up to the beginning of the section.
      Yes that is good - moving the para that describes /what/ it is up now done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this section, "Rigel" refers to "Rigel A", right?
      Yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having exhausted the hydrogen fuel in its core, I take it that it this means that it its burning hydrogen in the outer shell? I'm guessing this because it says later that "Recent stellar evolution models suggest the pulsations are powered by nuclear reactions in a hydrogen-burning shell that is at least partially non-convective. The star may also be fusing helium in its core." (That sentence would be better placed here.) I deduce that this is because the pressure is not great enough for helium fusion, which requites much higher temperature than hydrogen fusion? Or it is that the core is too clogged with heavier elements?
      I have moved that up so discussion of what elements are burning where are near each other Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it was on the main sequence, its temperature would have been around 30,000 K This is the surface temperature, right?
      yes/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider linking Ledoux criterion.
      done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider moving the footnotes in the infobox to after the units.
      That would be tricky. The infobox contents are largely formatted by a series of starbox templates. They take, for example a number and a reference as input, and add the appropriate units. Making the template understand which piece of text is the value and which is the reference would be possible, but is not a trivial change. It would seem to be outside of the scope of this article, and would need project-level discussion since it would affect every star article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I asked you to consider it, and you did, so that it fine. Support promotion to featured status. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

edit

Well written and referenced. Much of it can be understood with university-level knowledge plus some effort, so nicely done. I understand the difficulty of making articles like this accessible without dumbing down too much, so I try to focus my review on improving accessibility (in addition to other stuff). That said, I'm no expert so if my suggestions are way off feel free to push back.

  • Note, I intend to claim this review for Wikicup.
  • of spectral type B8Ia: any link for "spectral type" or "B8Ia"?
Spectral type wikilinked. There isn't a particularly good page to link B8Ia to, although it is explained more in the body. Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the first class: link or briefly explain what "first class" signifies in this sentence?
The class is described in the previous sentence. I added the word magnitude to try and make this clearer. Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rigel is a prominent equatorial navigation star: I think the passage that follows does a good job of explaining why it's a good navigational star, but not why it's an equatorial navigation star. Is it possible to explain more about what links it to the equator, e.g. "Rigel is a prominent equatorial navigation star because of its location in …, and because it is readily visible in all the world's oceans"?
    @Casliber: I'm still wondering about this. Any idea? HaEr48 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go at this. Since the linked article has a section on equatorial navigation stars, and Rigel is one of them, I've piped the whole phrase "equatorial navigation star" to that section. Lithopsian (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the radial velocity of Rigel.. was seen to vary. Can we clarify, for the uninitiated, radial velocity with respect to what?
Added helioentric. Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1933, the Hα spectral line was seen to be unusually weak and shifted 0.1 nm towards shorter wavelengths: Would it be appropriate to say "In 1933, the Hα spectral line of Rigel", for clarity?
I used a slightly different form of words to make it explicit which Hα is being referred to. Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those spectral types, the 'e' indicates that it displays emission lines in its spectrum, while the 'p' means it has an unspecified spectral peculiarity.: Trying to understand these 'e' and 'p' reference, have the article mentioned them before?
"Bep–AepIa" in the previous sentence. "In those spectral types" was recently added to try and clarify what was being talked about in this sentence. Obviously not 100% successful, but I'm not sure how to make it clearer. Lithopsian (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, I think it's easy to miss because it reads like a combination of two names "Bep" and "Aepla" and the individual characters aren't meaningful. Suggest bolding the relevant characters, e.g. "The 'e' and 'p' in Bep–AepIa indicate ..."
I think the letters and acronym are pretty close together in consecutive sentences as is - worried it will look repetitive or like we're labouring the point otherwise.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2007 Hipparcos reduction of Rigel's parallax: link reduction (or explain what it means in this context) and parallax? And better yet if there's a link that explains how the parallax can be used to estimate distance.
Added two wikilinks. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first instance is linked, near the start of the section Distance. Perhaps it needs to be spelled out? Lithopsian (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I missed that. Suggest spelling out the first mention. HaEr48 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to reconcile "Since its discovery, there has been no sign of orbital motion" and "The pair would have an estimated orbital period of around 24,000 years" Can you clarify what the latter signifies if there is no orbital motion?
Kepler's Law. The two stars cannot simply be sailing along next to eachother. Either they are gravitationally bound (ie. in orbit) or they are not and will separate indefinitely. Assuming they are bound, and making a few other assumptions such as the size of the orbit and the masses of the stars, the period of the orbit can be calculated. Take it is an educated guess, since the masses are not known precisely and the actual semi-major axis will vary depending on the eccentricity of the orbit. That's what the ref has done. When orbital motion can be observed, the eccentricity and the masses can be calculated and the orbit defined more precisely. Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a companion star to Rigel" can we name the companion as well?
It's Rigel B. I'll say so in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the note, et dicitur Algebar. Nominatur etiam Rigel: can we translate this note?
@Lithopsian: anyone knows the translation of this note? HaEr48 (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes it means, "...and it is called Algebar. It is also named Rigel". I was going to add but paused and then got distracted. Will add now. Possibly a bit repetitive. Would it be better as a footnote? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Your call: I think we can either make it a footnote, or just remove the Latin, or reword somehow to remove repetition. But I think it's not preferable to leave an untranslated phrase and leave our readers confused as to what it means. HaEr48 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay I footnoted the translated segment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:REFER, we should avoid a lead sentence like "is the name applied to a star system". Is the scope of the article about the star system, or just the star?
This is a problem with most notable stars that are actually multiple star systems. The name applies to the star system (with components called 'A', 'B', 'C' etc. But component A is often treated as the primary topic and just called Rigel (Sirius is another example, no-one calls it Sirius A unless they are also talking about Sirius B in the same context. To complicate things the new naming rules that came out in 2016 stuck the name on the primary components..so since 2016 the main component is 'Rigel' not 'Rigel A'..but the term is widely applied to the star system...sigh. Also - 99.75% of the light from the single dot of light in the sky is from the brightest component. I wish it were simpler but here we are, and we've tried to reflect the ambiguity in nomenclature as simply and clearly as posslbe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the "... is the name ..." format of the opening sentence. The article is primarily about the star - or the star system - not about the name, so we should say something like "Rigel is a star ...". Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not thrilled by it either but struck me as the most succinct and accurate way to get the point across about what it means. Happy to rethink this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian and Casliber: How about something like "Rigel ... is a star system in the constellation of Orion, whose brightest star is also known by the same name"? Also, if almost all the visible light from earth comes from the primary star (99.75% as you said), I believe it's worth mentioning in the article e.g. in Observation, if not in the lead itself. HaEr48 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reverse it, and even caveat it a little despite being the opening sentence. Along the lines of "Rigel is a star ... " - so far, so good, I don't think anyone can argue with that - " ... , and colloquially also the name of the whole star system with Rigel as its primary." I know, the second section is not succinct enough. Also, there might be a better word than colloquially. Lithopsian (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "broadly" for "colloquially" (heh, opposite of "strictly" sensu lato would be the term if this were a biology article) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to fundamentals: "Rigel is a star ..." seems uncontroversial, referring either to a huge ball of plasma or to a dot in the night sky, but is "Rigel is a star system ..." correct in any way? We discuss Rigel's companions, gravitationally-bound or otherwise, in the article, and they are often referred to as Rigel B, etc., but the bald statement that "Rigel is a star system" doesn't seem to make any sense to me. On that assumption, can we not just say "Rigel is a star" as we used to and then feel free to describe its companions being careful not to call the star system as a whole Rigel. Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian: I'm fine with that too. I thought we were going with defining as the star system due to the current wording of the lead, but if "Rigel is a star ... " makes more sense, let's go with it. HaEr48 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that the IAU in 2016 shifted usage towards the star alone in the system. I have rewritten it thus. It has now struck me as the IAU has specified the name to the star (and not the system) that this simplifies things alot. Question is, do we need to put a note in the lead that the name can be broadly construed to desginate the system as a whole..or just leave it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like this version. It says that Rigel is a star. It also says that there is an associated star system. I think in the rest of the article we refer to the "Rigel system", but don't explicitly call it simply "Rigel". Hopefully this isn't confusing any more. Lithopsian (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: IMO, It can be part of the second sentence "It is also the brightest and most massive component of a star system known by the same name ..." or something similar. Also suggest adding some clarification, as well as the fact that the whole system appears as a single dot, with nearly all light coming from the main star, in the article body. But I like your lead change. HaEr48 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a winner. Lithopsian (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert so feel free to disagree with me on this. I'm trying to judge comprehensiveness by comparing with another FA for Betelgeuse, it has significantly more detail including motion/kinematics, mass loss, a section of "circumstellar dynamics", as well as its life phase. Is there any reason why this article has much less details on those?
There is alot more published material on Betelgeuse concerning such issues as mass loss (and other areas), hence that article has alot more data from reliable sources to draw on to produce and article. To a large degree, article size reflects the amount of published material there is to draw on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are perhaps a little short on information about the evolution of Rigel. I think some text was lost during arguments last year. I'll try to add a section on this, especially since we mention in the lead that it is going to explode as a supernova. Quite the tease when we don't explain that better. Lithopsian (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on this article, I learned a lot from reading it. HaEr48 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although would be happy if more info can be added about evolution, as Lithopsian mentioned. Thank you for this article! HaEr48 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that, and in progress Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

edit
  • I should know better than to make promises, even qualified ones. But broken promises don't take away from the fondness I have always had for this constellation and for this star. I'm reserving a slot, and will probably make a few comments now, and return later, and intermittently, for others. (Note: I haven't read the previous reviewers' comments.)
  • "is the name applied to a star system—or strictly to the system's brightest star—in the constellation of Orion.
  • "strictly," i.e. "with the exact use of words," has the effect of narrowing a word's application. Logically, I think, it accompanies an "and" not an "or," for the sentence is equivalent in meaning to the two independent clauses: "... is the name applied to a star system; strictly/when narrowed/with the exact use of words, it applies to the system's brightest star." So, would it be be clearer to write:
  • "... is the name applied to a star system in the constellation of Orion, and strictly to the system's brightest star." (that way there are no breaks in the middle of the general definition either which may distract the reader.)
aawwww, I liked my mdashes..."or" sounds more "natural" to me but the logic of "and" makes sense. Duly changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the m-dashes. :( I like them too, but prefer them generally for explication, emphasis, clarification, or determinedly purposeful meandering. As two m-dashes are a form of parenthesizing, what they enclose is generally of less semantic value than the main clause. In this instance, though, we seem to be emphasizing both interpretations—the system and the star—equally. If that is not the case, please let me know, and we can go back to your version, or rephrase it again. As for "or vs. and," I haven't checked, but I would imagine "or" to be more common in speech or casual writing, but "and" with "strictly (speaking) to be favored in books." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are also the eternal WP pieties—and perhaps of other encyclopedias as well—about naming and being. But shortening it to "... is a star system in the constellation of Orion, and strictly the system's brightest star" is meaningless as "strictly (speaking)" is about speech, names, and expressions, not about existence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica avoids the naming/being dilemma with: "Rigel, also called Beta Orionis,(is) one of the brightest stars in the sky, intrinsically as well as in appearance. A blue-white supergiant in the constellation Orion, Rigel is about 870 light-years from the Sun and is about 47,000 times as luminous. A companion double star, also bluish white, is of the sixth magnitude." In other words, they avoid the collective name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We used to do exactly the same, describe it as a star without being too precise (at least in the lead) about whether that is a single ball of plasma or several in a gravitationally bound system. It was suggested that this was confusing when later we start referring to a system of four stars with names such as Rigel B. I'm happy to go back to the simpler definition and leave the details in the body. Lithopsian (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Damned if you do ... I see the problem, though I personally don't mind the naming/referring beginnings. In my youth on Wikipedia, I even created quite a few. But they fell victim to the-whatnots-that-be. As you have already made the change once, you could let it remain until the evidence of opposition becomes overwhelming. After all Rigel is a name for a complicated reality. Even if we reduce the scope of the name's reference, as Britannica does, it is still a name. However, one approach for avoiding naming/referring but still preserving the complexity could be a slightly more prosaic opening

"The star system named Rigel ... etc ... lies in the constellation of Orion, and appears as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye; the system contains at least four stars, the principal star of which, named Rigel or Rigel A, is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia."

I'm throwing this out there as another possibility, one possibly attracting fewer objections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Appearing as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye, the system contains at least four stars, the primary star of which (either Rigel A or simply Rigel) is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia."
I have rewritten it thus. I just realised that the IAU has pushed for the name to refer to the star and not the system, although the system is broadly known as the Rigel system or abbreviated to Rigel (sort of). Question is, is it worth adding somewhere that the system can be called 'Rigel' (though come to think of it, I don't know that any source specifically says that) or the Rigel system or if that is just obvious then leave it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely written.
  • do you need "either" and the parenthesis? (See more below.)
I dropped the parenthetical. This is the lead, no need for caveats everywhere so king as it is explained fully in the body. Lithopsian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not good at punctuation, but is there a comma before "or simply Rigel?"
segment removed so moot Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "primary star" meant in an astronomical sense, such as primary (astronomy) (i.e. the star is massive enough to constitute the approximate center of mass of the four-body system)? If so, would it be better to break it up as:
  • "Appearing as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye, the system contains at least four stars; the primary, Rigel A, or simply Rigel, is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia?"
Yikes! Please don't link to that article, its awful as well as inaccurate. "Primary" in the context of a binary star system refers to the brighter, or occasionally the more massive, of a pair. It need not be massive enough to constitute the approximate centre of gravity of the system, and in most cases it won't. Lithopsian (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, on the other hand, "primary" is meant in the ordinary meaning of "principal or chief," then would it be better to say:
  • "Appearing as a single blue-white point of light to the naked eye, the system contains at least four stars, the principal one of which—Rigel A, or simply Rigel—is a massive blue supergiant of spectral type B8Ia?"
I changed it to "principal" even though "primary" does have a specific meaning in this context. Lithopsian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think so wouldn't you. However, this particular spectral type does implicitly mean an MK spectral type which is discussed in the Modern classification section (of the same article), or even in the Yerkes spectral classification sub-section. Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too many links all to essentially the same place? That particular section isn't very illuminating about the B8Ia spectral class. Blue supergiant might be more informative, already linked. Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is calculated to be anywhere from 61,500 to 363,000 times as luminous and 18 to 24 times as massive as the Sun, depending on the method used to calculate its properties and assumptions about its distance, estimated to be about 860 light-years (260 pc).
  • Is "massive" meant in its astronomical meaning of "having great mass?" If so, should it be linked to mass (and not, were we in the business of linking, to massive star, which doesn't quite pin down the meaning of "massive")? I.e. would it be better to rewrite: "It is calculated to be anywhere from 61,500 to 363,000 times as luminous as the sun, and 18 to 24 times as massive?"
"Massive" is linked in the previous sentence to massive star although this is somewhat tautological since we say it is a supergiant. If any link is to be made in the sentence about the actual mass, it should probably be to solar mass since we are using that in a rather colloquial way as a unit. I made this change, with your form of words. Lithopsian (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depending on the method used to calculate its properties and assumptions about its distance, estimated to be about 860 light-years (260 pc)."
  • "depending ... distance" is too vague, too generic, to convey any meaning. My thought is: either make it more precise with more information in a separate sentence or get rid of it.
  • "estimated to be about 860 light-years (260 pc)." This is confusing. Apparently, the assumptions about the distance computation are varied, but the distance is not.
  • What is not clear here is this: The luminosity and mass estimates have wide ranges depending on the assumptions about distance. Then why is the distance also not dependent on these assumptions, and estimated in a range? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps drop "why" there is a range of estimated physical properties from the lead, and just state the estimated distance on its own? There's a whole section about the distance and "about 860 light years", where "about" papers over a lot of cracks, is probably simplest and safest for the lead. Lithopsian (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its radius is over 70 times that of the Sun, and its surface temperature is 12,100 K."
  • If this is a comparison with the sun, then the surface temperatures should be compared as well. Besides, we were comparing the physical dimensions earlier, so why did we leave out the radius from the previous sentence?
The previous sentence ran on far too much already, although that should probably be fixed. Solar mass M☉, solar radius R☉, and solar luminosity L☉ are defined astronomical units. Solar temperature is not. Partly because defining a temperature as a multiple of another temperature gets into sticky territory in terms of the physics. Let's just say it isn't done and we probably shouldn't set a precedent here. Lithopsian (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. OK Thanks. I do think you should split the previous sentence for easier comprehension. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have dropped the distance piece from that sentence, and moved a simple statement of (approximate) distance into the opening sentence, which has been conveniently shortened in other edits. Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing to note is that the elementary volume formula, 4/3 times pi times radius cube, suggests that all things being equal, the mass of Rigel should be 70 x 70 x 70, i.e. 343,000 times that of the sun; but it is only 18 to 24 times in mass. Is this is linked to burning out most of its fuel and expanding? Either way, should the:
  • luminosity and temperature be in one sentence (as well as the comparison of the latter with the sun)?
  • and the radius and the mass be in another sentence?
There is a case to be made for different groupings, but there is nothing particularly special about these pairings. See below. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sources that would support a statement such as: "Although Rigel's radius is 70 times that of the sun, its mass is only between 18 and 24 the sun's (or "that of the sun.")? If so, such a sentence would be more meaningful.
  • " Rigel varies slightly in brightness, with apparent magnitude ranging from 0.05 to 0.18."
  • Are there sources that would support: "Rigel varies only slightly in brightness?" If so, the addition of "only" will help the reader later when Betelguese is mentioned.
I've had a stab at this, as well as the next point. I didn't use the word "only", "slightly" seemed quite subjective enough, but still tried to clarify that Betelgeuse is the one doing most of the varying. Then reversed the explanation of the variability type classification, and the causes of the variation. Perhaps too wordy - I made room by breaking out a paragraph, but could still be too much detail for the lead. Can't win really. Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the inclusion of "slightly" is important as it varies in brightness much less than other notable variables Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"slightly" included now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its intrinsic variability is caused by pulsations, and it is classified as an Alpha Cygni variable."
  • This is not very transparent to a novice such as I. Would it be clearer if we write: "Its intrinsic variability is caused by pulsations that vary inconsistently over its surface area, causing it to be classified as an Alpha Cygni variable?" (or somesuch?)
The pulsations are non-radial, but not inconsistent. For example, the poles may be shrinking while the equator is expanding but they may be doing it "in sync". It might help to know what is not very transparent. Do you want it to be clearer why Rigel is classified as an Alpha Cygni variable? The answer might not be very satisfying, basically that hot luminous supergiants that vary by not-large amounts with not-well-defined short-ish periods are classified as Alpha Cygni variables. The physical explanation for their variability can then be investigated, with the hope that the stars in the class are all actually doing similar things for the same reason. Lithopsian (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rigel is generally the seventh-brightest star in the night sky and the brightest star in Orion, though it is occasionally outshone by (more variable) Betelgeuse."
  • Nice sentence!
  • Why the parentheses?
  • It should probably be "the more variable Betelguese."
I've changed to this wording, although I'm not convinced it is ideal. I didn't like the parentheses so at least they're gone. Lithopsian (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rigel's mass-loss due to its stellar wind is estimated be around 10 million times more than that of the Sun."
  • :) Aha. So this explains the abnormally low mass. Which means: would it lend greater coherence to the paragraph if the sentences are reshuffled so as to combine the semantically related ones, e.g. something like:
  • "Rigel's radius is more than 70 times that of the sun; its mass is 18 to 24 times greater. Its mass-loss due to its stellar wind is estimated be around 10 million times that of the sun?"
No, this doesn't explain the low mass. Stellar densities vary. Even amongst main sequence stars, stars more massive than the sun are less dense and hence disproportionately large in radius. But mostly, Rigel is a supergiant, hence even larger in comparison to its mass. In general, the radius of a star is not highly correlated with its mass. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These two sentences are now together. I removed the piece between them, about variability, into a separate paragraph. Lithopsian (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I like the new paragraph Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lucida que est in pede sinistro: et est communis ei et aquae: et dicitur Algebar nominatur etiam Rigel," translated as, "Bright which is in the left foot and is common to him and the water and called Algebar (is) named also Rigel." The water here is the constellation Eridanus, seen both in the picture as the river of Hades and in the sky as the constellation at the foot of Orion
The constellation Eridanus which borders Orion
  • "Estimated to be around 7 to 9 million years old, it has exhausted its core hydrogen fuel, expanded and cooled to become a supergiant, and will end its life as a type II supernova."
  • Nicely written.
Etymology
  • "al-jabbaar" (The mighty one) seems to be Orion. See B, or perhaps in Arabic accounts, he was visualized as A, judging from what follows. The Latin, which I now only infirmly remember, seems to be from this book, page 158 and 159, or some earlier version of which this is a verbatim copy. It begins with "Stars of Orion ..." Number 2 is "Bright (lucido) which is in the right (dextrum) shoulder (humerus) is called Betelguese" Number 35 on the next page is: "Bright (lucido) which is in the left (sinistro) foot (pedo) ... and called Algebar named also Rigel." The "..." part—which is probably a reference to The Odyssey and to Odysseus seeing a shadow of Orion in the water, or the underworld—can be left out. It is your call, but I think adding some version of the image A and reference to "bright which is in the left foot" in addition to what you already have, might be more motivating for a reader. (A is preferable to B, because the reference is to the foot, not leg or knee). It is your burden, of course, to find a modern citation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the full quote from the Alfonsine tables. It is, "Lucida que est in pede sinistro: et est communis ei et aquae: et dicitur Algebar nominatur etiam Rigel," translated as, "Bright which is in the left foot and is common to him and the water and called Algebar (is) named also Rigel." The reference to water is to the constellation Eridanus, which lies at the "foot" of Orion, but is also a river in mythology. The citation is to Allen, Richard H. (2013) [1963], Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning, Dover Inc., p. 312, ISBN 978-0-486-13766-7 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lithopsian, Attic Salt, and Casliber: I'm sorry but can we have some order in the review process here? Is the previous editor done with his or her edits? If not, why is s/he not discussing the proposed edits here? We can't just randomly add an illustration, File:Kitāb suwar al-kawākib al-ṯābita, Orion, BnF-Arabe-5036-193v.jpg, from a 15th century copy transcription of the Book of Fixed Stars (whose various versions typically have two illustrations, the view from the earth, and its mirror-image in the celestial globe, which is viewed with a mirror). The labeling moreover has an error. The label is rendered by the calligrapher "al-hausa," not "al-jausa." Missing a nuqta (or diacritics dot) below changes jauza to hauza; it maybe that in some form of medieval Arabic the nuqta was dropped in this context, or the calligrapher attached it somewhere else, where it is not readily visible, or maybe it was called al-hauza then or in that region, but we can't have these kinds of confusing undiscussed additions. And it is confusing for a reader when the illustrations suddenly changes to a mirror image, and despite that the caption says "left foot.' If an illustration from the Book of Fixed Stars is needed, there are better versions which are not missing the nuqta either, from this version dated 1009-10 AD (Bodleian Library, Oxford, manuscript Marsh 144), which has both views: the the regular view from earth, and the mirror image in the celestial globe, but with separate illustration which is much older, transcribed 23 years after the death of the author, the Persian astronomer, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, most likely by the author's son (see here). I still think that the illustration above has a much better fit with the Latin. Mainly though, I would prefer the edits to be discussed here; otherwise, what is the point of us making comments? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't control where people post queries and it is challenging going back and forth between two reviewers. I find the colour coding helps. I meant to get to outstanding items yesterday but was sidelined with (many) RL chores. I will try to see what is redulicated between reviewers and note. Hang on a sec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to hold off until s/he is done. Removed all my orange now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok I have answered the last two of Ha Er's queries, and waiting to see if they are satisified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Er is now satisfied so all outstanding issues are within this section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{font color|blue|
Back to the image - @Fowler&fowler:, happy to go with the older one - which one would you suggest - the reversed one or the one the right-way-round? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the source contains an image that isn't reversed, and there is nothing that is being demonstrated by having the image reversed, then I'd say use the one that conforms to modern expectations. Lithopsian (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The citation would be to Casagrande-Kim, Roberta; Thrope, Samuel; Ukeles, Raquel (2018), Romance and Reason: Islamic Transformations of the Classical Past, Princeton University Press, pp. 92–93, ISBN 978-0-691-18184-4, where you can read about the late 10th century CE Persian astronomer Al-Sufi and in particular, "Al-Sufi's book was translated into Latin and other European languages. Al-Sufi himself planned the figures, two for each constellation: one shows how they appear to an observer looking up toward the heavens; the other how they appear to the observer looking down upon a celestial globe." (pages 92–93). As for the images, I think the [straightforward view from the earth, drawn 23 years after the Al-Safi's death by his son, and cited above, would be best. As for the colorful picture above, with the Latin entry from Alfonsine Tables, I will explain another time. I'm feeling a little tired right now. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added image and footnote as per discussion. Having some trouble cropping image. Added the reversed one as that was the norm in celestial cartography. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Looks good. Happy to offer support. It was nice interacting, @Lithopsian, Attic Salt, and Casliber: ! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Speaking for me, I really appreciate some of the logic and thoroughness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I'm going to sound like @SandyGeorgia: here, but can someone take pity on an old lady's eyes and ... not use so much color markup? It's very jarring and makes the FAC much harder to read. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now you see what it's like to have old eyes and have to read through multi-colored text :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my orange. I realized after that my signature, rendered in some shade of goldenrod is warning enough that it is me, not someone else. Thanks for awakening that realization. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helped a lot. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss source and image reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny I could have sworn I saw...nevermind, they need doing methinks...I'll go do someone else's Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we still need the source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, would you be able to help out here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas and co, any reason we shouldn't have a citation at the end of the first para of Stellar system? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The intention was that it should merely be a summary of the rest of the section, like a mini-lead. Then everything mentioned in that paragraph would be described and referenced elsewhere in the section. In theory, anyway. Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British or American

edit

We need to choose a spelling convention. Attic Salt (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see only three spelling issues differences:
  • The topic "Rigel" does not have any country- or region-specific context, or right of first refusal in English. It was first known in Sumerian astronomy, then Babylonian, then ancient Egyptian, then after a long time in Greek, then Hellenistic, then ancient Indian, then Roman, then Byzantine, then Arabic, ... Then European Latin, and none were English speaking.
  • The pre-existing spelling within the article—an aspect of the vagaries of who amongst speakers of the world's regional varieties of English began to edit it first—has no heft in a topic as universal as "Rigel."
  • The spelling convention should, therefore, be decided on the basis of the spelling convention of the topic's semantic network. That is predominantly American English, as the above examples demonstrate—in this encyclopedia, that is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably many of the Britishisms came from me. My background means I often can't tell remember which way is which. If the article is largely US spelling and there is no compelling reason to change that, the rest can be converted. Lithopsian (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian: I made it too complicated. The article is not largely any spelling. It uses only three instances of British spelling which I have listed in the first sentence. The rest of the article is written in spelling common to all Englishes. However, my reasoning for adopting AmE is simply that many of the links or related concepts are in AmE spelling. So, unless you want to watch the drive-bys—that will invariably keep sprouting up, changing "centre" to "center"—with the eyes of a hawk, you might as well change to AmE spelling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being Australian I write in a hybrid of both anyway. Happy to streamline article to American if that means less work Article duly Americanized now! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) I belatedly discovered MOS:RETAIN, which says, "use the variety (of English) found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." With a view to ascertaining said variety, I landed on this version of 2015 edited by you. Well, that as far as I can tell had, "color," "center," and "modelling." So, the identifiable variety is "after every two American spellings, add one British." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, we landed on the side of the majority and went with US. I was unwittingly prescient then...hehehe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

edit

The section on nomenclature includes the following sentences: "However, Bayer did not strictly order the stars by brightness; rather he grouped them by magnitude class and then ordered the stars within each class according to a different scheme. Rigel and Betelgeuse were both considered to be of the first magnitude class, and in Orion the stars of each class are thought to have been ordered north to south."

The first sentence alludes to a "different scheme", though this is not explained. The second sentence mentions ordering "north to south" and says that this is "in Orion". Can we drop the allusion to "another scheme" and simply say that ordering was north-south or was this really just done for some constellations (like Orion)? Some consistency and succinctness might be possible, here, but I'm not sure. Attic Salt (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Removed segment which doesn't really add anything specific Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the north-to-south scheme just happened to be the one used in this case. Or possibly it is only a coincidence since I don't think there is documentation from Bayer that this was the scheme used. In other cases, the order is east to west, or appears to just random. Bayer may have had his own reasons in each case. The ordering of the second-class stars in Orion is nearly north to south, and the fainter stars not at all. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • "File:Treasures3.jpg" Could we have a proper source please?
Do you mean in Commons? The source there is a link to a book website, with a claim that it is an ESO image. Which appears to be untrue. The "original" source would appear to be here. Not sure what to do about that. Lithopsian (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that is the original source? Because I doubt it. I would be expecting an image from the European Southern Observatory's web site.
The image is apparently from Robert Gendler's personal collection and copyright Robert Gendler (see [13]), not directly from the ESO. However, the image did appear in the book Treasures of the Southern Sky, published by the ESO and Springer. It appears that Gendler's co-author uploaded several images to Commons, starting with some which were ESO images, then just used the same boilerplate for some which weren't. I have attempted to contact the original uploader, although they are not very active any more. Lithopsian (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unusual, but OK. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Hertzsprung-Russel StarData.png" The deletion request issue needs resolving.
I made a version from the original file showing Rigel and substituted it into the page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have tidied up the formatting.
  • "File:Book of the Fixed Stars Auv0333 Orion.jpg" I will accept this even though the source given does not connect.
  • Caption: "Orion, with Rigel at bottom right, at optical wavelengths plus Hα to emphasize gas clouds" Guess which bit I think an average reader won't understand. I know that it is Wikilinked, but one shouldn't have to click through to inderstand an image caption.
I clarified slightly. Does it need more? I could say it is a Balmer line, or expand the wikilink to hydrogen-alpha. Lithopsian (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that expanding "Hα" to 'the hydrogen-alpha spectral line' would make it more readable.
@Casliber: A reminder that this point is unaddressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay, unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "The left foot is annotated" Suggest changing to 'The foot on the left' as it is actually the image's right foot.
fixed by IP :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with your alt texting.
alt text added to last image Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All images should have alt captions now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. A couple of comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

edit
  • Be consistent in whether publication locations are included
locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some still missing, eg FN33, while others are inconsistently formatted - eg "New York, NY" vs just "New York". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no better source than dictionary.com for the alternate pronunciation?
I found a book and switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 is malformed
Not sure what is malformed. Can you elaborate please? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to actually be a journal publication, at least not in its current form, though it includes a partial citation to an earlier publication which I can't assess given the information provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a CDS catalogue never published in print. Not sure which CS1 template format would work better. The source has a bibcode so relatively permanent and readily verifiable. Lithopsian (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{cite web}}, but the earlier publication should either be detailed or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier bibcode was incorrect and even the correct version is unhelpful. I replaced the citation with the original journal publication. This may not be the most useful solution, since it will be a pig for most people to find their way from that description of the catalogue to the actual catalogue data that is used in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn20 is missing publisher
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21 is incomplete
filled Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN30: the publisher listed in the book linked doesn't match that provided, and the one in the book is a republisher - what are the original details for this publication?
corrected Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn35: is there no more recent publication confirming this information?
I have had this problem with nautical stuff before. I didn't find one and sort of an antiquated use Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36: publisher
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN38: author formatting doesn't match other sources
Think I've fixed this. Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN59: if location is to be included it should be in its own parameter
Done Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN61: D. Pourbaix appears to be the author, not the work
Done Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher should also be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll replace this completely with a cite journal instead of the current (archived) cite web. Possibly not until Citation Bot is working again. Lithopsian (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The doi provided does not seem to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked it now and it worked (after some lag) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN70: should cite the specific chapter, which has an individual author
Done Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN71: link and ISBN both go to different editions
okay, @Nikkimaria: what would be the best way to fix this. The archive book is from 1899 so too early for isbn. Shall we just remove it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which version are you actually wanting to cite - the one corresponding to the link, the ISBN, or the other bibliographic details? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1963 edition in web form is at [14]. This web link is cited directly in many articles, but could also be used to supplement a cite book. FWIW, the blurb describes the 1963 edition as an unabridged reprint with only minor grammatical alterations. Lithopsian (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pick one or the other, doesn't matter to me which but the link and the cite should match. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay, @Nikkimaria: I tossed a coin mentally and went with 1963, so link changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN83 is malformed
Removed last-author-amp field not used in other citations. Was that all? Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Are you citing the version of the article from the Observer, or the version from the linked website? If the former the citation is incomplete; if the latter the Observer is not the publisher that should be cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I doubt anyone has read the Observer print version, so I removed that. I replaced the web url with a current live version at the author's website. Lithopsian (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN84: we have an article on this source that provides additional bibliographic details
I added the ISBN for the original edition and changed the url to point to that edition, put the title in Japanese, etc. Lithopsian (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN85: publisher?
Publisher added. In Japanese, unsure if there is a sensible translation. Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN86 should identify language, and the organization listed is the publisher
Lang field added, converted work field to website. Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: are you satisfied with the sources? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have flagged a few remaining points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've addressed everything, except possibly FN6 and FN71 where I've tried but maybe still needs work. Lithopsian (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [15].

Five Go Down to the Sea?

edit
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to explain how mysterious and influential this post-punk band was when I were growing up; nothing was known, the records couldn't be bought begged or borrowed (in my circles), but we all knew about them. I head them once in 1989, and despite pleading at the one alt city record store had to wait another 14 years for "Knot a Fish" to finally be reprinted. They have become better known in the last 10 years, following a radio documentary, a retrospective album and popular demand. There is a great story here; early promise, the realities of life in an early 80s indie group, inter-band and local-scene warfare, a tragic drowning, obscurity, later fame; fortunately the remaining band members, and their high profile fans, are very honest and articulate, so post a revival of interest and many interviews later, we now know a lot. Article has been fact checked by one of the sources (mcdermott), and User:Guliolopez has copy edited, read the on-line sources, and tended NPOV, though more input would be great. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source thoughts from Guerillero

edit

I love the article. I didn't know that there was an Irish post-punk scene that was a contemporary of the US's hardcore scene

  • I think the source review will turn on if a Medium post is a high quality RS. McDermott seems to be a subject matter expert, on Cork's music scene
  • McDermott 2009 is in a similar boat, if Irish college radio stations work like American ones. On the other hand, the text claims that it was more or less published by Raidió Teilifís Éireann
Yeah worry about that too, but McDermott 2009 was published by RTE; he won a national award for it, could prob have a bio here, and the doc is talking heads, ie interviews with the main protagonists, no editorial voice, so comfortable with it. Put it this way, if the page had just a link to RTE and didnt credit the UCC origins would you be more reassured. The later doc on medium is outakes from the first, again no editorial voice. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sorted, but will add later. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hot Press is linked in Ref 23 when the first use is Ref 17
Not seeing this, but maybe its because I'm thick, which is very likely, haha. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doh. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does NME do volumes and issues? I think I see them on the covers of the issues in the article about the publication, but that might not have appeared until later
    • Same with Melody Maker
Not than I can see. Both have dreadful pay walled online archives. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the NME cover[16] - no issue details afaiks. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mixing c1 and c2 templates in the Sources
The what now? Not technical enough to follow this sorry. Help appreciated!! Ceoil (talk)
Another editor resolved this. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Hmm. McAvoy's book is almost like a bible to us Cork music archaeologists; as you say it was well received locally and nationally. The reviewers are all heavy weights in terms of Irish music. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a bunch Guerillero. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceoil: Nothing to do with the article, but have you noticed the link doesn't work on the fac page? When you click on it, instead of coming here, it takes you a blak page. Bizarre! Something to do with the question mark I think. ——Serial # 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guerillero, would you mind revisiting this pls, there have been many updates to the sourcing. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look tonight --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

An engaging read - queries below...

  • He was replaced that September by Giordaí Ua Laoghaire, [later of Microdisney and Nine Wassies From Bainne].... - I might remove this as you mention he joins Microdisney a few sentences later.
  • Stack was frustrated by some of the band's heaving drinking -? "heavy"?

Otherwise an engaging read prose-wise. I suspect it's comprehensive too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have got them now; thanks. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Have added alts. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Moise

edit

Hi. This is a placeholder for now marking my intention to start a review very soon. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting my comments now, cheers:

Lead:

  • "they released further EPs with Kabuki Records, Abstract Sounds and Creation Records". From the rest of the article and the Discography section it sounds like only Knot a Fish was on Kabuki Records, so here "further" would be imprecise. Also a bit or inconsistency in the article about the name of the label Abstract Sounds (presumably the real name) vs. Abstract Records.
    Sorted Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dineen was influenced by the Mekons, the Fire Engines, Gang of Four and Siouxsie and the Banshees". This detail is only mentioned in the lead, not in the main text. I'd like to suggest it would be a very good idea for overall coherency to include it in the main text as well.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise the detail "Author Mark McAvoy described Donnelly as probably the most influential musician of the Cork music scene in 2016" is not mentioned in the main text.
    I do say "Five Go Down to the Sea?, and Donnelly in particular, are credited for influencing the dry humour of Cork bands in later decades.[17]" - dont want to repete the quote. Ceoil (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency or "RTE" (lead) vs. "RTÉ" (main text).
    Done Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the band only released five EPs": From the Discography section, it is not clear which releases are included in the five. If any of the RTE releases are included, then for consistency they should be marked as EPs in the Discography section. I'm not sure whether Beethoven's Him Goolie Goolie Man, Dem is meant to be included in the five, but if so, can Beethoven even be considered the same band (there were only two members the same, on top of the name change)? Moisejp (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about this. Its a bit like the Fall, lots of line up changes, but if it was Dineen and Donnelly on bongos, it was the FGGTTS.[17] Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done re nr of EPs; have moved out the fanning sessions (a bit like Peel sessions), so its clearer now. There were four EPs. Beethoven are certainly the same as FFGTTS, just the third incarnation, and are treated as such by all sources, including this year's compilation album. As I say, lots of line up changes, but the core was always Donnelly/Dineen. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cork:

  • "They soon became leaders in a punk movement that grew around the Arcadia ballroom, next by Kent station." Should this be "next to Kent Station"? The Wikipedia article capitalizes "Station". I'm not sure if "next by" may be a regional English, but "next to" (or just "by," though vaguer) sounds much more natural to me.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until then, Dineen said the band had been "playing to their abilities"." Should this be something like "Dineen has said that until then, the band had been "playing to their abilities" "? Right now the time line is especially unclear about whether he may have been saying it at the time.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Nun Attax walked in and there was Donnelly I'd been avoiding him around town for ages because I was afraid of him." Is any additional punctuation required here? If it appears like that in the source, personally I would consider breaking it up into two quotes, or not including the whole quote, so that it doesn't appear like an error. Moisejp (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven:

  • The lead describes "Him Goolie Goolie Man, Dem" as a single (marked with quotation marks, as singles should be), while the main text (and the Discography section) calls it an EP and italicizes it (as EPs should be). I realize there could sometimes be a grey area about what constitutes a multi-track single or an EP (extended play), possibly complicated here by NME calling it "Single of the Week", but I feel nonetheless the article should try to be more consistent about whether it is one or the other (at least for the non-NME references). Moisejp (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moisejp for the review and edits. All good points, working though. Ceoil (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All adressed now I think. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil. OK, I'm finished reviewing and happy to support on prose (I'd hoped to also look at some of the sources but unfortunately I don't think I will have time this time). My only other minor comment is if it was me, I don't know that I would treat "gig" (as a noun and as a verb) as encyclopedic language. You use it extensively in the article. But if you feel it's fine, then OK. My opinion about the issue is not that strong. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moisejp. I don't think you could call them "concerts", but while change a few to simply "played". Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

edit
  • In external links, am I supposed to know what Bandcamp is? Should that be linked for nimwits like me?
  • Typically, he would bring … might that "he" be switched to Dineen? Unsure on this …
  • Ua Laoghair was a more accomplished musician … does this opinion need attribution?
  • Jargon? becoming again a four piece … four-piece band ?
  • This was in part due to the lack of job prospects resulting from the economic recession that hit Cork in the early 1980s, which resulted in emigration from Cork city. Resulting from … resulted … repetition.
  • Led or lead? This was in part due to the lack of job prospects resulting from the economic recession that hit Cork in the early 1980s, which lead to high levels of emigration from Cork city. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • described as "a raw discordant … attribute the quote?
  • Can see how this would be a problem. I had copied a template, but from checking these sections are not usually like that. ps thanks for view RexxS; my opneion also "not sure why one would want to". Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all minor stuff, some may be wrong; I expect to support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good, Support another fine article by Ceoil! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review from RexxS

edit
Accessibility review
Topic Comments MoS link
Text Size: No text is below 85% of the basic font size. MOS:FONTSIZE
Colour
  • Information: No information is given by colour alone.
  • Contrast: All text meets WCAG AAA standard.
 MOS:COLOUR
Tables No data tables are used in the article. MOS:DTAB
Images
  • Alt text: All images have descriptive alt text.
  • No fixed size: No images have fixed size, so can benefit from scaling via users' preferences.
 MOS:ACCIM

Hope that's helpful. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

@Guerillero: are your concerns dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Yes! The sourcing looks good to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: (because Guerillero pinged themself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [18].

Nasr of Granada

edit
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, following the first three which also have been reviewed in FAC (Muhammad I, II and III). His reign was short (a little less than 5 years). I've tried to find all relevant information about him, mostly about geopolitical conflicts of his time, but also a little bit about his early life, personal and legacy. I hope it's ready for FA review. HaEr48 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape. A few comments:

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: appreciate your feedback and support, and thanks for looking at the article. HaEr48 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Guerillero

edit

Citation thoughts

Prose thoughts

Besides that everything looks good to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • I think the infobox note should be an efn note.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first line, I think "reigned 14 March 1309" should be "Sultan of Granada 14 March 1309".
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His mother's name should be in the lead and the infobox.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three maps seems over the top. I would delete the middle one which does not add significant information.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say he ceded Algeciras in Sep 1309 and then that he defended it in Jan 1310?
    You're right, clarified. It was actually the Marinids who continued the defense after Sep HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think you need to repeat Jan 1310 in the lead.
    I think you mean, just write "January" in the second one, yes? Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to his excessive activities in science and astronomy, as well as his perceived pro-Christian tendency" This is editorialising. Maybe "as he was suspected of being pro-Christian and accused of devoting so much time to astronomy that he neglected his duties as ruler ".
    Replaced with yours, which I think is better.
  • I am confused about the situation when Nasr took power. In the second paragraph of 'Birth and early life', you say that Granada was on the verge of war, in the next paragraph that it was at war.
    Clarified. There are some details here: Muhammad III of Granada#Coalition against Granada about what happened before Nasr's accession. Do you think it's worth adding?
  • "Harvey rejects this as possible propaganda". This is equivocal. If it was not propaganda what does Harvey think?
    You're right, Harvey is unequivocal. Reworded. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next leader of the rebellion was Abu Said Faraj" Or the leader of the next rebellion? It seems a separate rebellion from what you say.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his defeat and move to Guadix, he still maintained his claim to the throne.[" As it is the start of a new section, you should say "Nasr" not "he".
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Granadan forces under Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula intercepted a Castilian column supplying the besieged Nasr at Guadix" You have not said that Nasr was besieged.
    Can't find when the 1316 siege started. Added some specific detail about another siege in 1315, which I can find info on, and reworded the sentence above to "supplying Nasr, who was again besieged at Guadix". HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Murcian astronomer" Murcian should be linked.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Dudley Miles for reviewing and for your feedback. I addressed it as much I can, and have queries for some others. Let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: appreciate your feedback and support, and thanks for looking at the article. HaEr48 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
@Nikkimaria: I already have alt text for the two photos. What kind of alt text would be helpful for maps? HaEr48 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be super-comprehensive - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Maps_and_diagrams. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I see an image review and a review of source formatting - @Guerillero: did you check for reliability of the sources? Also, are you supporting, as your comment is a bit ambiguous. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: again... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Sorry, I got distracted. I feel that the sources are reliable. I did not do any spotchecks --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire

edit

Nice work, support. I didn't closely examine the sources here but I've done close examinations of earlier work, and don't see any reason to doubt this here. The article appears quite comprehensive for a short five-year reign. Three questions, though:

ending the direct male line of the Nasrid dynasty from Muhammad I, the founder of the emirate.

This has three references, so clearly later historians paid attention, but... at risk of inviting synthesis... was this something the Granadans cared about? (e.g. some system a la Salic law that indicated this is a big deal). The history of Granada seems to make it appear a bit like the late Western Roman Empire where anyone with army backing and a sufficiently noble background could present themselves as an alternative ruler. So it's not clear to me this really "mattered" that much, that even if Nasr had 10 kids it's not as if they were guaranteed to be first in line for the throne.

You're right that Granada's succession wasn't as legalistic like for example Salic law, but royal blood appeared to be required. Nasr's death without heir means that Ismail did not have to deal with competing claims, and could take over Nasr's "kingdom" in Guadix without resistance. I added what I can without doing synthesis here, let me know what you think. In addition, historians seems to care enough about this that they consider Ismail I onwards to be a second branch of the dynasty. I added another paragraph regarding the dynastic sucession here, which might answer some of the question, but let me know if you think this is too off-topic. HaEr48 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those additions look good to me.
Due to the lack of royal leadership, Hermandad General de Andalucía—a regional "brotherhood" of frontier towns—acted to negotiate with Granada

Is Hermandad a relevant link here? My understanding of hermandads was that they were more like a "militia" while this sentence seems to portray it more as a soft cross-town alliance, so I'm not sure it's the right link, but maybe it was closer to a militia usage.

Probably the origin was related, but it seemed the Hermandad General de Andalucía was a specific institution which acted like a cross-town confederation. Created a quick stub on Hermandad General de Andalucía.
Fair enough. I might consider ditching the "brotherhood" bit - yes, that's a literal translation of hermandad and relevant in the stub you spun off, but not really the right English word for what it was. I'd just call it "a regional alliance" or "a regional confederation".
Replaced with confederation. HaEr48 (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, this doesn't have anything to do with this article, but have you considered making a spin-off "History of Granada" type article and copy-pasting just the historical events there and skipping the biographical details of the rulers? As is, it's a bit of a Great man theory of history case where to find out the history of Granada, a reader needs to go to the articles on the various sovereigns. Just a thought / suggestion. SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I have thought of something like that myself but not sure how to structure it, given that I only looked closely at the first few rulers. Maybe I can adapt your idea to something like History of Granada (1238–1314), following the traditional classification of the first four rulers as the first branch of the dynasty. Thank you for your suggestions and support, SnowFire. HaEr48 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, at risk of scope creep, since there isn't even a History of Granada article yet (and Emirate of Granada is pretty slim), I'd say to just call the article History of Granada. If the section for post-1314 is really short, then so be it, no problem with "under construction" type sections. (But, just a suggestion!) SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [20].

Death of James Ashley

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
James Ashley was shot dead by armed police in his flat on the English south coast in 1998. Armed policing is an emotive subjective in Britain and police shootings attract a lot of media and academic attention, especially when it turns out that the person shot was unarmed. In the aftermath, the officer who pulled the trigger was charged with murder, several more senior officers also faced charges, and the controversy cost the jobs of the chief constable, his deputy, and one of his assistant chiefs. Not content with that, the family sued the police and the case reached the UK's court of last resort.

I've built the article largely on books I already had from previous articles. I'm indebted to SchroCat for his help, which has included a GA review, and I believe it meets the standards for FA, but all feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an opening thought, certainly there must be some resolution to the civil case by now? Do you have any idea if it was settled, went to trial, etc.? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Therapyisgood, thanks for taking a look. The police paid all damages at the High Court but the family appealed a point of law and won at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords (after the police appealed). Is this not clear from the article? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Comments Support by mujinga

edit

Lead

  • This is pretty comprehensive, I feel a bit more could be mentioned from the tail-end of the article. Could mention all four things the Ashleys sued on and the police officers suing their force.
    • I could but the lead is already quite long because of all the twists and turns so I've tried to stick to the key events.
  • To clarify what I meant here, the article is 35k long so MOS:LEADLENGTH would suggest "Three or four paragraphs". I think the first two paragraphs are solid then paragraph three is ok, but paragraph four is just one sentence, so I feel it could be expanded, but I see where you are coming from also and am happy to see what other people think. Mujinga (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead it's "the House of Lords (then the United Kingdom's highest court)", below it's "House of Lords, the United Kingdom's court of last resort" so maybe the second one needs "then" as well
    • Done.

Prelude

  • "The officers conducting the raid were briefed that McCrudden was dangerous and known to be in the flats, about the potential firearm, and that Ashley was wanted for shooting a man in Eastbourne and had a previous conviction for attempted murder." - I find this sentence a bit unwieldy, perhaps it could be broken up
    • Fair point. I've tweaked it.

Shooting

  • "lone officers" maybe "single officers"?
    • No disrespect, but I think "lone" works better.
  • Can you expand a bit more on what the Bermuda technique was? i can see the Squires and Kennison gives more details
    • There's not really any more to say as far as I'm aware. A group of officers raid a building, each officer takes a room, if they find something they call for backup. Very dangerous if you're expecting to find an armed assailant behind one of the doors, and setting up a position where it's almost inevitable that an officer will shoot or be shot if they find someone.
  • Yes I looked into it some more and I see what you mean. It's such a ludicrous technique I thought there must be a bit more to it, but there isn't really! Mujinga (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the police also lacked plans for the building, hampering the raid as they encountered a locked internal door which had not been anticipated, and which blocked the door to Ashley's flat when open, delaying the officers in entering the flat" - I think this would be easier to read if broken up
    • Done.
  • "Ashley was hit in the armpit" - i don't see armpit in the sources, although i am keywordsearching on googlebooks so i might not turn it up. just wanted to check because davies says chest
    • It's in Punch and Squires & Kennison; the bullet entered his armpit and apparently ricocheted off his collarbone and down to his heart, but that felt like excessive detail.
  • I think noteA could be moved into the article body, since it is an automatic question what happened to McCrudden
    • I agree it begs the question, but it's not directly relevant to Ashley's death, which is why I put it in the footnotes/

Inquiries

  • Police Complaints Authority could have (PCA) after it again
  • Done.
  • "improperly granted authority for the use of firearms officers" or "for use of firearms"?
    • Done.
  • "armed officers deployed" - "armed officers were deployed"?
    • It's a subtle point, and not one that's directly relevant to Ashley, but it appears the officers deployed without any authority at all. "Were deployed" would imply that they had some sort of authority for their actions.
  • since misconduct in public office pipes to Malfeasance in office, i was going to ask for a wikilink on malfeasance. i can see though that you don't want to repeat the same word over and over.
    • Indeed. There's a tort and a crime but they share an article.

Prosecutions

  • " outstretched arm was holding a firearm and was about to fire" - "about to shoot"? (to avoid repetition of fire)
    • Done.

Civil case

  • Infobox says "Ashley V Chief Constable of Sussex Police", article body says "Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police"
    • They're all lower case, which I believe is correct, though A-level law was many years ago!
  • "(including negligence in the shooting itself)" - I got stuck on that, maybe "negligence regarding"
    • Done.
  • "The majority" maybe "The majority of the appeal judges" or something just to explain it a bit
    • I'm really not sure this is necessary. In context, I would say it's perfectly clear what we're talking about.
  • Did Ashley's son or father make a comment to the media at some point in the proceedings about how they felt they had been treated?

Impact

  • "the 1999 Death of Harry Stanley, and the 2005 Death of Jean Charles de Menezes" - the two "Deaths" could be "deaths"
    • Done.
  • "Among Jones's" - could add Ken since we haven't seen him for a while in the text
    • I don't think this is necessary considering the sentence explains that he's the new chief constable.

Images

  • Would be good to have some more images of the people mentioned, but I checked wikicommons and didn't find anyone.
    • There don't appear to be to be any free images of anyone involved. Even Blunkett is a bit tenuous but I felt it needed something.

Overall

Thanks for the replies and clarifications. I still think the lead could be expanded slightly, but I'm happy to leave it to other commenters to mention if needs be. Changing to support, hope to see this on the frontpage. Mujinga (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

edit

Support: This is an excellent article about a frankly terrifying subject. Particularly at the moment, it is a very uncomfortable story. I have no major concerns, just one minor point and a few questions. None of these points affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "that, as a general rule, no-one should be for a crime he or she did not intend to commit": Is there a word missing from this quotation, or has my brain gone soft?
    • Fixed.
  • I was going to ask about other similar instances, but this was covered in the impact section; could we add a little more on this to the lead?
    • Done.
  • We mention statistics from 2001 in the Guardian about police shooting unarmed people. Do we have anything to set it into a wider context? For example, are there more up-to-date statistics available?
    • This is difficult. Police shootings are rare in Britain, but information is difficult to obtain. There are 44 territorial police forces in Great Britain (ie excluding Northern Ireland) and Squires and Kennison submitted freedom of information requests to all of them but most were declined. The Home Office collects statistics on the granting of authority for use of armed officers, but these are largely meaningless because most forces nowadays issue "standing authority" for armed response officers to carry sidearms. There's the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom which has major issues with scope, and I'm thinking of creating a separate list of police shootings in Great Britain or similar that includes non-fatal incidents.
  • Other than the court judgements and various statements by people involved, we don't have any "comment" on the story. Are there any examples/discussions of uninvolved people condemning/supporting the police actions?
  • Do we need some wider numbers? Perhaps something like how many police shootings there were (not just of unarmed people)? Or the frequency of use of armed officers? Sarastro (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last point. In your nomination statement, you say "Armed policing is an emotive subjective in Britain and police shootings attract a lot of media and academic attention." Do we have any examples of media and academic attention for this case (which perhaps links to my question about comments from others)? Sarastro (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support and for your considered comments. The typo I've fixed. The rest, please leave with me for a few days while I consider how best to address them. Statistics are almost impossible because they require FOI'ing all 40-something police forces who don't like to give the information up (Davies mentions this in one of his Guardian pieces and Squires & Kennison describe their efforts in researching the book). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: I've added a comment from Punch and separated out Davies' remarks a little. There might be a tiny bit more to add from Fenwick (I finally bit the bullet and purchased a copy because only one of the three relevant pages is on Google Books) when that arrives but barring a sentence or two I think I've addressed everything. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, still looking good. Sarastro (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • I was going to suggest that footnote b be moved to the first mention of attempted murder, in the "Prelude" section, but given that it is also mentioned in the "Shooting" section I think it should either be in both places or it should be in the main text -- it seems sufficiently important that a reader should not be unaware of it if they fail to check the footnotes.
  • At the conclusion of the raid, no firearms or significant quantity of drugs was found. I assume the point here is that not enough drugs to indicate trafficking were found, but if small amounts were found I think that could be mentioned.
    • The sources don't specify exactly what was found, though there was a comment on the talk page that suggested it was a small quantity of cannabis.
  • I'd suggest moving footnote c to after the word "suspended"
    • Done.
  • On a couple of occasions it seems that names of officers could be mentioned at points but instead the article avoids doing so. We don't get Sherwood's name till the section after the shooting, for example, and we get "the incident commander" and "the intelligence commander" instead of names. Is this for BLP reasons? If so I'd be curious to hear the reasoning (I don't edit BLPs much).
    • These people are not public figures and are not notable. Unlike the top brass, they've probably never attracted any public attention not related to this incident. WP:BLP (specifically WP:NPF and following sections) strongly discourage including the names of non-notable individuals, and their names wouldn't add anything to the reader's understanding. I only named Sherwood because he interjected himself into the legal case when he could have stayed well clear.
      OK -- I figured it would be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the officers involved in its planning had "concocted" the evidence and planned to misrepresent it: I don't think this quite works. If they concocted the evidence, they weren't mis-representing it -- they were accurately representing the concocted evidence. Perhaps "the officers involved in its planning had "concocted" the evidence in order to justify the operation" would be enough.
  • Just checking: is "Mrs Justice Linda Dobbs" really the appropriate title? I assume so, or you wouldn't put it that way, but it's surprising to see.
    • I believe this is the correct form of reference for a female high court judge, yes.

These are generally minor points. The prose is just about flawless; very impressive work. A fine, concise, depressing article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thank you for your review. I believe I've addressed all your comments but I'm happy to discuss anything further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good; excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Source review? Or am I blind? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [21].

Commissioner Government

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short-lived collaborationist puppet government established by Nazi Germany in territory they retained under military occupation after the partition of Yugoslavia following the April 1941 Axis invasion. The members were pro-German, anti-Semitic and anti-communist, and believed that Germany would win the war. The Aćimović government lacked any semblance of power, and was merely an instrument of the German occupation regime, carrying out its orders within the occupied territory of Serbia. Unable to cope with a mass uprising which began in early July, it was replaced in late August. To my eternal embarrassment, many years ago I AfD'd this article, thinking it wasn't notable. So I've effectively rescued it from myself... All comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Serbia says that Serbian photographs must meet one of the following conditions: "A work of known authorship and the author died before January 1, 1954. An anonymous work published before January 1, 1954. A photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1973". Furthermore, and contradictorarily, the copyright term was later extended to publication + 70 years, even for photographs (although that was after URAA and wouldn't affect PD-US status). buidhe 08:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing the review, although I would strongly recommend scaling the image of Aćimović down to upright=1 or less. On my screen it looks grotesquely large. buidhe 08:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

edit

Always enjoy reading your articles on Yugoslavia, and this is no exception. Just a few things really:

  • I'd add a note about who Philip J. Cohen is ("historian Philip J. Cohen" or something like that)
  • "The new administration was experienced, as like Aćimović, Jojić, Letica and Pantić had all served as ministers in various cabinets, Josifović and Protić had been assistant ministers, Kostić was a university professor, and others were experts in their respective fields." I would suggest a semi-colon after "experienced" and dropping the "as" there.
  • "Non-Serbs who left the occupied territory had to be replaced..." Was there a lot of non-Serbs in government positions at this time? It sounds like there wasn't, but if there is a way to give that context it would be good. I'm not sure how to best note that now, but I'll wait to hear back before offering suggestions.
  • There's a link to Jews in the "Initial tasks" section, which can probably be removed.
  • "Aćimović initially retained his position as Minister of the Interior." The wording here implies he lost his position, but the next sentence says he died in 1945. Did he hold the ministry from 1941 to 1945, or did he move between then? I would also suggest linking Chetnik there.
  • In the "Analysis" section, would it be possible to include the Communist Yugoslavian and independent Serbian views of the government? I understand that the Croatian Ustase (and the NDH in general) is a contentious topic, and wonder if the same can be said for this government as well. If such historiography exists, it would seem good to include.

Other than the above I really enjoyed the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look, Kaiser matias. See what you think of my changes? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and happy to support it. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • Outside of the military commander's staff...: I assume this is Australian English we're using here? In BrEng I'd cut the "of", and I thought Australian English was closer to BrEng on this, but you would know.
Changed to "Other than..." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to a request, the Foreign Office sent: a request from whom? Danckelmann?
Benzler. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see; the prose is very clean. An interesting if unpleasant story. Has there ever been a successful FAC nominated by someone who had nominated the article for deletion? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and light c/e, Mike. Re: your question, I am not aware of any, an interesting bit of trivia isn't it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass
  • Leo Niehorster is probably acceptable SPS.
  • Printed English sources look OK. I will AGF that Yugoslav-era Serbian Academy of Sciences is reliable.
  • Inconsisent translation: Savet akademija nauka i umetnosti SFRJ should be translated if Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is.
  • The Apostolski source needs an OCLC.
  • The article never explains the divergent translations "Commissioner" and "Commissar", and does not provide a source for the latter. If most English sources (80–90%) use the former name, I would just omit the second one. buidhe 04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Place holder. I have been meaning to get round to this since it was nominated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They did this to secure" It may be worth reminding a reader who "They" are?
  • "This was due to the key rail and riverine transport routes that passed through it, and its valuable resources, particularly non-ferrous metals" Is this not redundant, given that the same information is repeated in more detail in the next two sentences?
  • It seems to me that chronologically the second paragraph of "Establishment" should be immediately before "Förster decided on Aćimović, who in early 1939 had briefly been Minister of the Interior in Stojadinović's pro-Axis government." I find the jumping around in time a little jarring.
  • "No representatives of the outlawed Communist Party and the British-backed Serbian Agrarian Party" Should "and" be 'or'?
  • "requiring the registration of printing presses and restrictions on the press within the occupied territory" maybe 'imposing' immediately before "restrictions".
  • "identify and remove 'undesirables' from public services" I can't find the quote marks around "undesirables" in my copy of the text you cite.
  • "The inquiry duly concluded that" "duly" seems PoV. Suggest either removing or attributing in line.
  • "3.81 million inhabitants, including between 50 and 60 per cent of Yugoslav Serbs" Maybe '3.81 million inhabitants, of whom between 50 and 60 per cent were Yugoslav Serbs'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been impressed with the prose and its clarity, but it seems to me to break down a little in the last three sentences of the firdt paragraph of "Resistance increases". It seems to me to need either more context or less information:
  • It was only "when ... Danckelmann ... was unable to obtain more German troops or police to suppress the revolt" that "he had to consider every option available". Is this not something which an efficient administrator and/or military person would be expected to do anyway?
  • "As Danckelmann had been told to use available forces as ruthlessly as possible, Turner suggested that Danckelmann strengthen the Aćimović administration so that it might subdue the rebellion on its own." I don't see where "as ruthlessly as possible" comes into this.
  • "Turner suggested that Danckelmann strengthen the Aćimović administration so that it might subdue the rebellion on its own. The Germans were dissatisfied with the Aćimović administration's attempts at countering the uprising." Is this meant to suggest that Danckelmann acted on Turner's suggestion. Was Danckelmann one of the Germans who was dissatisfied?
  • "Aćimović, whose sacking the Germans had been considering since mid-July, was thus deemed incompetent" I kind of 'get' this sentence, but it seems to run two issues together. If he was considered incompetent for failing to quash the rising, say so; if there were other, separate, issues, state them and do so separately.
  • Should "Appeal to the Serbian Nation" be in italics? Or, possibly, quote marks?
  • "On closer examination, the historian Alexander Prusin asserts that". Possibly 'The historian Alexander Prusin asserts that on closer examination'?
  • "more dangerous than the Germans; democracy, communism, and multiculturalism." I believe that the semi colon should be a colon.
  • Note g: should be a lower case initial G.
  • Note h: why the upper case initial letters in "for Special Employment""?
  • To be consistent the two foreign language ranks in "Replacement" need notes giving their US Army equivalents.
Then note k needs removing. (It duplicates note b.)
Yep, removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine work, even by your usual high standards. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look, Gog! See what you think of my responses/changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point, but supporting anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks for your review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this is looking good. Can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [22].

Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City (1993)

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC), Dweller (talk), Harrias (talk)[reply]

A joint effort between a Norwich supporter (Dweller), a fierce rival supporter (The Rambling Man) and a great independent author (Harrias), this is a tale of how a club with virtually no European football pedigree toppled one the mighty powerhouses. It's hard to put into perspective the impact this game had on the history of Norwich City, but the votes of the club supporters say it all, along with the legendary status attributed to Goss and his volley. The article just passed GAN, content exceeded what was required by quite a bit, so humbly presenting this to FAC with the promise that all comments will be addressed as soon as possible. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit
Lede
general
Lee Vilenski I think we've either implemented, responded to, or both, to each of your comments. Please review and let us know how you feel. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

edit

Hiya, some quick comments on readability and comprehensiveness.

Lead

  • I'm sure this is just a result of recent edits, but right now the first sentence doesn't read well. It's currently: "The football match between Bayern Munich and Norwich City was played at the Olympiastadion, Munich, on 19 October 1993, on 4 March 1995 as part of the second round of tbe 1993–94 UEFA Cup finished in a 2–1 victory for the English side." It would need "the" for "tbe" and perhaps "and" in front of "finished" but on top of that I think it's got garbled somehow. In any case, I would suggest starting with "Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City was the result of a football match on ..."
    I'm reluctant to take your last option up, and have fixed the typos and grammar errors which are (a) a result of my shite Macbook Air keyboard dying and (b) my rush to fix other comments. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"on 19 October 1993, on 4 March 1995 " is still confusing me. Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blew that, my copy/paste error. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i guess i was pointing towards requesting greater coverage, but the recent edits improve that! Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-match

still three aways, but i agree it's better Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed one more of those. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second half

Post-match

great, for "Canaries stun Bayern with sensational win" can you add the work? (hopefully not an aberdeen paper) Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added, Newcastle Journal for a nice change! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I can infer from the article why this was a significant victory for Norwich, but I would prefer the legacy section (and/or reactions) to draw this out a bit more. There could be more statements on what it meant for Norwich/Bayern/UEFA football from commentators, newspapers or players. For example there seem to be various autobiographies available of Norwich players: Gunn's is cited but not regarding the legacy; there's a bit from Goss but could be more; Chris Sutton's Paradise And Beyond: My Autobiography is not cited.
    Dweller as befits all of these generous reviews, I'll leave some scraps for you and this seems like a good one. My shelves are full of Alf Ramsey, Bobby Robson etc, so maybe you can help here?! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mujinga (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read Sutton (and Goss) and they offer little that is incisive and nothing useful for this article. I think we've covered throughout the article the impact it had on Norwich and the reactions in the UK. The German reaction is more difficult to ascertain, partly because of the language barrier, but we have, with the help of Kante4 and (some years ago) a de: editor, trawled the German press, notably the specialist publication Kicker. I think we've sucked the juice out of that too. The Germans just seem to have said 'Norwich played well, we made some mistakes' and then just carried on winning trophies. I think we've reflected that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hiya you guys are for sure the experts here, this is far from my specialist area, I'm just trying to suggest the legacy could be drawn out a bit more. thanks for the answer on the biographies, i could also highlight that for example bayern memories mentions that Norwich made a commemorative video and lists the other english clubs who tried and failed to beat bayern at that stadium, so i still feel more could be added Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller a commemorative video no less!! Probably worn out in your Betamax, perhaps you could add some hysterical adoration?? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga many many thanks. I've addressed (I believe) all bar the last comment which I'll leave to my esteemed colleague. Please let me know if you're happy with work thus far and if there's anything else beyond that last outstanding comment you'd like to see addressed. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cheers TRM, it's funny for the boot to be on the other foot after your heroic efforts on good articles. i've replied to a few comments, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga always a pleasure, I've fixed the issues you noted above other than the expansion of the legacy section which really needs input from a budgie....!!! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga hey, just checking to see if we'd addressed your concerns and/or if you had anything else to add? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just read through the article again it seems in pretty good nick, but I was still waiting for an answer on the legacy question above. Also, two minor nitpicks from re-reading:
Oops, sorry, I overlooked that. I've added those details. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in second half, "which Matthäus struck over the goal" read a bit strangely, would "over the crossbar" be better? Maybe that's just me.
Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in reactions "Jeremy Goss has written of the reaction of the German players to the defeat" makes it seem that he is talking about reactions post-match (as to be expected), but then "not a good idea ... [the] sort of thing that does a manager's team talk for him" makes it seem Matthäus' comments came before the match? Mujinga (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to leave that to Dweller, but I completely agree there's a problem with the chronology there. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The chronology is fine but it's ambiguously worded. The stupid comments occurred between the two legs. I'll clarify in the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
good solution! Mujinga (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, TRM has addressed a lot of comments and I've picked up the few others. Are you content to support now? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for a bit more on the legacy and significance of the match, and you've now added that, so I'm happy to support. I can leave it to other reviewers to see what they think. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit
  • This perception could not help but reach the players, which was to be significant. I think "This perception, which could not help but reach the players, was to be significant" might be more fluent.
  • Two consecutive sentences in "Pre-match" have a colon, which jars just because you notice it. The first might be a semicolon just as well, or make the second one a dash.
  • I changed "utilised" to "used" in A feeling that the German side was arrogantly expecting victory was picked up on and used by the Norwich team but I see "used" shows up in the quote directly following. How about just cutting "and used" from the introductory part of the sentence? The quote does that work for you, I think.

Generally looks good; just a couple of minor points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Cheers for the review; all dealt with. Harrias talk 18:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. And I just watched Goss's goal on youtube; it was a cracker. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

edit
Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*In contrast, Bayern Munich were playing their 185th European cup tie is "tie" a typo? Or is that a synonym for match? Can you link or replace with "match"?

Pretty good overall. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood I think between Harrias and me, we've covered all of the above, let us know if you need anything else. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the "tie" explanation in the "Background" section. File:Bryan Gunn in the Gunn Club.jpg and File:Lothar Matthäus.jpg need personality rights templates at the Commons, see Commons:Template:Personality rights. The article still needs a source review and an image review. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personality rights templates added. Anything else?

Support pending source & image review. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators, you might try and scare those up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Therapyisgood. Who might provide a "source & image review"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller I think made a request in the fashion of these parts. Not sure what else to do other than that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chidgk1

edit

Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

Support: I meant to review this earlier but time got away from me a little. This is a brilliant article, and has one of the best background sections to an article like this that I have read. No issues at all, and as far as I can tell it is easy to follow, avoiding jargon (except perhaps "first-time shot", but not a big deal if we keep it in). The only other thing I wondered was if we need a note or something to explain "Jerry sinks the Gerrys" for anyone who has never read the Sun... I don't know if that kind of expression means anything outside the UK. But that doesn't affect my support in any way. Sarastro (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Giants2008

edit

Source review by Aza24 - Pass

edit

Will do shortly - Aza24 (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these very minor edits, the sources are very thorough; I don't see any refs that are missing publishers/authors/dates and such. The "In German" markings are also very much appreciated!

Likewise the sources are all reliable. They are mostly from reputable news sources and those that are not see to be from databases that are sourcing uncontroversial information. Aza24 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 cheers, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks - Pass
edit

Doing shortly Aza24 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Checked: 1, 2, 6, 16 (didn't check every time this sourced is used as it's used 7 times), 22, 29, 30, 38, 42 (all three), 52, 63, 68 – all good, well done! Aza24 (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely job Aza24, thanks. @FAC coordinators: this nomination is oven-ready for promotion! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I think we still need an image review? Harrias talk 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. Zzz. Well we've asked, nothing more can be done about it. Back on hold. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

While the information is often rather vague on files, it seems like all of them are OK - save for these in the #Details section which I didn't check. ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, are we finally done?? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: , anything more required? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [23].

Leech

edit
Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about leeches, friendly little bloodsuckers in the phylum Annelida. The article has been a GA for two years, and we have recently added to its comprehensiveness and generally polished it up. Leeches are interesting animals, and we hope you enjoy reading about them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - The "see below" link from the bottom of the infobox is broken. (the article looks excellent by the way) Mattximus (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, tidied that up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the nomination: LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, LittleJerry made his first contribution to Leech on 1 on 12 April 2020]], and five thereafter until 18 April 2020: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. All are very minor edits. The article was nominated on 16 May 2020, with him as the first nominator. His contributions in this review are minor ones, formatting, pinging, ... Am I missing something? If so, I apologize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They built the article but I encouraged them to nominate. LittleJerry (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They can thank you for the encouragement in the nomination note. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Some of the captions warrant citing
Refs added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images are missing alt text
Fixed by editing team. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added, author is unknown. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added, author is unknown. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Placobdella_2013_001.jpg: given that the uploader has an extensive history of having uploads deleted for copyright concerns, is there any evidence supporting the licensing claim?
Replaced image with File:Parasite180056-fig5A Placobdelloides siamensis (Glossiphoniidae).png from Parasite journal (CC-by-SA 4.0 license statement) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the original work first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wellcome Foundation states "circa 1832", and gives as source J.J. Grandville, Les métamorphoses du jour, new edition, Paris: Garnier frères, 1869, ch. 65, pp. 434-442, but he died in 1847; it was as Wellcome Foundation suggests probably first published during his lifetime. Added this on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Enwebb

edit

I'll be claiming WikiCup points for this review (content). Enwebb (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of freshwater leeches, very few species tolerate fast-flowing water, the majority preferring the shallow, vegetated areas on the edges of ponds and lakes, or the pools and backwaters of sluggish streams. comma splice, that needs to be a semicolon or split into two sentences.
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some species aestivate during droughts, being able to lose 90% of their bodyweight and still survive. the subject of the sentence is "some species", which reads oddly with the last part ("some species" being able to lose 90% of their bodyweight and still survive.) I'd rewrite as "...and can lose up to 90% of their bodyweight and still survive"
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comes from the Latin hirudo, hirudinis, a leech which does it come from, hirudo or hirudinis? Or is it unknown, and that's why both are included?
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about what's going on in the 3rd paragraph of Diversity and phylogeny. Is this supposed to be internal divisions of the subclass? But if so, why is Branchiobdellida included? Your cladogram identifies Branchiobdellida not as an internal division, but as a sister taxon. So we're getting an infraclass and a sister taxon in the same paragraph without identifying how they're connected? It would be more helpful to frame it how it is in the taxobox: "Leeches are divided into two infraclasses, x and y. The more primitive x is..."
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first leech fossils are found in the Jurassic period... I would say they are from the Jurassic period, not that that was when they were found
Changed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's an annulate fossil? (looks like you gloss the term in the next section instead of at first use)
Avoided the term, which is used mainly of living leeches, so it wouldn't be ideal to define it in passing when discussing fossils. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing punctuation at the end of this sentence Like other annelids, the leech is a segmented animal, but unlike other annelids, the segmentation is masked by external ring markings (annulation)
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in whether you are writing out or using numerals for numbers 10-99 ("21 mid-body segments", "ten to seventeen pairs")
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on what a typical clutch size is?
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the file "PSM V17 D495 The medicinal leech" commented out in the section Feeding and digestion?
Currently unable to establish copyright status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps gloss "peristalsis"
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm worried it gets a little much "how-to guide" in the "Bites" section in discussing how to remove (and how not to remove) leeches. Maybe frame it as "Medical professionals remove leeches via x, and do not use y due to these risks"
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The death of George Washington is thought to have been hastened by excessive blood-letting unless he was excessively bled via leeches, I think this strays from the scope of this article
Added that it was via leeches. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that you've seen the book and verify that leeches are explicitly mentioned (I only point this out because some searching on Washington's death I've done just says "bloodletting", and I'm not seeing explicitly that the method was via leeches). Enwebb (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement isn't necessary for the section so I've cut it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is horse leech a species? Can it be linked?
Yes, linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poem titles are in quotes, not italics ("Resolution and Independence")
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems to be a mismatch between this sentence Leech saliva is commonly believed to contain anesthetic compounds to numb the bite area, but this has never been proven and this one Leech secretions contain several bioactive substances with analgesic...effects
Removed "analgesic". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More recent analyses have been of subgroups of the leeches. There doesn't seem to be anything on the scale of the cited phylogeny. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try this figure 2. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, used this; redrawn the tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in fact, the North American leech fauna is largely identical to that of Europe this is a little vague/imprecise to me. They have the exact same species assemblages? 75% similarity of species? Complete overlap of families? Why would this be the case, also? You're implying something about leech biogeography, but stating it outright would be better. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source actually states "Much of the North American leech fauna is shared with Europe" so it is difficult to be more precise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Enwebb:, we're finished. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anything eat leeches?
"Fish, birds and other invertebrates are the main predators on leeches", according to the Australian Museum. Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...that of a branchiobdellid, to the shell of a crayfish... I thought that the article established that branchiobdellids are not leeches?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has time to add some thoughts to the FAC for Horseshoe bat, I would be very appreciative. Enwebb (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

edit

Interesting article, will review soon. HaEr48 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in good shape, well-written and referenced, and interesting. I know almost nothing about the subject but I can follow it for the most part. Thank you for working on this article. Some suggestion below:

  • Note: I plan to claim WP:CUP points for this review.
Many thanks for the perceptive questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links needed for non-everyday terms like backwater and flat stones (unless it literally means stones that are flat).
Yes, just stones that are flat. Linked backwater.
  • Why is the classification described in the third paragraph of #Diversity and phylogeny different than the phylogenetic tree? They use some of the same names, such as Glossiphoniidae and Piscicolidae but organized differently. Another example: In the paragraph Erpobdelliformes is a division of Arhynchobdellida together with Hirudiniformes, but in the tree Hirudiniformes is a division of Erpobdelliformes. Could you add some explanation for the uninitiated, because it can be confusing?
I've broken up the third paragraph so as to describe the diversity of the families and the illustrated tree. I've left a brief mention of the traditional classification.
  • Euhirudinea have both anterior and posterior suckers: as opposed to what? Does Acanthobdellidea only have one sucker?
Many Annelida have no suckers; it's a plain statement of fact.
But this sentence appears right after we divide leeches into Euhirudinea and Acanthobdellidea. Does it imply that it is no true for Acanthobdellidea ? HaEr48 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What aprt does Hirudinae cover in the phylogenetic tree?
The traditional group cannot exactly be mapped as leech relationships have been found to be other than was supposed by earlier taxonomists. Put simply, Branchiobdellida was thought to be within Hirudinae, but Acanthobdella was not. The clade Hirudinida is a fairly close match. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for the explanation. Is it possible to say something to the effect of, "the traditional subclass Hirudinae does not exactly correspond to any clade in the phylogenetic tree"? Apologies if it's something obvious to experts, but it can be confusing for people who do not know what's going on. HaEr48 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: what do you think about this? (re-pinging in case you didn't see it the first time) HaEr48 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first leech fossils: can you clarify if this means the oldest, or the first to be found?
The oldest.
  • the two main ones being on either side: Does "either side" mean right and left, or ventral and dorsal?
Right and left sides. V&D would be surfaces.
  • The coelom has taken over the function: Suggest "the channels" because it seems the preceding passage tries to not call them coelom.
Edited.
  • sperm is transferred to, and probably stored in, the vagina: How/when does it get transferred to the eggs?
Probably as the eggs pass through the vagina on the way to the gonopore, but the source does not specify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sperm is passed from one individual to another by hypodermic injection: would hypodermic insemination be a good link?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the jaws of Arhynchobdellids are at the front of the mouth": should we add "if any" here because the preceding passage says this group may or may not have jaws?
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the blades mentioned in #Feeding and digestion the same as teeth mentioned in #Diversity and phylogeny? If yes, suggest making them consistent
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro to the digestive system mentioned that the digestive system starts with the mouth and then successively pharynx, a short oesophagus, a crop (in some species), a stomach and a hindgut, but later we also find out about intestines. Could we mention intestines in the introduction passage in the second paragraph?
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many terms seemed to be linked at the second or later instance rather than the first, e.g. exopeptidase, endosymbiotic.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • this has resulted in leeches being used as model organisms for the study of invertebrate nervous systems: Could we more explicitly mention which aspect of the preceding paragraph makes it a good model organism? For me, it is not easy to guess.
Done.
  • cerebral ganglion above the gut: Does "the gut" mean the entire digestive system or does it refer to the stomach?
The system. Biologists habitually call the entire gastro-intestinal tract the gut.
  • In segments 27 to 33: but before we say there were 32 segments, which number is a typo?
33 is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to explain the function of the cerebral and the caudal ganglion? Is there a division of their function?
The ganglia are groups of neurones and might function as primitive brains, but the source describers them without mentioning their functions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • this only provides for about half of the leech's oxygen transportation needs: What is responsible for the other half?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "curl up and fall to the substrate when disturbed": does it still refer to swimming? Does "substrate" mean the base of the water?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of leeches in modern medicine made a small-scale comeback in the 1980s after years of decline: Do we know when the use of leeches declined and if there was an explanation for it (e.g. discovery that it wasn't really useful)?
It collapsed, along with the theory of humours, with the rise of scientific medicine in the 18th and 19th centuries.
  • The drug is manufactured by recombinant DNA technology: This is the only place we know that it is a drug, can we explain what kind of condition the drug is used for?
It's a naturally-occurring anticoagulant that can be used as a drug for blood-clotting disorders.
  • Can we be more specific about who manufactures it that way, per WP:AWW? Is it just one company, or is it a widespread industry practice?
It's becoming widespread. Another citation added.
  • In 2012 and 2018, Ida Schnell and colleagues trialled the use of Haemadipsa leeches …: I see the only sources are the research papers themselves. Do we have secondary sources for these facts?
No, but the papers are proof that the trials took place, which is all that's asserted here. Secondary (press) reports will not add anything. If we knew that the method had been widely adopted we'd say so.
  • In the lead, the cocoon of terrestrial leeches is "often concealed under a log or in a crevice" while in #Reproduction and development it is "deposited under a stone or buried in damp soil". Can we make them consistent or combine them?
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bdellanea.blogspot.com seems to be a WP:BLOG. Any reason why we consider it reliable?
Dr Mark Siddall at the American Museum of Natural History is an appropriate expert. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap A blog is still not a reliable source because it is not peer-reviewed. It would be better to change it into an academic source. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.

-- Thank you. HaEr48 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well-written, clear, and informative, and my feedback above has been addressed. Thank you all contributors for writing this article. HaEr48 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

edit
  • in having external annulations that do not correspond with their internal segmentation – maybe replace "external annulations" with "ring markings" (as in other places in the article) to increase comprehensibility, especially in the lead.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terrestrial Haemadipsidae are mostly native to the tropics and subtropics while the aquatic Hirudinidae have a wider global range – I wonder why the distribution of these two particular families are mentioned but not that of the other families? Are these two the most relevant/common/species rich? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're major families with distinctive distribution patterns.
  • The majority of freshwater leeches are found in the shallow – this paragraph on habitat and similar things does not fit under the section caption "Diversity and phylogeny", so a reader who is specifically looking for habitat information will have difficulty in finding the information.
It's part of the diversity information, but I have done some rearranging. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name for the subclass, Hirudinea – I would at least mention who named it, maybe also based on what species.
Done.
  • is the free-living polychaetes – "are"?
Reworded.
  • The body surface is divided into 102 annuli – Is it really the precisely same count in all species of leeches?
Expanded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • albumin-filled – link or explain?
Linked.
  • after which the adults of most species die – this is still about the marine leeches only. Or does it apply to leeches in general?
Just the marine species I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they are hungry, leeches use their anterior suckers to connect to hosts for feeding – "When they are hungry" seems superfluous here.
Done.
  • In general, sanguivorous leeches – this term is not explained in linked article. If it just means "blood-sucking", why use yet another term for the same thing here?
Fixed.
  • I wonder about the function of the suckers in feeding. In the lead it is mentioned "attaching themselves to a host with a sucker and feeding on blood", but this information is not repeated in the main text. They only attach with one of the suckers (the anterior sucker I suppose?), or can both be used? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Starting soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • General note: I will review the first paragraph by quoting both the sentence and the source; afterward, I will reference the sentence by number and first few words, and the source by the link. I apologize if I have made errors below:
Section 1
  • Sentence 1:"Some 700 species of leech have been described, of which around 100 are marine, 90 terrestrial and the remainder freshwater.[1][2]"
  • [1] [2007] says, in the abstract, "About 15% of the 680 described species are marine and slightly less have switched to terrestrial life; the rest are freshwater, divided among 91 genera." Later on page 130, they say, "However, morphological means allowed us to describe approximately 680 species till now, some 480 of which are freshwater."
  • 15% of 680 is 102 (OK for marine); This suggests that 680-102-480 (freshwater) = 98 are terrestrial when the total is 680. I am confused about 90 and 700.
  • Sentence 2:: The smallest is about 1 cm (0.4 in) long, and the largest is the giant Amazonian leech, Haementeria ghilianii, which can reach 30 cm (12 in).[3]
General note: [3] is available on the snippet view. Pages 471 to 482 (11 pages) have been cited together. I have some access so I will examine this source, but most reviewers will find this difficult.
  • The source [3] [2004] says: "The 350-some species of Euhirudinea are marine, freshwater, and terrestrial worms commonly known as leeches. ... The smallest leeches are l cm in length, and most species are 2 to 5 cm long. (WP article Euhirudinea says: "the true leeches, are an infraclass of the Hirudinea).
  • Are these the smallest and largest of the infraclass of 350, or as you seem to be implying that of the 700-species subclass Hirudinae?
  • Sentence 3: Except for Antarctica, leeches are found throughout the world but are at their most abundant in temperate lakes and ponds in the northern hemisphere.[3]
  • This is in source [1], not [3]: "They are globally distributed on all continents except Antarctica, reaching the highest diversity in the Holarctic region with one-half of all continental species."
  • It says "highest diversity," not "most abundant." I mean there is a correlation between the two, but not straightforward.
  • Sentence 4: The majority of freshwater leeches are found in the shallow, vegetated areas on the edges of ponds and lakes, or the pools and backwaters of sluggish streams; very few species tolerate fast-flowing water.
  • Source says, "Although some leeches are marine, most of the aquatic species live in fresh water. Relatively few species tolerate rapid currents; most prefer the shallow, vegetated water bordering ponds, lakes, and sluggish streams." (p. 471) No mention of "backwater." (Not saying it's not true)
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 5: In their preferred habitats, they may occur in very high densities, with over 10,000 individuals having been recorded per square metre (over 930 per square foot) under flat stones in Illinois.
  • Source says: "In favorable environments, often those high in organic pollutants, overturned rocks may reveal an amazing number of individuals; more than 10,000 individuals per square meter have been reported in Illinois" (p. 471)
  • Doesn't say "preferred habitat," only "favorable environments," i.e. "environments favorable to them," which are not always the result of preference. Not seeing "flat stones" (which many people associate with stone skipping) Am I missing something?
  • Rephrased, but if I followed the source as closely as you seem to be demanding, I would be guilty of close paraphrasing. If 10,000 leeches chose to congregate in a square metre under a rock, that was their "preferred habitat" in that environment, I would have thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 6: "Some species aestivate during droughts, and can lose up to 90% of their bodyweight and still survive.
  • The source says: "Some species estivate during periods of drought by burrowing into the mud at the bottom of a pond or stream and can survive a loss of as much as 90% of their body weight." (p. 471)
  • The WP link Aestivation talks about estivating in shaded vegetation, rubble, ...but no mention of burrowing in the bottoms of water bodies
  • Sentence 7: "Among the freshwater leeches are the Glossiphoniidae, flattened animals mostly parasitic on vertebrates such as turtles, and unique among annelids in carrying their young under their bodies"[4]
  • [4] says: " glossiphoniid species are characterized as the only annelids that brood their eggs and carry their young under their dorso-ventrally flattened bodies."
  • Should have mentioned "annelids" earlier; comes as a surprise; unique in "brooding their eggs" and carrying their "young under ...," not necessarily unique in any one maternal quality. Are their forms of flattening other than dorso ventral?
  • Note: I won't be doing every paragraph with such care, but I urge the nominators to go through the other sections with care and examine both their sourcing and phrasing. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I especially encourage the nominators to give specific page numbers (not a range) in the citation: Ruppert, Edward E.; Fox, Richard, S.; Barnes, Robert D. (2004). Invertebrate Zoology (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 471–482, which has been cited 19 times in the article, and each citation sometimes for more than one sentence. This is available only on a snippet view on Google books. Otherwise, I will be asking for the page number (and likely a quotation in some instances each time.) If you are citing several page numbers for a sentence then that citation too will need to be specific, not a range. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the sentence in the source, "Fully terrestrial ... humid rainforests in south Asia and Australia" (p. 480)?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A distinctive family is the Piscicolidae, marine or freshwater ectoparasites of fish,"
  • The source (1940) says, ... ectoparasites principally on fishes. However, species of the family are also ectoparasites of crustaceans (Salensky 1927, Mysis), Bivalves (Oka 1927, Oysters), and Reptiles ( Poirier and Rochebrune 1884). Is "chiefly" or somesuch warranted? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all leeches are parasitic; the Erpobdelliformes, freshwater or amphibious worm-leeches, are carnivorous ...
  • What are "worm-leeches?" The lead sentence says, all leeches are worms. Is this an expression such as "true leeches?" If so, "also called ..." might be helpful.
Removed, it's not needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the appositive "freshwater or amphibious worm-leeches" is a renaming of the subject. Are all freshwater or amphibious worm leaches Erpobdilliformes? If not please characterize differently, "a sub-something of freshwater ..."
Fixed by item above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirdly (sorry :)), is "blood feeders" exactly identical to "parasitic" for leeches? If so, (and this is not a biggie), from the point of view of a rank novice such as I, it might be simpler if you said: "Not all leeches are blood feeders; the Erpobdelliformes, freshwater or amphibious worm-leeches, are equipped with a relatively large, toothless mouth to ingest ..." (Not really that close paraphrasing, I think.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can finish here. All we need is the source check. But we don't need every single source looked at. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am doing a source and paraphrase check, and I'm seeing issues. I can't do a token check. Well let's see. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose etymology should be here: the common name leech or the Latin hirudinea or both? (See Golden jackal (which has only the common name) and Wolf which has mostly the common name.)
The Old English for "leech" is given in "In human culture"; it seems fine to give the etymology for the group's Latin name here and I think readers would miss it if it were absent. For the dogs, the Latin is rightly given at Canidae. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • finedictionary is like encyclopedia.com, it collects entries from out-of-copyright dictionaries. You can do better. e.g. OED or this (for leech).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Next paragraph beginning, "The phylogenetic tree of the leechs ..." with four or five sentences are all cited to this article. But the two trees seem to be different. In the article's tree, Acanthobdella (sampled from specimens of the arctic fish leech, A peladina) is sister to the entire clade of Hirunidea. In the article's tree, it splits off much further down the Hirunidea clade. Have I made an error? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made an error; I did a double-take when I compared the two trees, but I had not gone mad (at least, not on this evidence). The cited article has recently been updated after an "expression of concern", and the tree there has been revised, the article reissued. I have moved Acanthobdella to correspond to the new tree, and will revise the rest of the tree shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. PS In my post above, the first "article" = cited article, the second = the WP article at FAC. Silly me. I chalk it to my much thinking—around the same time—about "articles" in third, fourth, and fifth meanings (zero, indefinite, and definite) elsewhere on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, tree done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review cont'd

edit
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot check, "In Old English, lǣce was the name for a physician as well as for the animal, and lǣcecraft, leechcraft, was the art of healing.[46][48]"
J. R. Clark Hall remains an excellent source for Old English and hasn't been superseded. Marren and Mabey is solid and reliable: it's a major hardback of 500 pages with some 600 citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean we are using one source [45] which says, "In pre-scientific times, someone skilled in healing was known as a 'leech' (or 'leach'), and his or her calling as leechcraft. The name was shared with that of a bloodsucking worm, which was once as central to the healing trade as pills and injections are to a modern healthcare centre. In the TV comedy Blackadder, the Tudor clinic was full of leeches; pictures of leeches on the wall, jars of leeches everywhere, even a blackboard with a large leech drawn on it. It was presided over by a Dr Leech, whose answer to every ailment, ...," You get the idea.
  • We are then using another source for supporting the first source, which doesn't specifically group these words together. (ACAS is fine for reading Beowulf, but it is no longer cited much.)
  • Anyway, here's the OED (in case you need to use it: leech (animal): Old English lǽce, Kentish lýce strong masculine = Middle Dutch lake (Kilian laecke, lijck-laecke, modern Flemish lijklake), lieke, leke feminine; leech (human): Old English lǽce strong masculine (once lǽca weak), corresponds to Old Frisian (dative) letza, leischa, Old High German lâhhi, Middle Swedish läkir (Danish læge; Old Norse has the cognate lǽknir, and modern Swedish läkare, from the verb läka to heal), Gothic lêkeis < Old Germanic *læ̂kjo-z < pre-Germanic *lēgio-s; the synonymous Irish liaigh (Old Irish liaig, dative plural legib) is apparently related in some way.")
Replaced ref with Mory & Mindell 2014. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comprehensive review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [24].

Gigantorhynchus

edit
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second featured article nomination modeled after my first successful one Apororhynchus. This one isn't quite as tight as the last one, but it's the best I could do. If it not up to standard I'm happy to withdraw quickly. It is the second animal listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Gigantorhynchus). I've now done my very best to have gathered all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms) and I believe I'm close to claiming comprehensiveness despite the relatively short descriptions for each species. I had an excellent good article review by Tylototriton which reorganized and improved the article considerably. Fun fact: I'm also the creator of this article 11 (!) years ago. Thanks!Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've made a significant change to the page, exploding the giant table into smaller tables justified to the right. I think it reads much better now, but I'm not sure about the format. Old version can be found here. Mattximus (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I preferred the old table, but that's just my opinion. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super attached either way, but the split tables is better for showing the male/female differences which are significant in this genus, and also way more mobile friendly. I left it there since I edit by phone sometimes and the split tables works better. Mattximus (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • Have you checked whether you can use File:Gigantorhynchus ortizi.jpg? It has a comment: "Note: The journal Revista Peruana de Biología is an open access journal publishes their content under the CC-by-4.0 licence"
Yes I found and uploaded that image, I wrote that note you are quoting, and I put it in the article. It was determined in the GA process however that it was CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which is not acceptable. It was the only image I could find that I thought was free, but is apparently not. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The intermediate host includes termites." Does this imply a larval stage? You do not describe the life cycle, how long they live, what size they are, what effect they have on their hosts or what their food is? Terms such as pseudo-segmentation should be linked or explained (and you are inconsistent whether the word in hyphenated. This article seems some way off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information available on life cycle, how long they live, the effect on the host (though there is single note from one paper on the on the effect of the intermediate host, which was included in the species section, but I can move it to the host section), but the sizes for nearly all species are known and found in the species section. Specifically the larval state is called cystacanths and there is only one paper (which is already cited) that discusses them. There is no citation that explicitly states what their food is but it is nutrients from the intestine of their hosts. I've sourced every single article I was able to obtain on this species. Similar to Apororhynchus it is (as far as I can tell) comprehensive. I've fixed the pseudosegmentation problem. If there are any sources not included I'm very happy to include them. You mention that the article is way off FA, can you be more specific? Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously unfortunate that so little information is available but I think you could make what you have into a summary in the lead which will be useful to the reader. "Intermediate" implies three stages but you say this is the larval stage, so is there an earlier one or is this a specialist use of the word intermediate? What is the significance of ellipsoid eggs? Are they the first stage before larvae? You say there is no information on the life cycle but you imply two or three stages and I think that what is known should be spelled out in the lead. My comment on not being ready for FA was partly based on not realising how little information is available, but also on the failure to summarise what is known. There does seem to be enough to summarise the life cycle in the lead - 1. eggs, 2. larval stage in termites and effect on them, 3. mature stage living in intestines. (I suggest deleting baboons from lead as it seems dubious.) I can only find references to sizes of parts in the species section, not the whole animal. If the information is available, I suggest giving the range of sizes in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to add your suggestions, just a slight issue: this page is for the genus, and so I stuck to almost exclusively genus specific information. There is plenty of information on the life cycle of the phylum Acanthocephala in general, just not specific to this genus. For example, the egg-cystacanths-adult is common to acanthocephalans, so we can *assume* this is true for this genus. How much information do you want me to draw from the entire phylum of 1200 species, for repetition here? Should it be repeated in all hundred or so pages? I'm not argumentative if it sounds that way, I'm genuinely wondering, and I'm happy to add general information if that is what is best, but we cannot be sure it applies in this case. I will need a bit of time to work on other suggestions and list changes below. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep intermediate host is a specialized term used in the field of parasites, and I linked it to that specific meaning.
  • I'm a bit hesitant to add life cycle with the termites into the lead or the description section as this applies to only 1 of the 6 species. Other intermediate hosts are unknown (but likely ants, but that's just my guess).
  • The ellipsoid egg and the dimensions of them are important in identifying the species among the 6. I mention this in the description.
  • The size of all species are not know, but I've added this to the lead: "The largest specimen is a female G. ortizi with a length of over 240 mm and a width of 2.0 mm." Technically that's the largest so far reported, I can't report on smallest as there is no real way to determine if the worm is fully grown adult, or just a juvenile. Does this work for you?
  • As for sizes of parts, since it's a worm, the trunk is essentially it's size, plus the proboscis (which can retract sometimes). I made this a bit more clear in the description section by equating body with trunk. Just as an example, the trunk of the biggest one is 242mm and if it extends its proboscis it's 242.7mm, so not really significant.
  • The baboon host is a weird one, but it's a big part of the text so it should feature in the lead since it summarizes the text. Now I agree with you it's dubious, I've summarized *all* available information on this probably not real species, and although it appears an open and shut case, it is still officially a species, so we must keep it in until it's removed. Mattximus (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now close to a support. I think the problem is that the article assumed some level of knowledge, and did not make much sense to someone like me who had never heard of Acanthocephala or Gigantorhynchus. I would personally prefer a bit more phylum information. Perhaps you could try to put yourself in the position of someone who looks up Gigantorhynchus because s/he sees the word but has little or no prior knowledge. It is of course a difficult balance how much to include but as the article is so short there is no danger of overloading it.
  • I suggest in the lead something like "Like all Acanthocephala, Gigantorhynchus has a three stage life cycle of egg, cystacanth and worm. In the cystacanth stage, Gigantorhynchus echinodiscus is a parasite in termites, but the host in other species is not known. The worm is a parasite in the intestines of ...."
  • I was about to put this in, but then wanted to check that this was true for all Acanthocephala. Unfortunately it is not, some have 5 stages! Apparently, only 25 out of the 1200+ species have known life cycles. Unfortunately none of them are 'Gigantorhynchus, any thoughts on what we should do? I do agree this would be great information, but it's only an assumption without any reference. It's *probably* the same 5 stages, but we do not know for sure. Mattximus (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran into this problem reviewing another featured article, the conclusion was that it's hard to find a citation for a negative ("The full life cycle of Gigantorhynchus has not been established"), and there was no conclusion made. Not to sound ridiculous, but how do we know that we don't know? I believe wikipedia requires citations for all statements like this. I wonder if there is a way to cleverly word this so as to avoid any assumptions... I'll think about ways around this. Mattximus (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wording is better, fixed. For the second part, I was trying to say that the cystacanths develop into adults in the intestines of the host. Maybe rewording it to mature makes more sense? Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the convert template from mm to inches would be standard and useful. The size did not mean much to me until I converted and realised that 240 mm is over 9 inches. That is massive in the intestines of a small mammal and must have major effects, but of course if there is no source then you cannot comment.
  • Ended up converting this in the lead as another reviewer said the same thing.
  • I think the policy is to stick with SI unites for science articles, and I'm concerned that converting over 100 measurements into inches would be unreadable. BUT, I think I might have found something regarding the effects! There is a record of an infection in a zoo in Brazil that I can use as an example of infection. Thanks for pushing me on this, I will add it shortly. Mattximus (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think you are correct about conversion. In the list of invertebrate FAs, five out of the first six alphabetically use conversion. Could you convert just in the lead and infoboxes? Ian Rose can you advise on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just sampled a few featured articles at random. Dermotherium is only mm, no imperial units. Ferugliotherium#Description uses a mix, with the paragraphs containing the conversion but the tables do not. At the very least it's not standardized, and if given the option I would not add imperial units to a scientific page. Let's see what others have to say about this.
  • You are inconsistent on rounding. E.g. "in the second circle measuring 0.140  by  0.09 mm". I think you need to decide on a how many decimal places to round to and stick to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would constitute WP:OR, since I'm not just reporting the value but reporting the precision available as well. So 0.14mm is different than 0.140mm, which means I would be reducing the known accuracy, providing a misleading piece of information. I'm reporting the precision used in the source documents. Mattximus (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gigantorhynchus ortizi in the photo you could not use of does not look anything like 120 times longer than wide (240 to 2). Do you know the reason?
  • It appears that way doesn't it? But if you look at the bar, it seems accurate. The width should be 1/5th the bar and it appears so. And the length should be 24 times the bar, which it is in the ball park, it's just curled up a bit I think. Mattximus (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, it is 135 mm long and 7 thick. The 1 cm bar is 28 mm, which means the photo is 2.8 times full size, and the worm is 48 by 2.5 mm. You could increase the length to about 75 for the curling up, but nowhere near 240. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep I see what you mean. However it's likely that this image is not the longest one they ever found. The length ranges from 45mm to 242mm at the very most, so they just took a picture of smaller one. Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish! I scoured the internet for any image and the only one I found was the one you saw, but it was determined now to be the right CC.4.0 licence so I was pretty disappointed myself.

Still working, just wanted to say thanks for taking on a review of a very niche page. I will do my best to improve it as much as possible based on your recommendations and your help is appreciated. Mattximus (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I believe I've addressed all your concerns, please let me know if I missed one. Outstanding ones I could find:
  • Your approval of the new wording for the life cycle in the lead.
  • Waiting for another editor to weigh in on the conversion to imperial units.

Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • One remaining point occurs to me. You mention that Gigantorhynchus is a worm in the first sentence and do not use the word thereafter. I assume that the worm is the mature stage and all the descriptions in the lead and of the separate species apply to the worm and not the cystacanth. I think this is not clear and you need to specify that the descriptions are of the mature worm stage. For example, it is not clear in "and an adult stage where cystacanths mature in the intestines of the host. This genus is characterized by a cylindrical proboscis".
Worm is not the mature stage, but "spiny-headed worm" is the common name for Acanthocephala, which the type of animal this is. I could link that whole section to Acanthocephala to avoid confusion. I agree with you on the latter being unclear. I'm actually not sure how to fix it, that doesn't sound silly: "and an adult stage where cystacanths mature in adults in the intestines of the host."? Mattximus (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about changing "and an adult stage where cystacanths mature in the intestines of the host. This genus is characterized by a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks" to "and an adult stage in the intestines of the host. Adult Gigantorhynchus have a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks". Dudley Miles (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately for that wording, the cystacanths also have a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks. In fact, cystacanths just look like mini-adults. The big difference is that their reproductive structures are not yet developed, but you can't see that, it's on the inside. This is based off other related species, but I can assume this to be true for this genus (no source speaks of it). Mattximus (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry this sentence is taking so many iterations, but did you want me to put a full stop after hooks and then start a new sentence? How would that look exactly? Currently it's: "This genus is characterized by a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks at the apex followed by numerous small hooks on the rest of the proboscis, a long body with pseudosegmentation, filiform lemnisci, and ellipsoid testes." Because the cystacanths do not have the testes, and I don't know about their pseudosegmentation and filiform lemnisci, we can't add your wording to the beginning of that entire sentence. Sorry I'm confused at this point. Mattximus (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is of course for you to decide, but I would suggest putting in the full stop, leave out the filiform lemnisci, which will only mean anything to experts, and decide what else you want to say. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

edit
  • I have been meaning to review this for some time.
Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Have you contacted anyone about trying to get an image for this? With the dreaded Release?
  • Tried this, got this error: Wikimedia OTRS cannot accept a release from you. I uploaded an image under the CC4.0 license but it wasn't quite the right one, and after searching everywhere could not find a replacement. It would be nice. Hopefully more journals open up soon.
  • Gigantorhynchus is a genus of spiny-headed (or thorny-headed) worms is there a difference? Is it different among species within Gigantorhynchus if it's spiny or thorny-headed? Or is "thorny-headed" just another way of saying "spiny-headed"?
  • Good observation. Gigantorhynchus are Acanthocephalans, and the common name for Acanthocephalans is either thorny-headed worms or spiny-headed worms. Is there a way I could better phrase this?
  • Sure I can use that wording.
  • the intestines of the host. same as the original host (ie with the feces), or a different host?
  • There is only one host where the worm infects the intestine. In the intermediate host, I believe it's often just in the body cavity waiting. Can I make this more clear?
  • Perhaps explain how the worm goes from the intermediate host to the final host, if that's the case. It's a little ambiguous now as to if it matures in the termites or the final host. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The largest specimen is a female G. ortizi with a length of around 240 mm and a width of 2 mm. do you have the smallest?
  • There is no such thing as a smallest, since it's impossible to tell if a sample is simply not fully grown yet.
  • I'm not sure how to explain this problem. It's not a problem that will be found in a reference, but a logical problem. You can know the largest sample, that's easy, just find the largest one. It could keep growing but for now you have the largest. This is what we have here. You can never know the smallest, because you don't know if just isn't fully grown yet. It's just logically impossible. The smallest sample of this genus is obviously a juvenile, but it's not meaningful to compare juvenile vs adult. Mattximus (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name derives from the size ("Wie der Name besagt, sind es große Formen, die hierher gehören.") not sure what the quote is from, or what it's doing there. Also wiktionary isn't a reliable source.
  • This quote is because I can't translate German, but it's the origin of the name Gigantorhynchus from 150 years ago. It's the only record of why it's called Gigantorhynchus. Do you know how to translate it?
  • Asked, awaiting response for translation. The second part, I link it to the definition from wiktionary, I'm not sure if I should also source a dictionary... ?
  • was chosen based on the large size and characteristic proboscis in this genus of Acanthocephala. how does it compare with others in the phylum? Need some background.
  • This relates the your last comment, the Giganto in Gigantorhynchus just means large, and the rhynchus means nose (which I believe is the proboscis). So it's more why it was named this way, then if it's objectively a large proboscis compared to other worms. Thoughts on how I can reword to make this more clear?
  • Maybe add an example of a smaller genus in Acanthocephala, or explain (and I don't know if this is the case) if there's an "average" length among parasitic worms in Acanthocephala. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These species are not well know, there is no average, or even any genus to compare it to that wouldn't be completely random. I'm translating the etymology as you requested above, which should explain why the name giganto was selected. Mattximus (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • robust hooks at the apex can you link "apex"? Is that a specific species word or is the term used in general?
  • Done, it's just a normal anatomical word used to describe the tip. Linked anyway.
  • Males of all species possess eight cement glands can you link "cement glands" somewhere? Even a red link?
  • I linked it, and then created a page for them so it is not a red link.
  • Do you have anything on how they copulate?
  • Just what is included in the description of what cement glands are. No details on how they have sex have been published that I am aware of for this genus.
  • although one species, G. pasteri, appears to be incorrectly assigned out of the six?
  • Yes, should this be reworded?
  • Sure I can use that wording.
  • Intermediate hosts include two species of termites from Brazil (Labiotermes emersoni and Orthognathotermes heberi) can you include & link the families for these two?
  • They have the same family, Termitidae, which links to the termite page. Added link.
  • Can you link "ringed"?
  • To which page? Not sure if this word warrants a link.
  • large testes, in males? compared to what?
  • This is the wording used in sources. It doesn't say in compared to what, but I thin it's implied in comparison to their body length.
  • "guitar" format can you explain what this means?
  • I cannot! Should I just remove this? It's the wording used in the sources, but I can't find anywhere where they actually describe what that means.
  • Nothing at all. I'm fairly certain the authors made up this term based on what it looks like, it does kinda look like a guitar if you look here (VA to UT in the bottom left) [25]. But I can remove this if you think it should go. I reworded this section as well, it was too close to the source anyway.
  • The eggs contain three membranes can you link/explain "membranes"
  • I think it just means layers.
  • no female measurements are known as of when?
  • I suppose today? There have been no recent papers on this genus so we still do not know.
  • Sure that wording works.
  • in Pará, Brazil and Huanuco, Peru respectively? Both in both?
  • Great catch. I dug up the original research and clarified with new reference.
  • Another survey found nearly 100% what sample size?
  • Found original source, and there is no sample size given. However I found another instance of intestinal occlusion to back up the lead. Added this.
  • Refs 1, 9, 15, 18 could use a trans title.
  • Done
  • Ref 6 has space incorrectly before colon
  • Fixed.
  • Done
  • Added – to all page ranges in entire article
  • OK thanks once again for taking on this review! It was very thorough and the article is now in better shape. I've addressed all comments. I believe I've completed all the easy ones, and all the others I've commented or asked for your input. There are still some unaddressed concerns you brought up awaiting your response. Mattximus (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the article: can you convert mm to inches in the article? Using Template:Convert. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Converted all measurements in the lead. I can't convert the hundreds of other measurements in the body of the text as it would be completely messy and just filled with numbers. I think since it's a scientific article, the body should have metric, and the lead can have the conversion in case a casual reader wants to read the lead. Mattximus (talk)


Support from Jens Lallensack

edit
  • and a possibly a baboon – is this one "a" too much?
  • Fixed, nice catch.
  • A pity there is not a single image of the animal in the article. Why not include this one? Maybe we could also have a simple sketch/line drawing showing the anatomical features, should not be too difficult.
  • Agree completely. The other reviewers suggested the same image. I found and uploaded that image you linked and I put it in the article. It was determined in the GA process however that it was CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which is not acceptable. It was the only image I could find that I thought was free, but is apparently not. I could not even find a line image. Any thoughts? Lots of non-free images that are quite nice though: [26]
  • In that case the image should be deleted from Commons. My thought was if we could draw a sketch of the animal (simple line drawing) ourselves, would be better than nothing? Another possibility is writing to authors of papers if they would like to spend an image. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The largest specimen is a female G. ortizi with a length of around 240 mm and a width of 2 mm. – The largest known specimen?
  • Doesn't the word specimen imply it is known? Can you have an unknown specimen?
  • Gigantorhynchus is considered a well-supported monophyletic group with the related Mediorhynchus genus in the Gigantorhynchidae family based on genetic analysis. – I suggest "Gigantorhynchus is considered a well-supported monophyletic group. Based on genetic evidence, it is placed within the family Gigantorhynchidae togehter with the related genus Mediorhynchus."
  • Reworded the lead to match the body. I think that should solve ambiguity?
  • You placed the etymology of the name in a footnote; this is important information that is usually given in the main text directly.
  • I did include the etymology is in the main text, but the translations are found in the notes. I believe this was the recommended approach for the similar featured article Apororhynchus.
  • confirms that this species forms a monophyletic group with the related Mediorhynchus – the lead states that the whole genus is monophyletic, this is contradicting.
  • Yes good catch. The original source for this is confusing. Maybe you can help make sense: "Molecular phylogenetic analyses recovered G. echinodiscus forming a well-supported monophyletic group with Mediorhynchus sp., which was congruent with morphological studies that allocate both genera within the family Gigantorhynchidae. ". It seems to me like the lead is incorrect in the wording, what do you think? Relates to previous comment as well
  • They do, but I wonder if that's way too much for that complex sentence, and also it would necessitate the second reference to be in the middle of the sentence no?
Thank you for this excellent review of a very niche topic! I've addressed some but not all of the comments you've made, and seek your input on a few. Mattximus (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in the trunk lengths which are often two or more times longer in the female than the male.[2] – What is the difference between "trunk length" and simply "length"? Wouldn't "larger" or "longer" be simpler?
  • Agree, rephrased: "There is pronounced sexual dimorphism with the female often two or more times longer than the male."
  • For the above sentence, I can't find the part often two or more times longer in the female than the male covered in the source.
  • This can be found in every measurement box in the article that does have samples from both males and females. Trunk length + proboscis is the total length, and the proboscis is so small, you are right that we can generalize and just say "longer".
  • the giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), the southern tamandua (Tamandua tetradactyla) and the silky anteater Cyclopes didactylus – inconsistency in using brackets.
  • How did I miss that one? Nice catch! Fixed.
  • infesting the small intestine of the Common opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) in and Huanuco, Peru. – "and Huanuco", something missing here?
  • Nope you caught a typo introduced when I addressed another comment above. It's removed and fixed. Another excellent catch.
  • G. pesteri was recorded from an unknown baboon species in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).[12][18] Gomes (2019) considers this species – It is not immediately clear if this species refers to the baboon species (it reads like it!) or to G. pesteri.
  • Clarified just to be sure, done.
  • The male genitals occupies – occupy?
  • You are correct, fixed.
  • involved in G. echinodiscus life cycle – needs an '? Or "involved in the life cycle of G. echinodiscus".
  • This is better, fixed to your wording.
  • That's it from me. A solid article on an interesting specialised topic. It leaves open quite some questions, but this seems to be the result of our poor scientific knowledge on these animals. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your thorough review! You have made this niche article much better than it would have. I've addressed your 2nd and 3rd batch of comments completely, are all your concerns from the first batch addressed? Mattximus (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I see an image review but no source review. Also @Jens Lallensack and Therapyisgood: for any further concerns? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit

Reading now.....

which Hamann used in 1892 as a descriptor - this is Hamann's first mention so full name and maybe descriptor helpful here to introdice him. I can see Otto Hamann lacks an article in en.wiki - is he notable enough for one (off topic really)
link 'Phylogenetic ', 'valid'  Done

Otherwise looks ok comprehensiveness and prosewise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Casliber

edit
  • references formatted consistently
  • references are peer-reviewed, so reliable
  • Earwig's copyvio detector is clear.
  • FN 10 is used once and material faithful to source.
  • FN 1 is used 3 times and material faithful to source.
  • FN 18 is used 3 times and....species name is different...?
  • What an amazing catch! I've fixed this throughout the article, and confirmed the spelling with the other sources. Strange..!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2020 [27].

Battle of Panormus

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next gripping instalment in "Battles of the First Punic War". The last of the only four land battles of the 23-year-long war. There are elephants! I believe that I have this one up to a FAC-worthy standard, but see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit swamped with long peer reviews currently, so I might not be able to comment here before it already has enough support, so I just wanted to ask if there are more sequels in the works for when I get my hands free (and if they have elephants)? FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You want to get 'em while the gettings good FunkMonk. There is a strictly limited supply of battles involving elephants. I hope, possibly, to bring to FAC at some stage another naval battle (no elephants), the treaty which ended the war (no elephants), and one last land battle (sadly elephants make only a fleeting appearance in it). And, at some point, the over-arching First Punic War (with brief mentions of elephants). Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it the wrong way, but I hope this doesn't get promoted as quickly as your other FACs then, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up both maps
Both enlarged.
  • File:Stele_des_Polybios.jpg: source link is dead, and this isn't a two-dimensional work as claimed by the PD-Art tag
Livius have reorganised. Source link updated.
Quite right. And redundant anyway. Removed.
  • File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: as above, not 2D
True. Article L122-5 of the French Code of Intellectual Property applies and I have indicated this.
What is an "explicit tag"? T8612 (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A specific tag identifying the copyright status of the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there needs to be two copyright tags when photographing a coin, one for the image, one for the coin as a created work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which I frequently stumble over. I had taken the OTRS ticket to cover this.
I have no idea what to do though. I've already put a copyright tag. T8612 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the photograph. The coin itself was not created by CNG and is not under a CC license; it's in the public domain due to its age and just needs a tag to say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit
Support All looks good. Very few comments.
  • "The battle took place during the First Punic War." This seems awkwardly placed and the information would seem to me better given in the first sentence.
I have worked it into the first sentence, if you don't think that makes it too crowded.
  • "Other sources include coins, inscriptions, coins and archaeological evidence.[18]" I'm all for coins in moderation but ...
Can't have too many coins. Fixed.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are easily pleased today Wehwalt. Thanks for looking at it so promptly. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from T8612

edit
  • In the lede "devastate the crops of Rome's ally cities", shouldn't it be "allied cities"?
I think that the meaning communicates best as 'of the cities of Rome's allies'. Good spot. Changed. That OK with you?
  • Can you expand the caption for the stele of Polybius? Like the date of creation, or where it is kept. You have mentioned a date for the Ahenobarbus relief. As far as I remember, you have details in Walbank's Polybius.
On my screens expanding that caption by more than a word or two creates MOS:SANDWICHes, and even shuffling causes ugly breaks of section header lines. (As you know, I usually go with longer captions for the Polybius image, but in this case I just don't have the space. I was in two minds as to whether to ditch it altogether.)
  • I would expect to find the word "mercenaries" in the description of Carthaginian armies, it is more explicit than "foreigners" imo. Moreover, it echoes the Mercenary War. Perhaps you could add that the officers remained Punic (Xanthippus being an exception).
I am extremely unkeen on the use of the word "mercenary" which I have not used to describe Carthaginian troops in any of my 13 1PW articles. It was a derogatory expression used by their enemies (the Romans) and depreciated by most modern scholars, eg Goldsworthy's "a gross oversimplification". (They served under a variety of arrangements; for example, some were the regular troops of allied cities or kingdoms seconded to Carthage as part of formal arrangements.) "Mercenary War" also tends not to be used by modern scholars - eg Hoyos' Truceless War. The Romans - surprise! - don't refer to the troops of their own often unwilling allies as "mercenaries".
I could add the following explanation

Roman sources refer to these foreign fighters derogatively as "mercenaries", but the modern historian Adrian Goldsworthy describes to this as "a gross oversimplification". They served under a variety of arrangements; for example, some were the regular troops of allied cities or kingdoms seconded to Carthage as part of formal arrangements.

Personally I don't think that it is necessary, but if you think that it is it could be inserted.
That would be nice (I would say "Greek and Roman sources"). I didn't think of mercenary as a derogatory word though. T8612 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
T8612: Done. (Many people do. And the Romans intended it derogatorily.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, apart from the repetition of "arrangements" in the same sentence. Perhaps you can say "alliance" or "treaty". T8612 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Changed to "treaties". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this period Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Spain, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and the western half of Sicily in a military and commercial empire." I think the "during this period" should be removed or reworded, because Carthage already had most of these territories before Roman expansion.
Fair enough. Changed to 'By this period ...'

Its own expansion dates from the 6-5th century (in fact Carthage became hegemonic among all the Phoenician settlements of the Western Mediterranean, it did not really conquer lands).

Yes. That's why I write that Rome "had conquered"; but Carthage had "had come to dominate".

In short, its Empire was older than Rome's.

Thanks for that T8612. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit

I don't want to miss the last elephant war here, but this'll be a placeholder for now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As last time, link names and places in captions and explain context for Polybius image?
@FunkMonk: Good for you. Done and done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Denarius of C. Caecilius Metellus Caprarius" What's the first C. for? His article says his first name was Gaius?
C. is the standard abbreviation for Gaius. See here. It's because C was invented before G in Latin. Since Romans used C. in inscriptions, modern academic literature has retained this abbreviation. T8612 (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Celtic?
Done.
  • "The reverse depicts the triumph of his ancestor Lucius Caecilius Metellus, with the elephants he captured at Panormus." The Commons description says "Jupiter driving biga of elephants left"?
The Commons description is taken from the auction website. The interpretation that the scene depicts Metellus' triumph comes from the source (Crawford' Roman Republican Coinage). T8612 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Commons description should be modified to also state this to avoid confusion? FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. If you do that, you have to add sources to the Commons description and it gets awkward (though I have no idea of Commons' policies regarding this). The Commons description is still factually correct. T8612 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So did the elephants have a double meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, the scene is Jupiter driving a biga of elephants, because at the time Romans could not depict personal stuff on the coins (minted by magistrates). However, since Metellus made a triumph in the Circus with elephants, it is obvious that it is a reference to this event. So yes, there is a double meaning, like most coins minted during the Roman Republic. T8612 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the only reliable source I have is Crawford. Neither an auctioneer's blurb while trying to sell the coin, nor, I am afraid, T8612's erudite comments meet the threshold. Changing the Commons description is a new one on me, but I don't see why not, so long as the original uploader doesn't object.
  • "Infuriated by this missile fire the elephants fled" Infuriated even? Not just scared? Anyhow, the article body doesn't specify they were infuriated.
I can source it. And investigating, it seems that elephants behave differently when annoyed to when frightened. Or one source uses "enraged". But I take your larger point. I have gone with a more neutral, and less eyebrow raising, "panicked" per Goldsworthy, and matched the lead to the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Placeholder: will go Grecian in an hour or two. ——Serial # 13:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titter ye not! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easy work here, thanks!
Done.
  • Your "Further reading" item has been archived, it appears.
Cheers.
  • Per MOS:INITIALS, an initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien).
Fixed.
  • The '74 edition of Roman Republican Coinage was two volumes; know which this is?
It wasn't my addition, but it turns out to be volume I. Fixed. Ah: I see that the resident expert agrees.
It's the first one, but it's not that important as page numbering is spread over the two tomes. Now that I've checked it, there is a mistake with Walbank 1979. Walbank published his Commentary in three tomes over the years, Tome 1 in 1957, Tome 2 in 1967, and Tome 3 in 1979. The First Punic War is treated in the first one, while the article mentions Tome 3. Correct ref is ISBN-13: 978-0198141525. Gog, you will probably have to change your other articles with this ref. T8612 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. (I shall amend the others.)
Interestingly I have only cited this work in one other article, where I correctly refer to volume 1, 1957. I don't know what went wrong this time, but thanks for picking it up.
  • It's unnecessary to link to the same book six times; it might be, if you could link to the individual chapters, but of course GBooks are wanky like that. (Rankov's entry, for example, doesn't lose anything not being linked for the seventh time.)
As you will. Delinked.
  • Talking of Rankov, his entry, although to the same edition of Hoyos, has a different ISBN to the others?
I have standardised on what it says in the book, even though WorldCat and the hyphenator disagree.
Done.
The references/bibliography are formatted consistently.
The monographs are either authored by experts in the field, published by respectable presses...or both. The journals are confirmed as each utilising a process of blind peer review. Works cited are of the highest quality.
I have found no unused sources whose inclusion would significantly improve the article further.
The only remaining question has to be: how much does a Grecian earn?  :) All the best! ——Serial # 13:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial # Mr Howerd says its six denarii a year all found, and all the strigiling you can handle. Many thanks for this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Hi Ian, given the progress above, could I have permission to push the next one above the parapet? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Push it over the parapet and see if anyone ducks? Why not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2020 [28].

The Minute Man

edit
Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bring an article about a statue to your attention to be reviewed. In January when the Lexington–Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar had its day on the front page, I noticed that the statue on the obverse of the coin had no article. Over the past 5 months, I have dug into the literature and have moved the article from a DYK, to a GA, and now here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

edit
  • The statue was unveiled in 1875 for the centennial of the battle of Battle of Concord.
  • Since then the statue has been a Suffragette symbol and a symbol of the United States National Guard and Air National Guard. It has also been used on coins such as the Lexington–Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar and the Massachusetts state quarter.
  • Since when? How about just ...
  • The statue has been a Suffragette symbol, a symbol of the United States National Guard and Air National Guard, and has been used on coins such as the Lexington–Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar and the Massachusetts state quarter.
  • It received critical acclaim and continues to be praised by commentators.
  • noticed that the pose is very similar to the pose of the

I see Ceoil is still ceing, so I'll pop in after he is done for more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing
  • because he was a local and had family connections.
  • Had family connections to what or whom? The battle? The committee?
  • The pose of The Minute Man was made more natural in the enlargement process by working with models.
  • passive voice ... in fact a lot of passive voice in that paragraph ...
  • In the audience during the unveiling were dignitaries such as Ulysses S. Grant and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
  • Reverse? Dignitaries were ... in the audience ?
  • The movement of the new statue was made more fluid and natural.
  • Passive voice again ... French did this, right? It's not clear why passive voice is used.

That's all I've got. Ceoil is a more competent writer than I am, so I defer to him on all aspects and will wait to hear from others on comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, just curious, why is an American article using dmy rather than mdy dates? Do you want me to run a script to switch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, pending resolution of additional source from Wehwalt; please ping me if I forget to weigh in once Wehwalt is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Ceoil

edit

Placeholder. Have read about half, and made trivial edits. Impressions are good...well written, short but to the point. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are first rank and high quality; impressively are all from dead trees. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On prose and quality of sources. Any quibbles i had were fixed directly. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

edit

I can hardly not review this, given your numismatic introduction.

  • "only considered Daniel Chester French for The Minute Man because he was a local" I would simply say he was from Concord.
  • " Several architects submitted designs to the town, including French's brother, but the design was won by James Elliot Cabot.[19][20" I would say "competition" rather than "design".
  • "On the front, it is inscribed with the third and fourth verse of Ralph Waldo Emerson's Concord Hymn.[21]" It's the whole first stanza isn't it?
    • This is what the sources say

      "The statue's includes an inscription of Emerson's 1837 poem "Concord Hymn" with the famous lines "Here once the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the the world" (3-4)." Richardson 2015

      "The pedestal inscribed with the tag from Emerson's "Concord Hymn" thus memorializes these "embattled farmers" confronted and oppressed by an unwelcome presence from the start: "By the rude bridge that arched the flood,/Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,/Here once the embattled farmers stood,/And fired the shot heard round the world." Kowalski 2007

      "As a finishing touch, artisans "chiseled and lettered" the pedestal's front panned with the stirring first stanza of Emerson's beloved July 4, 1837, poem, "Concord Hymn": "By the rude bridge that arched the flood,/Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,/Here once the embattled farmers stood,/And fired the shot heard round the world." Holzer 2019

      I will change it to the first stanza. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, the statue is meant to represent Isaac Davis (soldier)? Our article on him goes into some detail on this and the use of Davis's descendants and plow as models but I see no mention here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that Davis was the model did not appear at all in my research. The sources I have claim that he worked with unidentified models in Boston or himself for the statue. It appears that the claim comes from a rare 1945 pamphlet (that we would consider self-published today). I have searched, and there are no digital copies. I guess I could go down to the Library of Congress (the closet loction to me with a copy) when COVID-19 clears up, but if it were true I would expect one of the books or journal articles to mention it. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 03:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things on second look.

  • "Battle of Concord" is not linked on first usage.
  • It might be helpful in the history section to have a few words explaining the battle. British sought to prevent Americans from crossing the bridge, Americans fired, First American victory, possibly a mention of Lexington a few hours earlier.
  • Do we have an explanation as to why the sculpture is bronze while the cannons were brass? I realize they are basically the same thing.
  • How solid is the source that says that the cannons were donated because the Town of Concord lacked money? There's no mention of it in the resolution or in the (very brief) congressional debates) and they authorized a lot of money to be spent on the centennial celebration, judging by this. Copper prices in 1874 seemed to be about $500 a ton, and given what Concord spent on the centennial, I suspect they could have afforded the cost of metal.
  • The image in that source may be of the model and is certainly the best rendering showing such things as the minuteman's facial expression. Regrettably it is perforated but possibly you can find it elsewhere. Also, there is some useful background in there.
  • "The statue is 7 feet (2.1 meters) tall and depicts a minuteman at the Battle of Concord." He is not at the battle, he is on his field (thus his plow) and is about to go to the militia assembly that preceded the battle.
  • "and stepping forward toward the impending battle.[5]" Similar point.
  • You might explain how the minutemen got their name. The subject of the statue is, after all, leaving his plow at a moment's notice to go assemble for battle.
  • "Steve Maas of The Boston Globe suggests that French avoided the celebration in case the statue was panned by contemporary critics.[4]" colorful, but you're using a recent bio of French. What does that say?
  • In your description of the 1836 ceremony, I would mention that Emerson was part of it, as he recited or sang "Concord Hymn", which was, I believe, composed for that purpose. I would nail down for the reader that fact and a mention of the first stanza, especially "fired the shot" etc.
  • "The Minute Man has been depicted on United States coins since it debuted. It appears on the obverse of the Lexington–Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar which was minted in 1925.[34] The statue also appears on the reverse of the 2000 Massachusetts state quarter next to an outline of the state.[35]" The first sentence of this passage seems a bit off. It appeared on coins 51 and 126 years after its debut.
Hopefully that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi Guerillero, I gather this would be your first FA if successful, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Any of the above reviewers can volunteer for this, or you can place a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I could help, but they are all hard print sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have most of the articles, Gross 2011 and Ganz, and can access the newspapers; the question is, have I got a conflict of interest at the moment? ——Serial # 18:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IF you think you might, declare it for the Coords and let them decide :) Methinks you can be trusted to check sources :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Serial if you can do a source review that would be great. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must be slow on the uptake because I don't know why they'd be a COI -- of course with SN anything is possible... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a kind of Schrödinger's cat COI  :) ——Serial # 11:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to have you do spotchecks, SN --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

edit
Formatting
  • I've never quite understood why some things (usually websites, newspapers I think) omit the sfn-citation style when that's otherwise prominent, but that's not an opposable concern: too many other seasoned FACkers do it for me to complain! Yet, it always seems a shame to spoil the clean lines of the "Citation" list for no reason.
  • Zarzeczny's entry should show the chapter's page range.
  • Earwig's copyvio detector raises no concerns ([29]): the similarities are all nouns, titles or quotes (with the minor exception that I'd suggest making "in case the statue was panned" into a direct quote).
Source review
Reference # Article claim Source Found on source page Notes Pass/needs attention
2 Gross 2011, p. 58 Powder Alarm, Sept 74, Minute men name Powder Alarm, Sept 74, Minute men name None
4 Gross 2011, p. 69 "drilling two and a half days a week" "One shilling, eight pence for their time drilling three times a week" Slight anomaly with the drilling time?
5 Gross 2011, p. 68 "emergency stockpiling…had fixed on Concord as the principle arsenal" "designated Concord as the stockpile for patriot cannons, gunpowder, and ammunition" Doesn't actually mention "Patriot cannons", but that can probably be intimated by context
7 Gross 2011, p. 112 "the spies report...Dartmouth...demanded action" "reports from spies and instructions from…Dartmouth, Gage ordered a preemptive strike on Lexington and Concord" Mostly OK, but can't see a mention of Lexington in a specific instruction, only "what neither side expected was the explosive combination of events", etc.
10 Gross 2011, p. 117 "Based on alerts from Prescott and reports from Lexington, 150 minutemen from Concord and Lincoln mustered on the Concord Common under the command of James Barrett." "alerts from Prescott...reports from Lexington, 150 minutemen from Concord and Lincoln mustered...Common under the command of James Barrett." Everything cited, but at this point I discovered that my hardcopy is slightly out of sync with the kindle edition used by the nominator! As such, this information is all contained in the source, but spread over a three-page range. Can the nom either confirm the material is all on one page or adjust it to a range? In any case, a couple of pages may always vary between editions, and that's insufficient to violate WP:V.
13 Gross 2011, p. 122 f. "cannon, musket balls, and flour...rendered unusable...gunpowder was removed before it could be seized" "Regulars thæw 500 pounds of musket balls into the millpond, broke open sixty barrels of flour, knocked the trunions off...cannon ", and the gunpowder is on a guy's back None
16 Gross 2011, p. 126 "minutemen who participated in the Battle of Concord went home after the British retreated from the bridge" "the British...panicked and ran...the militiamen dispersed" None
22a Holzer 2019, p. 41 "To the dislike of Emerson, the obelisk stands on the bank of the river where the British stood during battle" "Ralph Waldo Emerson, often complained, the hallowed site had been marked only by an obelisk situated 'on the ground on which the enemy stood'" I've got the Kindle edition of this too, but with no page numbers. This is the first page of Ch.2, so should easily be verified. Incidentally, if you have a way of creating page numbers for kindle, etc., editions, I'd love to hear it!
22a Holzer 2019, p. 41 "Unlike the earlier monument, it was to be placed on the bank where the Massachusetts militia stood" "to erect a proper statue 'on the identical ground occupied by our minutemen and militia,'...and employed Daniel French to prepare a statue to be erected on the specified spot" None
24a Maas 2015 "The statue was French's first full-size work; previously French had produced a bust of his father and one additional statue" "'the guy had never done a [full-length] statue'...His previous work had included a bust of his father, Judge Henry Flagg French, and nature-inspired sculpture" None
26 Holzer 2019, p. 44 "French researched The Minute Man by studying powder horns and buttons from the era" "Keen on accuracy, twenty-one-year-old French purchased a genuine antique musket and borrowed an authentic eighteenth-century powder horn, copying both props faithfully"/"Neighbor Jacob Green lent...coat adorned with coin-size pewter buttons" None
27 Richman 1972, pp. 99–100 "In 1873, his second clay model of the statue was accepted by the statue committee" See note. My reading is that this refers to the first model? And by the time the cttee saw it, hasn't it been cast in plaster? There is a second, lifesize, covered on p.101 and following; apologies if I've missed something.
29 Richman 1972, p. 101 "The pose of The Minute Man was made more natural in the enlargement process by working with models. By September 1874, the statue was completed and a plaster version of the clay statue was sent to Ames Manufacturing Works in Chicopee" "Judd stood for me...the full-sized plaster was completed and it was then transferred from Boston to the Ames Foundry in Chicopee None
32 Eaton 2019 "The statue was unveiled on April 19, 1875 during the centennial celebration of the battle of Battle of Concord, in a ceremony attended by Ulysses S. Grant and Ralph Waldo Emerson" "The Minute Man monument...dedicated on April 19, 1875, the 100th anniversary...speeches by Emerson and other dignitaries. Sitting in the audience was President Ulysses S. Grant." Can't see what n.33 brings to the table? (I can't access it, but Eaton seems to cover the essentials.)
35 Kowalski 2007 "The reworked statue cleaned up some imperfections in the face of the original statue and incorporated elements of Beaux-Arts. French made the movement of the new statue more fluid and natural" "French endowed the smaller version with much smoother, more assured movement" The reference to beaux-arts (note lower-case and italicised) is on p.49. Fluid and natural is fine, there's nothing specifically stating that there had been "imperfections in the face of the original statue" that needed cleaning. If it's on another page, could this be checked, otherwise reworded.
37b Richman 1972, p. 43 "A powder horn, mistakenly, sits on the man's back instead of on his hip where it can be used" Richman 1972's page range is 96-115.
38a Bergeron 2013 "His face is alert while his eyes are transfixed on the battle that he is ready to march into" "His hat tilted at a jaunty angle, the Minute Man holds his rifle in one hand and plough in the other, gazing toward the coming battle at 'the rude bridge' in Concord with a farmer-turned-warrior’s heroic resolution" Nothing about his alert physog though  :) and is "gaze" really synonymous with "transfixed", I wonder? You could quote the whole "farmer-turned-warrior" thing for much the same effect. FWIW, Richman 1972 p.102 refers to teh minute man as "full of determination and fire", if you want to use that.
40 Howard 1906, pp. 549–550 "Eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century art critics, such as Lorado Taft and H. C. Howard, have suggested that the pose was directly copied from the Roman sculpture. Howard in particular trivializes the sculpture as "little more than an Americanized rendition of the Apollo Belvedere" "As a matter of fact, the young farmer is little more than an Americanized rendition of the Apollo Belvedere" The reference to 18th/19th-C. critics, and Raft, in particular, needs referencing. Taft is mentioned by Howard 5/6 pages later, but that's in connection with another piece. (You could use Richman 1972 p.99, who quotes Taft "with the exception of the left arm, the pose is almost identical"). Neither of them were 18th century.
42 Holzer 2019, p. 45 "Beneath the pedestal is a copper time capsule from 1875 that contains items from past celebrations of the battle, maps, and photographs of both the sculpture and sculptor" "Installed over a time capsule—a copper box stuffed with maps and relics from previous battle commemorations, along with photographs of the statue and its sculptor" None
44b Minute Man National Historical Park "In 1975, a second time capsule was placed beneath the pedestal that included Girl Scouts USA pins, the United States Bicentennial's flag, and a cassette tape" " Contents of this second time capsule are: microfilm containing images of letters, photographs and scrapbooks made by the Girl Scouts; a cassette tape with “The Sounds of Concord”; an American flag; a Bicentennial flag; military patches; Girl Scout pins; and money" You could've added more items, by the way: a plain list is not an original work!
47 Seaton-Schmidt 1922, p. 3 "Anna Seaton-Schmidt referred to it as "the most inspiring of our solder monuments" in her 1922 biography of French in The American Magazine of Art" "one of the most inspiring of our solder monuments". It should be clarified either that she was writing in the 20s, or that—even then—she said it was "one of". There are, after all, other pretty inspiring soldier monuments, so as a statement it's not likely to go unchallenged  :)
49 Richardson 2015, pp. 35–39 "Alcott and other suffragettes appropriated the statue as a symbol of their struggle for voting rights, and the suffragettes made pilgrimages to the statue in the 1880s" (general treatment over a section) None.
52 Tower 1975 "In 1925, the United States Post Office Department released a five-cent stamp depicting the statue and verses from 'Concord Hymn'" "n 1925, however, there were two additional stamps: a 1‐cent showing Washington at Cambridge and a 5‐cent showing Daniel Chester French's statue of the Minute Man at Concord and quoting part of Ralph Waldo Emerson's poem." Nothing to do with source reviewing, but while I'm here, since you're not overburdened with images: how about the 1925 stamp to which you refer?
53 Holzer 2019, p. 57 "The United States Treasury has used the statue on both war bonds and savings bonds" "Less controversially, the statue graced US savings bonds as well as World War II victory bonds" None
55 Ganz 2008, pp. 88–98 "The statue also appears on the reverse of the 2000 Massachusetts state quarter next to an outline of the state" "statue of the Minuteman, after the statue by Daniel Chester French" Pp.88—89, not 88—98.
@Ian Rose: Partly due to what I can access, it's only about a third of the ~70 discrete citations, but there were no red alerts or issues raised. These are mostly minor tweaks of wording, page or date etc. Otherwise, the sourcing and its usage is sound; I found no major works unused that one would otherwise expect to see here.
Incidentally—source rev. hat firmly off—it's probably worth mentioning that Kipling visited the statue in the 1890s and declared himself "very near to choking" at the symbolism of the battlefield: "Much was at play for Kipling as he contemplated the statue of the minuteman", notes Christopher Benfey. Must've made an impact.
Anyway, nice article; give us a shout when you've been able to look over the points above. ——Serial # 15:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is one hell of a comprehensive spotcheck, tks SN! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Kipling has been added my replies are here

  • Zarzeczny: Done
  • Quote: done
  • 4: I took the "two and a half days a week" as having to show up three times a week. I can move it back towards the source if that seems off to you
  • 7: Changed to ordered a preemptive strike on Concord and changed to 112-113
  • 10: I don't own a physical kindle. I read books through read.amazon.com; at the bottom of the screen shows a page number. I've been using those numbers. The pagination is weird, but they were as good as I could get. The format doesn't make it easy. I wish the classicist got their way and we had line numbers. I rechecked my page numbers and I stand by them.
  • 27: Since it was the approved clay model and both Tolles and Holzer mention the second one was approved, Richman was talking about the second model. I'm going to replace with Holzer because he is the most explicit
  • 33: The exact date is in Boston National Historic Sites Commission 1959
  • 35: This came from Tolles 1999 "If the Minute Man statue reveals protean elements of the Beaux-Arts style, the reworked statuettes reflect a confident command. The result bespeaks the sculptor's added years of experience and recent tenure in Paris: sharpened, more expressive facial features, greater attention to textural variation, and a more animated play of light and shadow on fluid surfaces." I added the citation and made Beaux-Arts in italics.
  • 37b: I have no idea and the edit that added it isn't helpful. After some more searching, this is from Holzer. Changed.
  • 38a: I will take another look
  • 40: This is what taft said about the statue "It is interesting to note what this statue, so alert and so American in character, owes to its senior colleague of the Belvidere [sic]. One can hardly believe it, yet with the exception of the left arm, the pose is almost identical" (Richman 1972, p. 99) meta culpa on the centuries
  • 44b: Today I learned
  • 47: I already sate that the article was published in 1922. "One of the" is a one of the Words to Watch so I tried to attribute it. (I can walk to the monument from my apartment in 15 minutes or so. No image does it justice)
  • 52: I added a gallery
  • 55: Done

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, nice selection of images, Kipling a bonus, all queries resolved. Thanks very much for this. ——Serial # 14:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2020 [30].

James Thompson (surveyor)

edit
Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short ditty about the man who, in a way, made the "first map" of Chicago. I'd like to thank Hog Farm for reviewing this for GA status and epicgenius for giving a thoughtful peer review. If not an imposition, I'd like this to be TFA on August 4; should that not be possible, I understand and would like this to be a rewarding (and hopefully successful) FAC anyway. As always with my nominations, feel free to make any minor adjustments to the prose as you see fit. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - any chance of an image of the man himself? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit
  • to obtain legal title of their property: shouldn't this be "title to", not "title of"?
    • Fixed
  • He was the Probate Judge of Randolph County from 1831 to 1848, when a new Illinois Constitution made the County Judge of a county automatically in charge of probate: does this mean he was also the county judge?
    • No, I hope I made that clearer.
  • The pink line is almost invisible on the plat diagram in the legacy section. Could it be thickened? Or use the upright parameter to enlarge the image?

That's all I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's a minor point left above but it's not significant enough to stop me supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

edit
Lead
  • "as a young adult" - "young man" seems more natural to me.
  • Done
  • I can never keep up with MoS on capitalising offices, but why would Probate Judge be capitalised but county commissioner not be?
  • Apparently per JOBTITLES, they denote offices rather than titles and should thus be all lowercase.
  • 'associated with the word "Chicago"' - the article on Chicago gives an interesting etymology of the origin of the name. Worth a brief footnote, given the centrality of the place to the article?
  • Added to prose
Early career
  • "a road linking Kaskaskia to the state capital of Vandalia" - "to the then state capital", given that it's not now?
  • Done
Later years
  • "the County Judge John Campbell thereby assumed probate. In this capacity he dealt with the estates" - I think I'd replace the "he" with a "Thompson". I thought we were still talking about Campbell.
  • Done

And that is the sum total of my meagre gleanings. It looks good, and there's nothing in the above to stand in the way of Supporting. KJP1 (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Coord note

edit

I've added this to the urgents list but I'm not seeing a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
If there are no ISBNs for the older books, are there at least OCLCs?
I was able to find one for Andreas but not Montague, I'm afraid.
Aside from that, all sources seem reliable and appropriately and consistently used.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I left several comments at the peer review, all of which I feel have been resolved satisfactorily. I see no problems with this article as it is; it's short, but very well written. As such, I'll support on prose, per the peer review. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2020 [31].

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

edit
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 11th-century Salian emperor best known for his "Walk to Canossa". He is also one of the best known German monarchs, because his conflict with Pope Gregory VII gave rise to the Investiture Controversy. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Zwerg Nase

edit

Just at a glance, I'll go through it more thoroughly in a bit:

  • Please take a look at WP:CAPTION. Captions which are sentence fragments should not end with a period. This happens quite often in this article.
  • Done.
  • In the bibliography, there is quite a lot of information missing, like publishing locations, ISBN numbers, language parameters (Althoff for instance should be noted that it is in German). These need to be filled out.
  • Done/Not done. Sorry, I neglected the "Further reading" section. I never add publishing locations, because it is not useful information, but it consumes time and data-storage capacity. I deleted three works from the "F~~urther reading" section because I did not find them. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert in alt texts, but maybe you could clarify in the alt descriptions which of the images are photos and which are paintings and so forth?
  • Done.
  • In the lead, third paragraph, there should be a comma behind "Gregory VII".
  • Done.
  • Maybe it could be noted in the lead which house Henry comes from?
  • Done.

More to come. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your preliminary comments and thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little more:

  • There are three footnotes pointing to "Boyd 2020", which produces an error because the book in the bibliography is not formatted properly.
  • Done.
  • Early life: Since "King of Germany" is an established title, I think king should be capitalised here.
  • Done.
  • Under guardianship: I feel like the situation with Antipope Benedikt X needs to be explained a bit further, the article gives no mention of what the consequence was of two men being elected pope, especially considering a similar situation arises some paragraphs later after Nicholas' death.
  • Sorry I am not sure I understand your concern. Could you explain it. Thank you.
@Borsoka: Well, I read the paragraph and was confused over what happened after both Giovanni and Gerard were elected pope. So I think it at least needs a footnote that Giovanni is now considered an Antipope under the name Benedict X. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archbishop Anno needs to be wikilinked in the article body, not just in the lead. In the image caption as well.
  • Done.
  • "Béla died unexpectedly" - in battle or of natural causes?

Sorry this is taking so long, will go through the rest of the article later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • First years of majority: "although the Pope needed Henry's presence to overcome his enemies" - why?
  • Done.
  • Also, if Henry was the one who initiated the synod that elected Honorius II, but had since accepted Alexander II, who are the latters enemies now?
  • Done. (Honorius' Italian supporters)
  • Saxon Rebellion and Investiture Controversy: "Otto was summoned to "purge himself of that charge in single combat" early in August 1070" - From what I read later, he did not do so?
  • Done.
  • "Liemar, Archbishop of Bremen, Udo, Archbishop of Trier," - why is one wikilink just the first name and the other with title?
  • Done.
  • Road to Canossa: "and ended with the dramatic warning: "descend, descend!" - maybe make it clear that this was a demand for the pope to abdicate
  • Done.
  • Civil war: "A treatise was published in Henry's defence which emphasised his hereditary claim to his realms." - by whom?

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Family feuds: "but modern scholars have regarded her statements as an effective propaganda tool against Henry" - does Robinson say that most scholars have this view or is Robinson the only one to say so?
  • Yes, Robinson writes: "Her public statements at the synod of Constance and the council of Piacenza have never been taken seriously by modern scholarship...because of their knowledge of the nature of eleventh-century propaganda."
  • Restoration: "While in Mainz Henry ordered an investigation into the missing property of the Jews" - I think there should be a comma behind Mainz

I think that's it from me... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can now support, very well done! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and for your comments. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129

edit

Placeholder to look in: The topic's pretty close to my Adrian IV, so should be interesting. SERIAL# 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Heinrich_4_g.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Kaiser_Heinrich_IV_springt.jpg, File:SalamounUhry.jpg, File:Hugo-v-cluny_heinrich-iv_mathilde-v-tuszien_cod-vat-lat-4922_1115ad.jpg, File:Rudolf_von_Schwaben.jpg, File:Clement_III_-_Antipope.jpg, File:Ewangeliarz_emmeramski_4.jpg
  • Done.
  • File:HRR_10Jh.jpg is tagged for disputed accuracy
  • Caption modified to reflect the debate.
  • File:Castello_di_Canossa_(RE)_-_panoramio_(1).jpg needs an explicit tag for the structure
  • Deleted.
  • File:The_funeral_of_the_Emperor_Henry_IV.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
  • Deleted.
  • Done.

Aza24

edit

Support - based on my earlier readthrough in PR, (and a quick read through now) this is a super solid and informative article. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

edit
  • Let's get rid of the typographical errors: "annointment" should be "anointment", "annointed" should be anointed", "exlude" should be "exclude", "bloodstrained" should be "bloodstained", "instal" should be "install"
  • Done.
  • US-isms: "center" should be "centre", "favoritism" should be "favouritism", "northeatern" should be "north-eastern", "maneuvered" should be "manoeuvred",
  • Done/Undone. The term "maneuvered" is part of a quote.
  • Some odd wording: "denied to invest", "Rudolf of Rheinfelden and Berthold of Zähringen left the royal court giving rise to rumours of an aristocratic plot" - comma needed after "court"
  • Done. (?)
  • "long-awaited" should be "long awaited", "oath-breaking" should be "oath breaking"
  • Done.
More to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the age of six, Henry succeeded his father unopposed." Hold on. succeeded his father in what capacity? Not as emperor. Not as King of Germany; the lead says he succeeded to that title when he was four.
  • Done. (?)
  • "Agnes appointed a wealthy aristocrat, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, to be duke of Swabia" Capitalise "Duke".
  • Done.
  • I do not think so. I have not read texts connecting the two marches.
  • "His advisor, the monk Hildebrand, was determined to strengthen the popes' autonomy" Should be "pope's".
    • I think plural is the proper form: Hildebrand wanted to strengthen the position of the Papacy.
      Perhaps that would be a better wording then: "His advisor, the monk Hildebrand, was determined to strengthen the autonomy of the papacy."
    • Done. (Thank for Srnec for it.)
  • "The Pope held a synod which issued a decree, In nomine Domini, establishing the cardinals' right to elect the popes." Weren't they doing this already?
  • No, previously the popes had been elected by the Roman clergy and people, at least in theory.
  • Done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • Henry ignored Godfrey's last will and granted Lower Lorraine to his own son, Conrad. Who did Godfrey want to get the appointment?
  • Done.
  • destroyed Rome. Suggest "sacked Rome"
  • Done.
  • Burchard of Halberstadt unexpected death -> " Burchard of Halberstadt's unexpected death"
  • Done.
  • Conrad disappears after he was deposed. Only the chart at the bottom tells me he died in 1101.
  • Done.

Srnec

edit

I'll start with the lead and see if I can keep it up. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Henry decided to recover the royal estates that had been lost during his minority. Better to say "recovered" if he did in fact recover them or "endeavoured to recover" if he did not.
  • Done.
  • He insisted on his royal prerogatives relating to the appointment. Why not just say "royal prerogative to appoint"?
  • Done.
  • I don't think disconnect is the right word in paragraph 2, but am unsure what is.
  • Done. (?)
  • I replaced all instances of Lombardian with Lombard. Is there a reason the former was used? I think Italian would also work fine.
  • Thank you. I changed the term in some sentences.
  • I'm a little uncomfortable with Landfrieden (or, imperial peace) since that is not a translation of the German. Robinson, p. 319, gives the translation you'd expect (territorial peace) and contrasts it with Reichsfriede (of 1103!).
  • Done. Thank you: I mechanically copied the wl.
  • others describing him as an exemplary monarch. It is obvious why and to whom he is a villain, but this sentence should ideally give some inkling of why and to whom he is exemplary.

Continuing... Srnec (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. (?)
  • I find the capitalization of Church throughout a bit odd, especially in any case where it could be replaced by "ecclesiastical" without any change in meaning.
  • Done.
  • I just noticed now that of all the things linked or mentioned in the lead, the Investiture Contest isn't one of them.
  • Done.
  • Germany, Italy and Burgundy were no more than collections of semi-independent territories, each administered by a prelate or a lay aristocrat, under the Salian monarchs. I'd tone down "no more than". I've read sentences like this a lot on WP and in RS, but they always strike me as misleading.
  • Done. (?)
  • Pope Victor II who had come from Italy to Germany. For what purpose did the pope come?
  • Done.
  • royal ministerialis (or unfree servant). I know it's what the source uses, but is that the best gloss here?
  • I think yes - it is relevant and reliable info.
@Borsoka: It is true, yes, and a gloss of some kind is needed. But if I put myself in the shoes of a non-medievalist, I ask "how is an unfree servant different from a slave?" and if I click the ministerialis link it suggests something more than a mere scullion. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. (?)
  • She paid little attention to Burgundy and Italy, but he insisted on her royal prerogative to appoint bishops and abbots to the vacant German sees and monasteries. Is the change from she to he intentional?
  • Done.
  • Godfrey the Bearded took possession of Spoleto and Fermo in the Papal States. I have reworded because I don't think the term "Papal States" is appropriate here and the probability of a royal grant is relevant.
  • Thank you.
  • His advisor, the monk Hildebrand. Should Hildebrand be linked here?
  • Done.
  • The paragraph beginning Andrew I of Hungary faced his brother's rebellion does not mention Henry IV. The Hungarian stuff in general is placed chronologically but does not seem to fit well. Béla I of Hungary wanted to make peace isn't related to the preceding paragraph.
  • Yes, but these events will influence Henry's life in two years.
  • I don't find the use of or in parenthetical glosses necessary.
  • Done.
  • The article is relentlessly chronological.
  • Yes, it is. First of all its main source, Robinson also follows a chronological order. Secondly, chronology is the most neutral way to present historical events. We could hardly deviate chronology, because events ocurring in paralel influenced each during Henry's life (conflicts with the dukes, with the Saxons, with the Popes and with the neighboring countries).
Not comprehensive yet... Srnec (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adalbert of Bremen, in concert with the King's young friend, Werner, seized church property and took bribes for royal appointments. They persuaded the King to grant monasteries to the most powerful prelates and princes to appease their envy. I find this rather opaque. Why was church property seized and on what grounds? Envy of what?
  • Done.
  • Prince Richard I of Capua who had acknowledged the Popes' suzerainty in 1059 rose up against Pope Alexander II and invaded the Papal States. How would you feel about Patrimony of Saint Peter or Roman Campagna in lieu of Papal States? At the least, I'd go singular Papal State (and link it, since I nixed the other link).
  • Done.
  • Otto fled to Saxony From where?
  • Done.
  • Agnes returned to Germany Last we saw her she was in Germany.
  • Done.
  • If there's enough for an article, Gregory of Vercelli deserves a red link. For Adalbert of Worms see the German Wiki.
  • Done.
  • His plan to lead an armed pilgrimage, however, clearly ignored the secular rulers' widely acknowledged monopoly to take up arms in the defence of Christianity. Who was Gregory envisioning in arms?
  • Done.
  • Most German aristocrats and bishops hurried to Breitungen. Most implies a majority, is that correct?

More below. Almost there... Srnec (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • He appointed a new legate No name?
  • Done. (His name is unknown.)
  • A treatise published in Henry's defence. Published at this juncture?
  • Done.
  • <!--Nineteen---> Italian, <!--seven---> German and a lone Burgundian. Is there a reason we don't want to number the Germans and Italians out loud?
  • Done.
  • Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Henry again in late 1084. Was he "re-upping" his excommunication of 1080? What's the deal here?
  • Done.
  • "the king", "the pope", "the emperor", etc. in running text do not need capitals
  • Copyeditors follow a different approach: when the text refers to a given king, pope, emperor, they use capitals. I cannot decide what is the correct approach, but I adopted the copyeditors' method.
  • promised the royal crown to him Could we not say "promised to crown him king"? Or what exactly did they promise?
  • Done.
  • Hermann of Salm sought Henry's permission Was he giving up his claim to be king? Or was he merely asking for a truce of a kind? And why did he want to go to Lorraine?
  • Done.
  • forcing her to seek refuge in the mountains Could we link the mountains? Apennines, I presume?
  • Not done. I think you are right, but the cited source does not name the mountains.
  • Bretislav II, Duke of Bohemia. Last we knew Bohemia was ruled by King Vratislaus. A short explanation would be useful.

And finally...

  • Robert II, Count of Flanders, allied with Bishop Manasses of Cambrai against Walcher whom Henry had appointed as bishop of Cambrai. We need background here, since there are two bishops of Cambrai. (Should Walcher get a link?)
  • Henry V invaded Lorraine. I'm not sure this is the best characterization. Robinson says, "He entered Lotharingia with 'a great army', intending to drive his father from his refuge." To me, "invaded Lorraine" suggests that the duke or the aristocracy of Lorraine either did not recognise Henry V or had rebelled. But is this the case on 22 March?
  • Yes, the Lotharingian aristocrats were in rebellion against Henry V.
  • Eupraxia was also a first cousin of Philip I of France. I haven't found a source which makes this connection, but I am noting it here since it was the first thing I thought of.
  • The article has no major lacunae. It seems very inward looking and we get little sense of foreign policy (beyond papal). Perhaps that is the nature of Henry IV's reign, perhaps that is the nature of the sources, perhaps an editorial decision. The only thing I know about that is barely touched upon is his relations with southern Italy: e.g. what happens between para. 2 and 3 of §3.6 (pp. 218–219 in Robinson). Obviously the article cannot cover everything in detail. Its strictly chronological construction is choppy at points, especially the middle sections (3.3 thru 4.1). Sections 3.1 and 3.3 are quite long; 4.1 would benefit from a picture. But I'm not holding any of this against it as regards FAC. I actually found it pretty readable, but then this is my kind of history.
  • 1. I think the nature of Henry's reign is responsible for the lack of information on foreign policy. He did not have much time to deal with other issues than his conflict with the Papacy, Relevants events are mentioned: his intervention in Hungary and his alliance with the Byzantine Empire. 2. I added info on the Treaty of Melfi. I assume this is the only relevant issue relating the Normas that was not covered. 3. I made some copyedits, However, I am still a great fan of chronology. :) 4. I shortened the two sections. 5. I added a picture. Finding proper pictures is quite difficult. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now gone over the whole article and have no objection to it as an FA. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

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

  • There is a harv error showing via one of the ref checking scripts: "Harv error: link from CITEREFBoyd2020 doesn't point to any citation."
  • Done.
  • Henry III emphasized the priestly nature of kingship, attributing it to the kings' anointment by holy oil. I'm not sure if "it" refers to kingship, or the priestly nature of kingship. Do you mean that Henry felt that a king was not a king without the anointment?
  • Archbishop Hermann crowned Henry king in Aachen on 17 July 1054: I assume this is king of Germany, but I think it should be stated.
  • Done.
  • The Hungarian envoys and Henry's representatives concluded a peace treaty: I was surprised by "peace" treaty; were they at war? Unless we need the details, just "concluded a treaty" might be enough.
  • Done.
  • The reformist clerics elected Bishop Gerard pope in Florence in December 1058. The previous paragraph says they decided to elect him in 1057 and he was designated pope. What exactly is the sequence? If prior to December 1958 Gerard is not the pope then I think the earlier paragraph needs to be rephrased; if he was pope before December 1958 this sentence is confusing.
  • Done.
  • The article is very long; it's not too long to be an FA, but please do think about cutting a little. I would not oppose over this.
  • That same month, Peter Damian completed a treatise...: can we say who Damian is? A churchman of some kind, presumably?
  • Done.
  • Respect for the monarch also declined in Germany. The retainers of Abbot Widerad of Fulda and Bishop Hezilo of Hildesheim ignored Henry's commands when an armed conflict broke out between them in his presence at a church in Goslar in June 1063. Separating these two sentences makes it appear that the evidence for the first sentence is more than just the incident in the second sentence; is that the case?
  • Done.
  • After Anno went to Italy to recognise Alexander II as pope at a synod in Mantua in May 1064, Adalbert could strengthen his influence with Henry. I'm not sure I understand the intended meaning here, but if I have it right, I'd suggest rewording as "Anno went to Italy to recognise Alexander II as pope at a synod in Mantua in May 1064, and in his absence Adalbert was able to strengthen his influence with Henry."
  • Done.
  • Lampert's report is not fully reliable, but Anno was ousted from Henry's court If Anno's ousting is more reliably sourced than Lampert's report, I'd make this clearer; perhaps "Lampert's report is not fully reliable, but it is known that Anno was ousted from Henry's court".
  • Done.
  • Prince Richard I of Capua rose up against Pope Alexander II and invaded Roman Campagna. Can we put a date on this? E.g. "Late in 1066,...".
  • Done.

More to come, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I am grateful to you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Henry had hired Egeno against Otto: suggest "had paid Egeno to accuse Otto" as being more direct, if Bruno the Saxon's account is specific enough to support saying this.
  • Done.
  • Henry placed them in the German princes' custody on 12 June 1071. I'm not sure who is meant by "German princes". Is this just a synonym for "German aristocrats", which you've used earlier?
  • Done. (dukes and bishops)
  • When Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen died...: this sentence is out of strict chronological order. I assume this is because the whole paragraph is about Henry's financial relationship with the church, but that's not very clear. Can we add some connective tissue to make this point?
  • Moved.
  • Henry released Otto of Nordheim in May 1072, but Magnus of Saxony remained imprisoned: am I right in thinking that this sentence has nothing to do with the remainder of the paragraph? I assume it's placed here to make the narrative strictly chronological, but it's disorienting. Could we append it to the paragraph two before, where it can become the second half of the sentenc starting "Henry placed them..."?
  • Moved.
  • Pope Alexander II decided to investigate and summoned all German bishops who had been accused of simony or corruption to Rome. As far as I can tell we don't report the outcome of this; what happened? Did the bishops go to Rome? What was the impact, if any, on Henry of Alexander's investigation?
  • Done. (The Pope died soon.)
  • The appointment of low-ranking men to royal offices outraged the German aristocrats. This has already been mentioned at the start of the section, specifically with reference to the Saxons; do we need both references? Is the later mention an expansion of the outrage of the Saxons to the rest of the aristocrats?
  • because it was not in line with the 1059 decree on papal elections: the only reference to 1059 in the article that this might refer to is the Treaty of Melfi, but as far as I can tell that's not what's intended. Is there a possible link, or perhaps a footnote?
  • He ordered the Saxon aristocrats to assemble at Goslar on 29 June. The Saxons asked Henry to redress their grievances, but Henry made no concessions and withdrew from Goslar to Harzburg. Otto of Nordheim soon convinced the assembled Saxons to take up arms for their liberties. It's only with the third sentence that it becomes apparent that the Saxons did in fact assemble at Goslar. I think this should be clearer. Here's one possible rewording: "He ordered the Saxon aristocrats to assemble at Goslar, where on 29 June they asked him to redress their grievances. Henry made no concessions and withdrew from Goslar to Harzburg."
  • Done.
  • What was the resolution of Regenger's accusation? Was it simply ignored when he died? If so, is it really worth mentioning?
  • Done.
  • Henry did not intervene in the conflict, although the German prelates under investigation were his staunch supporters: I don't follow this: the only investigation mentioned prior to this is the accusation of simony against Herman 1 of Bamberg.
  • Done.
  • He also threatened Henry's five advisors with excommunication... This phrasing makes me wonder if this is a reference to the (at least) five that were excommunicated the previous year; is that the case? If there is a connection to be drawn I think it should be clearer.
  • Done.
  • They acknowledged the Pope's decision about Bishop Herman of Bamberg's deposition, and the Pope charged Siegfried with holding a reforming synod in Germany. I don't understand either half of this sentence. What was the Pope's decision, and what does "deposition" refer to? Do you mean "decision to depose Bishop Herman of Bamberg"? If so, what's the force of "acknowledged"? Do you mean they agreed to it, or agreed not to oppose it? And what was improper about a reforming synod held in Germany? And is it relevant to an article about Henry IV?
  • Done.
    OK on the first half, but why was holding a "reforming synod" a bad thing in Gregory's eyes?
  • In his response, Henry asked the Pope to keep their correspondence secret because he thought that most German dukes were keen to maintain their conflict I don't understand this; can you clarify?
  • Not relevant to this FA, but I am curious about the mention of bishops hurrying to Breitungen as if to fight; were the bishops the heads of militias that were numerous enough to matter in battle? Did the bishops themselves arm and fight?
I do not know whether the bishops were armed on this occasion. I think bishops commanding armies became common in the following century. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the end of the "Saxon Rebellion and Investiture Controversy" section; more probably tomorrow. This is a fine article; I'm finding little nitpicky points of narrative to ask about, but the details are all there and the writing is plain but clean. I'm really enjoying reading through this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Henry used force to prevent the negotiations: a bit vague, especially given that we've just said the kings were absent.
  • Done.
  • The new legate, whose name was not recorded: if the implication is that Cardinal Bernard has been replaced, I'd make that clearer.
  • Done.
  • because both Rudolf and Henry were forced to abandon the battlefield Looking at the article on the battle it seems that "forced to abandon" is not quite right; it was at least partly a misunderstanding by Rudolf at the end of the battle.
  • Done. (The text deleted.)
  • Wibert was installed as pope: I think "Clement was installed as pope" would be less confusing, since in the previous paragraph he's referred to as Clement, not Wibert.
  • Done.
  • Given how important Gregory is to the story, I think his death should be explicitly mentioned. Currently we only find out he is dead when we mention his successor, Victor III, more than two years later.
  • promised to achieve his election as king: of Germany?
  • Done.

Now done through the end of the "Family feuds" section. More tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And finally:

  • Conrad was abandoned by his allies and died unforgotten in Tuscany. Presumably a typo for "forgotten"?
  • Done.
  • He granted Robert II of Flanders the crusaders' spiritual privileges for their fight against the Emperor's supporters, promising the "remission of sins" to them: a bit difficult to parse. How about "He granted Robert II of Flanders the "remission of sins" (the same spiritual privilege granted to crusaders) for his fight against the Emperor's supporters"? And I see you have "their fight", which I've changed to "his fight" since the subject appears to be Robert -- or did I miss your intended meaning?
  • Done. "His" is fine.
  • Already exhausted, Henry sent a letter to his son: is this literal exhaustion (of troops, resources, support...) or figurative, as in despair?

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most points struck; just two left with questions, above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I think both issues were addressed. Please let me know if I am wrong, Borsoka (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand either point, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can you give a quick explanation here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the issues I raised have been fixed. I'm not competent to judge the content but the material is well-organized and presented in clean prose. I think there's a tendency to use strings of short simple sentences, particularly where the information is coming from more than one source, and I've made some copyedits to join short sentences into longer ones, to make the prose flow better. More could probably be done along those lines but there's nothing wrong with it as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tnak you for your support - and also for your comprehensive review and edits. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I see an image review, but no source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: can I ask you to review the sources? Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not usually participate in these things. What does a source review entail?
All of the sources listed pass WP:RS and the less topical ones (Andersson & Gade and Pflanze) are used appropriately. Do we need Pavlac and Lott, and are articles in that work not attributed? I notice Weinfurter's Salian Century is absent. It is actually a rather short bibliography given the topic, but with a modern biography in English (Robinson) there isn't much need to go searching. I didn't look at further reading. Srnec (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt answer. I deleted the sole reference to Pavlac and Lott (because it does not verify info in the sentence that is not verified by other source) and moved their work to the Further reading section. Yes, I purportedly failed to use Weinfurter, because I would like to use it in other articles close to the subject, such as Salian dynasty - I prefer to use different sources in related articles to avoid systematic PoV issues. I am convinced that Weinfurter does not contradict any statement in the article and his most relevant views are covered. His excellent work is now mentioned in the "Further reading" section. Thank you for noting his absence. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2020 [33].

Vespro della Beata Vergine

edit
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Vespers for the Blessed Virgin, or Vespers of 1610, by Claudio Monteverdi whose birthday is today. His opera L'Orfeo, premiered in 1607, is the first opera still widely performed, and the Vespers are similarly exceptional. Monteverdi, aspiring to a better positiom than court musician in Mantua, demonstrated the broad range of his abilities, writing with a post in Rome in mind, but instead went to San Marco, Venice, a few years later. We don't know if the music was ever performed completely during his lifetime, nor if he actually expected it to be performed that way. Certainly musicologists and musicians have been fascinated from the 20th century on. Monteverdi set much more text than the usual 5 psalms + Magnificat, and required a 10-part choir in one psalm, and a rich orchestra. He combined the ever-present Gregorian chant with dramatic and virtuoso elements from the emerging opera, and offered a great diversity in musical styles and expression. Here is a short introduction, - in the background you hear an extreme performance, a recording which renders only the music Monteverdi wrote (and no additions to make it a proper liturgical vespers service), with 10 singers, and soloists for all instruments. I heard them in concert at the Rheingau Musik Festival which will be missed this year.

The article - the work of many over many years - received a GA review by The Rambling Man, a peer review with little attention (thank you SoWhy), and additional recent comments from RLO1729. Main contributors include Verbcatcher, Thoughtfortheday and Sparafucil. The main inspiration came from Brian Boulton who wrote the articles about the composer and his operas, and who generously left me the sources he had collected, the greatest honour I received in my ten years here. RIP. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Monteverdi_Marienvespers_voorpagina.jpg: source link is dead and this needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Viola_da_braccio.jpg
  • File:Monteverdi_Marienvesper_Altus.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Deus in adiutorium.ogg: what gives the uploader the right to publish this work under a CC license? Same with Laudate_pueri.ogg
  • File:AveMarisStellaChant.jpg is tagged as lacking author information, and as it's at Commons it will need a tag for status in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for looking, calling help as before, RexxS. - I copied the ogg files just yesterday from FA Monteverdi, so felt safe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done what I can:
    1. File:Monteverdi Marienvespers voorpagina.jpg: source link given is the German Wikipedia. Unfortunately when it was uploaded to Commons, the file on dewiki was deleted and the information hidden, so I can't trace the source back. If you know a dewiki admin, you could ask if they can supply the actual source. Having said that, there are seven other copies on the internet according to Google search, but all are lower resolution, implying that the version on Commons is from a scan. In any case, the source is unlikely to matter as the original document is so old (1610) that no copyright is likely to exist unless the author of the Bassus Generalis has been living in Shangri-La. I've added {PD-US-expired|country=IT}, which isn't strictly applicable, but Republic of Venice doesn't have an ISO 3166-1 code.
    2. File:Monteverdi Marienvesper Altus.jpg: Again, the transfer to Commons broke the link back to the original upload. Similar to above regarding source. I've added {PD-US-expired|country=IT} and an English description. Perhaps Gerda will be kind enough to check my translation, please?
      You translated well. What you can't translate is that - in German - de:Marienvesper became a genre, but not in English. I don't know if Vespers for the Blessed Virgin, the translation of the Latin, is commonly used for such a thing, or again only a translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    3. File:AveMarisStellaChant.jpg: interesting one. The 1912 Antiphonale Sacrosanctae Romamae Ecclesiae pro diurnis horis although published in 1912 by the Vatican, was standardised in 1570 after the Council of Trent. So the author's interests are not under consideration. The questions then are (i) does the Vatican own a copyright on the work? and (ii) which copyright law is applicable. It turns out that the Vatican does have a copyright law that dates from 2011, but which effectively re-enacts Italian copyright law. Additionally, the Holy See is a member to the Berne Convention, so we can treat it pretty much as we would Italy. It has VA as its ISO 3166-1 code. I've added {PD-US-expired|1=PD-old-100|country=VA}. The author of the chant may have been any one of a number of fourth or fifth century saints. The collection probably dates back to Pope Gregory I (died 604), but wasn't standardised until 1570. I've added a brief note to the author field.
    4. File:Deus in adiutorium.ogg: this is a tough one. The licence implies that the uploader Guido Magnano, who is the director of Cantica Symphonia, the performers, made a live recording of one of their performances in 2000 and had the authority in 2010 to release it under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. As the copyright owner is normally the owner of the recording equipment, none of that seems improbable to me. But then again, I'm usually inclined to AGF that an uploader who claims to be the photographer is likely to be telling the truth unless something suggests otherwise. I don't see anything amiss here, but perhaps I'm missing something – Nikkimaria have you spotted something suspicious?
    5. File:Laudate pueri.ogg: as above.
      1. @RexxS: The director on the recordings is identified as Giuseppe Maletto, while the uploader is Guido Magnano - what leads you to believe these are one and the same? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        1. @Nikkimaria: Ah! My bad. I was reading the description field and thought "dir. G. Maletto" was the same name as the uploader. It shows how bad my Italian is that I can't even transcribe a proper name. It looks like Guido Magnano is only occasionally active on Commons, but maybe a note on their talk page would get more information and maybe sort out an OTRS. Otherwise I agree the licence doesn't look valid. --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if I've missed anything. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, both. Would you, RexxS, perhaps address the uploader of the sound files? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a request on their talk page. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He replied quite promptly at c:User talk:RexxS #Deus in adiutorium and linked to the Italian article on the ensemble where he's named as playing the positive organ. It all looks in order to me. Perhaps a hidden comment in the files descriptions on Commons would help for future queries? --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smerus

edit

Fine article, I am happy to support FA status. I have no comments after a first reading, but will add any if they occur on further readings.--Smerus (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK here come first comments:

Lead
edit
  • para 1 " to distinguish it from other vespers printed in 1640 and 1651". I suggest " to distinguish it from his other Vespers printed in 1640 and 1651." (Capital "V" as we are referring here to specific "Vespers")
    Smerus, late q: why would Vespers be italic, when we have other generic names straight, Sonata, Requiem, Symphony? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say because, first, we are here talking of a specific Vespers rather than Vespers generically; and secondly, because we are here using Vespers in effect as an abbreviation of Vespro della Beata Vergine, which would be in italics if we wrote it in full.--Smerus (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not there yet, sorry. For the first, a specific one, we still don't say Requiem when speaking of a specific such composition, but Requiem, and not Symphony when speaking about a specific symphony, but Symphony. For the second, I have a hard time understanding Vespers, a plural word, as a short way to say Vespro, singular, plural would be Vesperae. Therefore, I'd think the capital Vespers would indicate clearly enough that this particular composition is meant, not the general kind of service, without italics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 "musician and composer of the Gonzaga" - standard English practice would be to say "of the Gonzagas"
  • Para 3 "grappled with"..."as opposed to" - I suggest neater would be "discussed"..."or"
Monteverdi in Mantua
edit
  • para 1 "advanced to become his leader, maestro della musica, in late 1601" - I suggest simply "advanced to become maestro della musica in late 1601". "his leader" is ambiguous, and redundant.
  • para 2 "Probably aspiring to a better position...." As the subject of the sentence is "the composition" this needs adjusting. Also the use of "any" is not really colloquial imo. I think you mean that "M. wrote it to demonstrate that he was able to compose in a variety of contemporary styles, perhaps to advocate his own position."

More anon. Best,--Smerus (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all taken, - I tried to rephrase the last-mentioned sentence, but am not yet convinced of "advocate". Please check. Further below, we found that Legacy would profit from more text, and possibly from being placed at the very end, - help with that welcome. - Please feel free to make minor changes right away, such as Vespers for vespers, with edit summaries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, I began moving things to a Legacy section - better name welcome for final evaluation - at the very end, in response to several requests below. It's still in progress, and help still welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

Vespers
edit

I am a bit out of my depth here (not my religion) but I think the phrase "Vespers contained five psalms..." is not quite clear. It did at the time, but as I understand it, it does not now, (and there are different versions for different rites). So maybe "Vespers at that period contained...." (with perhaps a note to explain the changes in 1970).

Whatever religion, the article Vespers is problematic. As far as I understand, "contained" suggests that it was in the past, but no problem adding "at the time". Mozart vespers also contain 5 psalms, see Vesperae solennes de confessore, Vesperae solennes de Dominica. Yes, changes in 1917 and 1970, and by now recommendations rather than prescriptions. When we do vespers, we have 3 psalms (last 8 March 2020, the last time we sang). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First publication
edit
  • 1st para. You mention in passing " the music, mass, and vespers" in sentence 2, but don't explain what the mass is (Missa in illo tempore) until two sentences later. And do you need to have "music" here? - since it's obvious that these are musical compositions? Again, as we are referring to a specific piece, Vespers I think should be in capitals, and italicized. So perhaps better "Casola described the Vespers (together with the mass Missa in illo tempore), as in the process of being printed and said that Monteverdi would travel to Rome to personally dedicate the publication to the Pope in the fall." Then you can adjust the final sentence in the para by deleting the words "a separate composition, a mass called".
  • Also maybe better to state in full and blue-link Pope Paul V in this first para - "Monteverdi would travel to Rome to personally dedicate the publication to Pope Paul V in the fall." - to save repeating the link in Para 4.
    Response to the two together: The source is the Foreword by Wolf, English, p. 12, para beginning "Very little is known about the genesis ...", where the letter by Casola is described. We can indeed take the name of the mass from that (which I'll do), but not a specific name of a pope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
edit

?Might this section be better titled "Modern evaluation" or something like that? "Legacy" tends to imply that the work influenced other composers or writers, which is not the case here.--Smerus (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, this is certainly not in its final state, and possibly not place. Usually we would have "Reception" here, but I hesitate because it's all much later. We have no equivalent yet for de:Marienvesper which has that Monteverdi's work became the model of a genre, or how to call it. I think a few lines about scholars such as Kurtzman might also be in order, especially as we have no article on him (yet). - Open for ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
again
edit
  • I was just looking at "Sections" and noticed that the first section " Deus in adjutorium meum intende" has a little table after it, effectively just repeating the previous text. The other sections don't have this table, except for 12 and 13 where complexity makes it useful and indeed necessary. It appears to me to unnecessary in the first section - just saying.
    It's unnecessary, that's sure, - I just know that some readers prefer information in prose, others structured, and why not have both here where it's short? It would be nice to do it for some of the complex movements also, but probably in a sub article, - compare St John Passion structure. --GA
  • In No. 5 "Monteverdi set it for two sopranos, who are often sing in third parallels" - can I suggest instead "who frequently sing in parallel thirds." Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    will do, - and I added this to your section, - easier for a closer I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
late entry
edit
  • 'Legacy' ends with the bald statement "Musicologists have debated topics such as the role of the concerti and sonata, instrumentation, keys (chiavette), and issues of historically informed performance." - without citation(s). Suggest you have a note here listing some examples. ("e.g. a, b, c and d").--Smerus (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reminder. If you go in edit mode, you see that was not the planned end, but we had an early section (before I expanded): "The work presents intimate, prayerful moments within a monumental scale, and incorporates secular music in a decidedly religious performance, while its individual movements present an array of musical forms – sonata, motet, hymn, and psalm – without losing focus. quoted rather closely from https://books.google.de/books?id=8B_cAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA147 - will have to see whether to rephrase or use something differently". - and I didn't get to either rephrasing that, or write something else instead. Will try asap, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The source gives Wikipedia as a source, which doesn't help much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a quick solution, I gave now Kurtzman the last word, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cass

edit

Marking my place. CassiantoTalk 16:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He was responsible for the duke's sacred and secular music.." -- Since we speak of both the Duke Vincenzo Gonzaga and Monteverdi, it perhaps might be clearer if you say who you're speaking of.
    Perhaps I have a language problem, - not a specific person, but whoever held the position, - how would that be worded. We could, instead, name the one who engaged him, or say something about court music? I feel that the name of a duke, with a link, is rather not needed for understanding this particular piece which was written to get away from that court? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first work now considered as an opera is Jacopo Peri's Dafne of 1597." -- Firstly, by whom? Secondly, is there an "is" missing?
    This is in the linked articles, and I am not sure if more detail is needed for this work where all that matters is that M. wrote some of the music in the style of the emerging opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Legacy" section, there is a tag.
    There was a tag I had not seen before, so it took me a while, and not solved. It said that the ref didn't support a fact. I found a better ref, and even added some info. Problems: I found that most of the section "Legacy" was more or less copied from here. Question: should we write any Legacy section? If yes, at the very end. We could include the cantus firmus things in Analysis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "structure" section closes each para with no citations. There are also no sources at all for the table.
    What can we do. The very first ref in the section is the vocal score, Wolf, 2013, pages 1-141. Everything in the table is based on that, and so are the explanations above the table, and the page numbers are even in the table. How should that be clearer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Analysis" section: "In Monteverdi's time..." lifetime, surely? Also, watch the POV with lines like: "The print of his Vespers shows remarkable detail in reducing this freedom".
    It's rather "time" in the sense of "period", not lifetime. - Should "remarkable" be replaced? ... unusual? ... noteworthy? ...?? *: I took "unusual" for now, but feel that it's too pale for something THIS unusual, help to a better word or phrasing wanted, - as always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. CassiantoTalk 08:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking closely, some replies, also more later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ceoil

edit

First impressions are good.

Well, it's what you see in the image. No idea how to "reference" that. I missed some details until yesterday, such as the embellished initials. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with referencing a source that contains a reproduction. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The copy in the Papal library is already mentioned in the article, - should the source be copied from the commons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just need to reference it. Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monteverdi's unique approach to each movement of the Vespers earned the composition a place in history.[40] - Not sure this adds anything, better to say why its regarded, which you do after so maybe cut. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence was there I don't know from when, certainly already in 2018. Feel free, - I didn't, for respect for some unknown colleague ;) - "unique approach to each movement" is good, "earn ..." less so. Bedtime. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with the revised wording. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monteverdi set it for two sopranos, who are often in thirds. Can we make this understandable to non specialists. Maybe, but who often sing in thirds. Not your problem, but I note the article on Major third is a mess, so havnt been able to fix this myself. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    changing to "third parallels", and yes, no good article to link to --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • here is no score, but a partbook for each voice and instrument. The corresponding basso continuo notes the beginnings of text lines, for example Magnificat, "Et exultauit.", "Quia respexit." and "Quia fecit", and the names of instruments, for example cornetto, trombone and flauto. - we dont explain what a partbook is. Also would not give all the examples of opening lines; you cover that adequately later in the article. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know what a partbook is, and I didn't know the alto partbook has the bass also (and the article on partbook which I now linked doesn't say so). This is some key to understanding the whole thing, and I believe it therefore should come early. I guess we shouldn't present the same image twice, otherwise it would of course be better where the Magnificat is covered, at the beginning where it could be pointed out that two sections of its nine sections of cantus firmus were dedicated to the alto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Only catching up now. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm close to support on prose and clarity here. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more

  • The words "The sonata is an instrumental movement" imply to me that its an instrumental, but from here [34] I gather not. Please explain.
    It says "an instrumental movement with soprano singing of a cantus firmus from the Litany of Loreto", = instrumental with singing, - you could make that (or not) "the instrumental with singing movement", but not "the instrumental movement", - or leave as is. --GA
The word "instrumental " is misleading and redundant. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re [35] can we either capitalise all instances of "vespers" outside of titles, nor not. The vespers article does not use CAPS.
    That's what I tried to do, no capitals for when the office (service) is meant, capital when it'a a short name for a composition, as we would say "the Concerto" in an article about Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart), or "the Sonata" in an article about a Brahms Cello Sonata. --GA
    You have lost me in your intention. It seems to a casual reader that its randomly capitalised. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re [36] it might be useful to explain in the opening that vesters are evening prayers without forcing click through. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that there are so many things for which he have no room in that lead, that it's undue weight. Most people interested in this specific piece will already know. In an article about Mozart's Sparrow Mass, you wouldn't explain in brackets what mass is, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Will already know"; not sure the page should be a closed shop for the converted/experts...see here...."book of hours, a form of devotional book for lay-people". Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you mean, but please first answer my question: would you explain what mass is? Or what prayer is? - I love the beauty of links, which would spare me reading "a form of devotional book for lay-people" if I already know that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't spare or assume anything; I'd pith the article towards a general reader, the fabled reasonably intelligent 17 year old who could be from any country or background. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is for said person in the body where it's explained, but I believe the lead should be concise, and that 17-year old would know that, and perhaps even see that there's a section Vespers in the TOC. - You still didn't answer if you'd explain mass or prayer, and where the difference would be. - In articles about Bach cantatas, I don't explain what a cantata is. - Past midnight here, I feel I'm not at my best, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems the wrong way around. Lead is for generalists and people who are scanning for basic understanding...knowing what a vespers is strikes me as very basic info. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry about being boring, but would you say we need to explain mass, - and where would the difference be if not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Will have another think about these in evening, taking your views into account. Note none are deal breakers for me. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm good with your responses Gerda, so this last sect can be thought of as resolved. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Support on prose, having read the article in detail, several times. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller

edit
Sorry, no, because it's a word of many meanings. I gave it a link in the lead, and another in the body. In both cases, it's next to concerti, another word with many meanings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes

edit
  • It would be nice if the Vespers from 1651 was linked like the 1640 Vespers; even if a red link.
    Red links are discouraged in Featured articles, afaik. --GA
  • I assume the table of psalms is the Hebrew numbering? Including a caption to that effect, or providing both Hebrew and Vulgate numberings would be helpful to clear up any ambiguity.
    There is the line just above the table, - is that too little? We could expand the explanation, or even have a separate column saying listing "Psalmus 109" etc. --GA
  • There are a couple places where links to two different articles are adjacent which is somewhat confusing per MOS:SOB. I think rephrasing them to avoid the adjacent links would also improve readability as it gives more opportunities to briefly expand on what the terms mean. For example, "The individual psalms and the Magnificat are concluded by the doxology Gloria Patri"; making "doxology" into an apposition would provide better context and differentiate the links which seems like a win-win.
    Do you mean "Gloria Patri doxology", which would still be adjacent? --GA
  • The sectioning is appropriate, but I wonder if it could be improved? It felt like the information on the score itself came rather late, and that the information on later publications, performances, and legacy would fit better closer to the analysis and recording sections which call back to them.
    Would you think to stop history after "First publication", then Description", then the later things beginning with Later publication? - In biographies, we usually have life and work, - with also the work coming late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these cause the article to fail the FA criteria, so I'm happy to support as-is. I haven't looked closely at the sourcing or media, so I'm supporting on prose alone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Perhaps we could raise some questions for discussion among others, - compare placement and naming of Legacy, above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

edit

A fitting tribute, just a couple of comments to show I've read it

  • Dukes of Gonzaga in Mantua—more accurately Gonzaga Dukes of Mantua I don't think they were Dukes of Gonzaga
    will try that, made me smile—GA
  • Laudate pueri in the first table, you translate using the KJV, which is more of a gloss than a literal translation, as you recognise later when you write The second psalm is Psalm 113, beginning Laudate pueri Dominum (literally: 'Praise, children, the Lord—Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the literal translation at first mention?
    Well, I thought readers would rather be familiar with the psalm in English than in Latin (or number), therefore used KJV for easy recognition. Between writing that last year and now, however, I learned that English-speaking churchgoers might rather be familiar with the Book of Common Prayer version, which I would have to look up, unless someone beats me to it. --GA
  • Pope in the fall—given that you have written in BE, wouldn't "autumn" be more appropriate than the US name for the season?
    taken, - my English education was a hopeless mix ;)—GA

Great stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jim, replied above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "it is sometimes called the Vespers of 1610 to distinguish it from his other Vespers published in 1640 and 1651" I would put a "Monteverdi" as substitute for either "the" or "his".
    I looked at that sentence again, and feel that the other vespers, not mentioned in the article, are no lead material. It was called 1610 Vespers to make it simple. It was even the article title when I met it here, years ago. --GA
  • Are the Gonzagas the "dukes of Mantua" or the "Dukes of Mantua"?
    I tried a better llnk, having a reason to say Dukes. --GA
  • "He possibly composed the Vespers aspiring to a better position," As in a better job? This could be made clearer, perhaps by saying what would have been an upgrade for him.
    I'd say "upgrade" if within an organization, but he tried to get away, - more in the bio. Mantua was a small place, and Rome a location where he would be noticed. Perhaps a few more words from the bio would be in order, but am not sure, nor if his turn to church music had to do with belief (his wife had died) or prestige, or both, and the question has in the end not much to do with this specific music. --GA
  • Why is LORD in Psalm 110 when the Lords of the other psalms also seem to refer to the divinity?
    This comes from our Wikisource of the KJV version of the Bible, where different renderings of the word indicate different words in Hebrew, for which English has only one. Perhaps, in this context, that doesn't matter? --GA
    I can help with this. As you can read in our article on Psalm 110, it opens with two words that when translated lead to ambiguity. The tetragrammaton, followed by the Hebrew for "my Lord" or "my master". In Hebrew they can mean the same thing or it can mean G-d and man respectively. See Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Adonai. As they can both be translated Lord, this leads to interesting divergences in interpretation, as shown in Psalm_110#Interpretation. KJV is therefore being careful by differentiating between LORD and Lord in the same text, although not as careful as going for "master"... but that would have felt rebellious to Christendom. It's a clever way out of a bit of a bind... 4 centuries later, we can really appreciate it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cardinal" As this is the only mention, you might want to link it.
    taken, although a sea of blue then, - I actually thought that Pope/Bishop/Cardinal are well-known terms of positions in the Catholic Church. --GA
  • "It was published together with the mass Missa in illo tempore.[22]" Is this a Monteverdi work?
    tempted to say "of course" - in a publication meant to make HIS name known - but adding his name --GA
  • "The notation poses challenges to editors adopting the current system of notation, which established about a half century after Vespers was written.[25]" Maybe "using" or "used to" for "adopting"?
    I feel it could be improved - and it's one of the sentences from early versions of this article - but think "using" is too weak. Look at the image and see how far that is from the current music notation, and that no ordinary present musician who didn't receive special training could perform from it, beginning with no score, - imagine you are the conductor. Help wanted. "translate"? --GA
  • Done through legacy, will resume with the music.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the first paragraph of "structure" require additional sourcing?
    As responding somewhere above: the whole section is based on the vocal score (Wolf, 2013), and it more or less explains the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer six times to cornettos and twice to cornetts. Same thing, right?
    yes, another good catch, I decided for cornetto, to avoid confusion with cornet - gives me the idea to picture them. A performance lives or dies with them, and there are few in the world who master it (and if you don't it's miserable, not just not good). When I listened to the Collegium Vocale Gent last year, I met a conductor who said he would have loved to perform the piece but had no cornettos. --GA
  • "Monteverdi set it for two sopranos, who are often sing in third parallels." Often sing? Some issue or other.
    trying something, but hard - was changed already, - if only we had an article to link to (see above) --GA
  • "while the other two rather follow the polychoral style of Gabrieli, suggesting that the first three may have been composed especially with the publication in mind.[41]" This is unclear. What "publication" are we referring to? The 19th century one? Clearly Monteverdi could not have composed with that publication in mind.
    Perhaps you can word that better, and perhaps it should go to the history section. "this publication" means the 1610 one. Musicologists see different styles, and assume that he had some of the parts already composed (as single psalms and concerti) when he had the (crazy?) idea of the complete "work" - if it was meant as one, and not just a collection, and which it certainly became in history - and they further assume that he wrote other compositions after he had the idea, which he wrote - of course - even more showy, some going to extremes. --GA
  • Is ref 35 one page or 141?
    As said above (structure), its the 141 pages of the vocal score (with a good introduction in English worth reading completely), and the individual pages of movements are noted in the table. It would be nice if we had an online document of a score where we could link directly to given pages, but this is as close as I could get to let interested readers look at the music (in current notation, of course). --GA
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for diligent looking and comments. Two questions came up above to which you might contribute: the lead (Smerus and others) - which I'll probably change today, needs less detail of music specialties (chiavetta), and more overview - and if the description should go further up, perhaps after First publication, as Wugapodes suggested, and I kind of like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shearonink

edit
  • General comments - great article, well-researched. Kind of funny we don't know much about the performance history and that scholars are arguing about exactly what the Vespro is/are...some centuries later.
  • I am concerned about who or what actually owns or controls the sound files. I read further up the page that the uploader Guido Magnano is one of the instrumentalists/the organist in the Cantica Symphonia. It is not clear to me, however, that he manage the group's copyright/owns the copyright or has the authority to gift recorded performances to the public at large. Do we need a UTRs filing or something similar laying out that these recorded performances are published on Commons under a CC-BY-SA licensure/etc? Shearonink (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am completely helpless when it comes to file licenses, - trusting that Nikkimaria and RexxS will sort it out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've verified the uploader is one of the performers I'm inclined to AGF that he does have the right to release, but the OTRS idea is not a bad one for completeness, particularly since we know the uploader is around/responsive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, looks like we're about there but:
  • Like to see a couple more citations in Vespers, one for the table (the cite could probably go at the end of the sentence finishing but known to Monteverdi as Psalmus 109 in the numbering of the Vulgate:) and one for the last sentence in the subsection, ending with (because she is generally connected with Trinity).
    I added a citation which even has both psalm numbering systems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table at the top of the Structure subsection could use citation too, perhaps at the end of the previous sentence (The last column lists the page number of the beginning of the section in the Carus edition).
    Sigh. The ref is after the first sentence, and all the rest only explains what the table headers mean. The ref is hardly for the explanation, but I duplicated it anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You italicise Song of Songs in one instance but not in another -- as a book of the Bible I'd assume it doesn't take italics but in any case we should be consistent.
    Fixed, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also have several duplinks in the article that should be rationalised -- do you have the checker script?
    No, I don't. It's a long article. In tables, we should link all, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please give me a few more days, I'm with dear company for festive reasons which is so rare this year. As this is planned for 1 September, we in no rush, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ian Rose, I found a few minutes to look, - please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gerda, I'm glad you were able to enjoy some festivities at this weird time in history! Two things:
  • Per my first point above, can we have the statement ending (because she is generally connected with Trinity) cited?
  • The duplink checker doc/script is here. Yes, duplinks in tables are okay I believe.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I overlooked the Trinity fact, sorry, - inherited from earlier authors, - will have to check, as for the duplinks, - thank for the help to the checker. Past midnight, - nothing useful would come out of me trying right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian, I struggled with the duplinks (inadvertantly deleted 10k ...) and commented out the minor detail about the Duo Seraphim having to do with Barbara, until I find a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review - Pass

edit
  • The Grove article and PDF in the books sections should be moved the "online." While I recognize that the Grove may have originally been used in a book format, you don't have a specific edition to cite so online makes more sense. The PDF seems to be a score, but I still think "online" makes sense, as the score doesn't have an ISBN, making it not a book by that definition.
    I moved them. I don't know which Grove version the one before me used. In choir, we used a different score, but I believe the possibility to look online is important. --GA
  • I would add a "language=" to the Claudio Monteverdi: Vespro della Beata Vergine / Marienvesper / Vespers 1610
    Well, I add a language as a warning when not English, but this one cites pages in English, and music is Italian - international. What would you suggest? --GA
    Ah I didn't notice the English translation below, I assumed you were citing the German. Should be fine then Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35 seems unnecessary as it cites 140 pages. The first and second uses can probably be removed as they are at the ends of lines with a ref that already covers the information. I suppose the 3rd use, after "The following table shows the section numbers according to the 2013 edition by Carus," is appropriate.
    It is a ref for the table, rather than adding individual references. What do you suggest? --GA
    I've thought about it and while removing the page numbers all together in this case probably makes the most sense, a perceptive reader might then question why there are no page numbers. It's fine how it is. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else, formatting and reliability-wise looks good. Aza24 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:
edit
Thank you for the review, I'll check, knowing that you are almost always right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass (Since there were two that didn't cover I checked some more: 2, 7, 23 and 31 all of which cover their respective sections/sentences.) Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very late reminder

edit

There still remains the question of the heading 'Legacy' (see above). The discussion in this section all centres on modern interpretations. So a better heading might be 'Modern reception'? Apologies for being boring and returning to this. Best, Smerus (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I have time between two celebrations to adopt that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2020 [37].

Illustrated Daily News

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a Los Angeles newspaper with a colorful history. It's one of my older articles that I've recently been sprucing up.Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:LosAngelesDailyNewsHistoricCover.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Nikkimaria. I have replaced the non-free image with a free one and added several others from the same source. I've also added alt text where not already, and done the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from HueSatLum

edit
  • I made some small grammar fixes, feel free to fix if I missed the mark on any.
  • Republican Party (United States) is linked twice in the lead.
  • Believing the best newspaper was a democratic one, he offered voting rights to those who would pay $5... Can you clarify what this means? What did subscribers get to vote on?
They got shares in the corporation. I've clarified.
  • Link World War I?
  • I think stockholder's should be stockholders'?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link Herbert Hoover's bid for reelection in 1932.
We don't seem to have an article on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I meant you should link 1932 United States presidential election somewhere in there. ~huesatlum/ 00:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've piped to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more background on the Los Angeles Record?
No, the source simply says "the old Los Angeles Record.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing Camelia should be Camellia.
Oops. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged some together. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that. I'm close to a support; I will give the article another look-through soon. ~huesatlum/ 15:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything checks out. I'm happy to support. ~huesatlum/ 03:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Fixed. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "The Los Angeles Daily News (originally the Los Angeles Illustrated Daily News), often referred to simply as the Daily News, was a newspaper published from 1923 to 1954." I find this confusing. Los Angeles is not in italics, implying that it was not part of the newspaper's name, yet you say it is often referred to simply as the Daily News, implying that the full name does include the town. I also think it is a bad idea to have half of a bold phrase in italics - as with sea of blue. If Los Angeles was not part of the name, I suggest "The Daily News (originally the Illustrated Daily News) was a newspaper published in Los Angeles from 1923 to 1954."
They did use the "Los Angeles" in the Daily News name so I've adopted your proposal in modified form.
  • They were not consistent in using it. The masthead did not say Los Angeles but I have the brochure they published on what to expect during WWII, and it says "Los Angeles Daily News" in a logo format.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The publication has no connection with the current newspaper of the same name." This seems unnecessary as it is covered by the hatnote.
Cut.
  • "After quickly going bankrupt, it was sold to Boddy". Below you say it went into receivership. An individual goes bankrupt, a company into receivership.
Done.
  • "He sold his interest in 1952, and publication ceased in December 1954". Maybe "He sold his interest in 1952, and after several further changes in ownership publication ceased in December 1954"
Done in modified form.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Los Angeles Mirror. Why is Los Angeles not italicised? The article it links to says that the town was part of the title.
  • "The newspaper covered its staff's transportation". I thought for a second you meant that the newspaper reported on its staff's transportation! I think "paid for" would be better.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the least experienced newsman on staff" I would delete "on staff".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stockholders' committee got the Vanderbilt family to sign over a $1 million note" What does this mean? To cancel a $1 million debt?
Rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hearst's mistress, Marion Davies, wrote in her 1975 memoirs that 51% of the Daily News was actually owned by Hearst." So why did not Hearst close it down? If her claim was not credible, it should not be reported without comment.
I've added more of what Davies had to say about it. I don't find any mention in the major Hearst biography, The Chief.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began a campaign against vice" What does vice mean in this context? Prostitution?
I've added to this some.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She did so well that there was no vacancy when he returned". What does this mean? Why should there have been a vacancy?
Women were expected to be only temporary wartime replacements. She stuck. I'll tweak it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the review. I think I'm up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • "In 1950, feeling that he was repeating himself in print, Boddy sought the Democratic nomination for United States Senate." I do not follow the reasoning here.
  • "Smith attempted to sell the paper" But you said Boddy sold to a consortium.
  • I think the final paragraph should be a separate section headed 'Legacy'.
  • A first rate article, although I doubt whether Marion Davies is a reliable source. If you cannot find any comment on her claims by other writers, I think you should relegate them to a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with those matters. Thanks for being so thorough.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I probably should've had this on the Urgents list -- we need to scare up another comprehensive review in short order, as well as a source review, to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SN54129

edit

I didn't see this slipping down the list. Let me have a look. ——Serial # 15:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Founding
  • "Believing the best newspaper was a democratic one": can "democratic" be clarified? I guess it refers to its political leanings (in which case perhaps link Democratic?), but it could be misunderstood to be one which is internally democratic.
No, he wanted democracy in the running of it. I've added some detail--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Repudiating the legendary adage of William Henry Vanderbilt, "The public be damned," Vanderbilt announced that the paper's philosophy would be "The public be served.": This reads oddly—as if he was repudiating himself! Clarify inline that it was his (great?) grandfather who had originally said it. Perhaps split the sentence if it gets lengthened in doing so.
I think we can survive the length.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WC becoming as important as the EC: is that just in terms of newspaper readership, or generally? Do you fancy a footnote briefly explaining why the EC had historically been more important?
Generally. I've added "with its increasing population". I think people know that the East Coast was settled first.
  • Do we know how Vanderbilt knew Lord Northcliffe? The latter was in the states May–November 1917 as part of a Brit propaganda campaign, but of course, Vanderbilt's involvement with the press doesn't start for another 6 years. Any ideas?
The source is not clear on this. Vanderbilt had worked in the newspapers before 1923, by the way. It may be a bit far afield. The only detail is "a family friend" so I've added that.
  • London's Daily Mail of the British DM? It's never been a local paper  :)
Britain's, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paired with tabloid newspapers: he wanted a newspaper that would cost one cent": perhaps, "paired with tabloid newspapers: he wanted one that would cost a cent..." would be a bit tighter a lose the repetitious newspaper.
Did this.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific examples of Hearst/Chandler's attempts to warn him off?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Great, Pico Blvd gets a mention, I've been there!)
Not sure. I've certainly been to downtown LA but will have to look at the site if I get back there (probably not until next year)..
  • " and furnished it with the latest equipment": As an office, printworks or both?
Printworks seem to be the deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the good old fashioned free lunch bribe, it's good to know somethings never change! Is there any suggestions as to his "high-pressure sales tactics" were though?
I'm basically quoting here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea ho his rivals planted the sex story?
No. Both sources mention it, the second is to add that it involved Chaplin.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • page 2: page two.
  • "Nevertheless, Vanderbilt in December 1923 expanded to San Francisco ": "Nevertheless, in December 1923 Vanderbilt expanded to San Francisco"?
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miami—the Illustrated Daily Tab": suggest "Miami, where the Illustrated Daily Tab", if you want.
I'd rather not, it makes the sentence more difficult and I'd prefer not to split it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Too often, however, the least experienced newsman, Vanderbilt himself": why?
Strong indication of boss's privilege. I think it's made pretty clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Know why he didn't like the SPR or Bank of Italy? (You explain his aversion to PER.)
On double-checking the source, I find his objection was expressed in the Herald, so I've cut that. The source also mentions his dislike of plans for a major sports stadium, which I suppose is the Coliseum but which was completed in 1923, so I'm going to leave it with the streetcars.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "help if most authority": "primary editorial control" is the phrase generally used I think?
But it also included financial control.
  • Have you considered using the {{Inflation/US|year1|year2}} template to contextualise the massive amounts of money we must be talking about? (A million in the 20s? Wow!)
I really don't like inflation templates. I don't feel they work over very different economic times.
  • "could survive if $300,000 more were invested in them": how about the sightly shorter "could survive if they received $300,000 further investment"?
That's shorter? Done a little differently.
Good point.
  • "the Daily News was deemed the most salvageable": suggest "only the Daily News was deemed salvageable".
I think what I put is more true to the source, which says, "While the News was losing up to $50,000 a month, newspaper

experts considered it the best risk of the three. The Tab was still profitable, if only marginally, but the Herald was beyond salvation."

Boddy takes over
  • "A consortium of the publishers of the rivals": "A consortium comprising rival publishers"?
Done a little differently.
  • Do you know why Vanderbilt's family were willing to sign over a million to Boddy when they had been unwilling to give their son 300K? Presumably, they trusted the former's business sense more than the latter's, but is there something in the sources saying this?
I don't find an "in so many words" source. This seems to be the note that the parents made Vanderbilt sign, which was secured by his inheritance. If so, it may have been up to Vanderbilt what to do with it, since it is coming out of his pocket either way. Presumably he'd rather give the Daily News a chance to stay in business. It may be best just to pass over this point, as the focus is moving to Boddy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boddy and Lewis both served...could repossess": perhaps split this.
Done.--``~`
  • In some cases you "Open a quote" with an upper case but "in others", you don't?
The MOS recommends complete sentences start with a capital. I think I've done it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief explanation of what the L.A. System actually is!
I've added a bit more and given a link to Charles H. Crawford, who was in charge.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "often embarrassed the powerful, once displaying a photograph": "often embarrassed the powerful, once, for example, displaying a photograph", as I guess there were plenty more.
So it seems. I see mention of this in multiple sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its price from two to three cents": Don't suppose you know (or could find out) when it went up from Vanderbilt's original one cent?
My view is, is if the sources don't dwell on the price changes, they are probably beyond the scope of a general-information encyclopedia article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prewar years
  • " the Daily News maintained a conservative editorial policy": H'mm, up there you say it originally had democratic leanings? Or is it the case that, at the time, neither Dems nor the GOP were anything other than conservative?
That was the governance of the paper. I haven't seen anything that the IDN under Vanderbilt had strong national political leanings.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which saw Roosevelt elected": might be worth adding "by a landslide", or something (having won 46 of the 52!), to indicate the depth of Boddy's sense of mistake.
I'm not sure your numbers are right but I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to read them over the air": On air, or live?
I am pretty sure it would have been live in that era but I don't see it makes much of a difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and fall
  • "Boddy had predicted World War II several years in advance": when and how? Before the Munich Agreement would be unusual, unless he read Churchill of course...
That's all the source says on that. There is another source that says he predicted the breakup of the Germany-USSR alliance. I'm not sure it's that remarkable. A lot of people saw war coming in one form or another. Boddy was well-informed and he had been gassed in the trenches in WWI. It's worth mentioning but it's not worth a huge amount of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same sentence: how about "...in advance. When it came, though, his desire...".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the other Los Angeles dailies": Such as? I'm thinking, the reader will probably assume the LAT.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the management of the paper": "in managing the paper" or "in the paper's management".
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pink lady": clarify this was a reflection of supposed political sympathies; the uninitiated might think it's a cocktail.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August 1952, Boddy announced his retirement as publisher in Smith's favor": I don't quite get this. If he's already sold the paper to Smith's consortium, why is Boddy's retirement in Smith's favour?
I don't think it's unusual. It is close to the time of the sale of the paper.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Substituting a Sunday News for the money-losing Saturday edition": What was the loss-making one called?
It was the Daily News, as far as I can tell. Papers sometimes have different names on Sunday, not so often on Saturday.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why Towns was fired so soon?
I don't have an RS on this, but Smith apparently was looking for a quick fix that would lead to a profitable sale.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I have no idea what "seller's remorse" is, but it sounds interesting.
  • But not remorseful enough not to sell it four months later though! Any idea why the change of heart?
See just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every wealthy liberal person I ever heard of": Any examples?
I just looked at the source. He doesn't get into the specifics of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Creditors pressed for repayment of debt": you could legitimately insert a "though" or "however" after "debt", since the negativity of the creditors is in contrast to the positive news it runs on from.
  • "their jobs without severance pay. The unionized workforce lost their jobs just before Christmas": you could probably tighten this to "their jobs without severance pay, just before Christmas", as although we were told at earlier that Vanderbilt ran a closed shop, it hasn't been mentioned since. Or, perhaps, move it.
It appears to have been a union shop, rather than a closed shop. I'm inclined to let it stand as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "Cecilia Rasmussen of the Los Angeles Times wrote in 2004": "Cecilia Rasmussen of the Los Angeles Times wrote in 2004 how".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "peach-colored tabloid pages": Interesting. Page colour might get a mention at the beginning? (If that's how it started?)
I've added something in the WWII period, since they had to change it during the war.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, Wehwalt. Hope this is of help; remember, some might be EngVar misunderstandings on my part, and some are preferential improvements really. All the best, ——Serial # 15:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comprehensive review. I think I've gotten to everything although I will check.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 I've added one I missed. Thanks again for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note (2)

edit

I'm seeing an image review but no source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested one.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Placeholder; will get to it shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have a location for Rayner, but not for the other books -- any reason not to be consistent?
  • All the sources are reliable and appropriately formatted. Gellman appears to be a partisan source but you're not using him for anything controversial.
  • Not source-related, but I happened to notice the footnote says "a fact kept secret lest he circumvent rules"; surely it should be "in order to circumvent"? Or perhaps the thought was "lest it be known that he was circumventing"?

This passes source review; the location issue is just a consistency question and very minor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those issues. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2020 [38].

Sergo Ordzhonikidze

edit
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A leading Bolshevik and once a close friend of Stalin, Sergo Ordzhonikidze was very active in the early years of the Soviet Union. He served a variety of roles, from military commander to economic leader, and eventually fell out of favour with Stalin and shot himself. The article went through GA a while ago, and completed a Peer Review recently, so I'm bringing it here. I will also note that due to the COVID-19 situation I don't have access to many of the sources used, so please take that into consideration; I'll do everything else possible though, of course. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sergo_Orjonikidze.jpg: which of the criteria from the Russian tag are believed to apply here?
It would be anonymous, as no author is listed. I've also added the appropriate US tag.
What simultaneous publication supports that US tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't publication in the journal be sufficient? It was a Soviet-based journal, not US-based, if that matters.
For the Russian tag, yes, but the current US tag states "it was simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S. and in its source country". It would be unusual for a Soviet publication to meet that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) That's a fair point, and one I should have realised. I modified the tag to one I believe would fit the parameters now. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ghoresha_Orjonikidze_House.jpg: since Georgia does not have freedom of panorama this should include a tag for the original building
Not sure what type of tag should be used here. Any suggestions?
It would be PD due to copyright expiration in both Georgia and the US, since it was (presumably?) built before 1925. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a US tag, as the house itself predates 1923.
  • File:Orjonikidze_telegram_1921._National_Archives_of_Georgia.jpg needs a US PD tag
Done
If this was sent by the subject, why is the author listed as unknown? Is there some doubt as to its authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:14th_Conference_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg needs a tag for status in source country
Done
What simultaneous publication supports that US tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, if the journal is based in the Soviet Union, not the US, would that still qualify?
As above, simultaneous US publication of a Soviet work would be highly unusual. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made the change. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stalin_Full_Image.jpg: when did this enter the public domain in Russia?
I don't have anymore information aside from what is noted in the description. If it isn't enough I can remove it, not that key to the article
  • File:Stakhanov.JPG: the tagging here seems contradictory. The use of the Russian tag appears to be based on the assumption that it was published at some unknown time prior to its transfer to the US govt. But then there's a US tag asserting that it was published simultaneously in the US. What is the date of that simultaneous publication?
That I can't clarify right now. I would believe it would have been published in contemporary (meaning 1935) newspapers in either the USSR or US, but can't access anything with the lockdown. As a result I'll take it off for now, and if I get a chance to clarify it's status will restore.
  • File:Yury_Pyatakov.jpg: the Commons page on Ukrainian copyright asserts that anonymous works enter the public domain at 70 years after release. The stated publication date of 1937 would put that after the URAA date. Is there an earlier known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, but again restricted in my searches at the moment. If the tag is problematic I'll also remove this if need be. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added some follow up comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "Sergo Konstantinovich Ordzhonikidze,[a] born Grigol". This is unclear. Was he born Sergo Konstantinovich Grigol or Grigol Ordzhonikidze or what?
Clarified.
  • Caucasus should be linked.
  • In the first paragraph of 'Youth', it is confusing to refer to him by his surname and his father by his forename as the were both Ordzhonikidzes. It would be better to use his first name here.
I'm hesitant to do that as he is referred throughout the article by his surname, and his father is specifically referred to by his first name here to avoid such confusion. And seeing how Ordzhonikidze changed his name (though it's unclear when; see below) I feel that would only cause further confusion later on.
I do not think that works in a section where everyone is called Ordzhonikidze. I am not sure of the best solution, but how about moving the note on the change of name to the main text her as "Grigol Ordzhonikidze (he changed his name to Sergo Ordzhonikidze as a revolutionary) was born in 1886", and thereafter in this section referring to him as Grigol Ordzhonikidze. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may work. I've made the relevant changes.
  • "Granted bail, he fled briefly to Germany to avoid trial, though soon returned to work in Baku." This is ungrammatical. Maybe "but he soon returned". Also you say returned to work in Baku this is the first time you have mentioned the town. Did he work there before?
Clarified
  • "He may also have been involved in the assassination of Ilia Chavchavadze on 12 September 1907, but there is no conclusive evidence to back this assertion." A few words of description such as "the Georgian nationalist writer Ilia Chavchavadze" would be helpful. Also I would delete the words after "1907" as they are implied by "may also have been involved"
Done
  • "At this meeting the Bolsheviks, the majority faction of the RSDLP and led by Lenin, confirmed themselves to be a distinct party; while they had nominally split from the RSDLP back in 1903, they formally remained part of it until the Prague Conference." This is unclear. Did the Bolsheviks split from the RSDLP even though they were the majority and what is the distinction between "nominally" and "formally" in this context?
It is a confusing situation, I'll admit. I've tried to clarify it a bit, but if you think more is needed just let me know.
  • "Ordzhonikidze was elected to the Central Committee" Central Committee of what? You have just implied that the Bolsheviks had split from the RSDLP.
Clarified
  • "Baku was occupied by the Bolsheviks by 23:00 that night." You say above that Baku was already under their control.
Clarified. It was more an allied group, affiliated with the invading force.
  • "which was clear downgrade in status and prestige." This is ungrammatical. Maybe "which would have been a downgrade in status and prestige."
Fixed
  • You do not explain why or when he changed his name.
That's because there is no information on that. As noted in note "b" he adopted it as a revolutionary, but sources don't say anything more than that. If I had a precise date, or even an idea of when I would definitely add it.
Addressed everything above. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • "Ordzhonikidze played an important role in the Soviet economy". This does not sound right. Maybe "Ordzhonikidze played an important role in directing the Soviet economy"
Done
  • "That details of Ordzhonikidze's death were not widely discussed within the Soviet Union until Nikita Khrushchev gave his "Secret Speech" criticizing Stalinism in 1956 also helped keep rumours of a targeted killing alive." This sentence is difficult to follow. Maybe "Details of Ordzhonikidze's death were not widely discussed within the Soviet Union until Nikita Khrushchev gave his "Secret Speech" criticizing Stalinism in 1956, and this also helped keep rumours of a targeted killing alive."
Done
  • "Ordzhonikidze was known as a difficult commander". A "difficult commander " sounds odd. Maybe "Ordzhonikidze was regarded as a difficult man to deal with".
Done
  • "propensity for forming personal alliance networks" This is normal in politics and other fields.
This is true, so I clarified what the quote was about.
Thanks for going through it. Genuine question: what exactly do you find "awkward"? I'm always interested in improving my own writing, so feedback is certainly welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good now. Regarding the "awkward" language, I can only refer you to the queries I have raised above and the edits I made. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Again, thanks for taking the time to go through it. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

edit

Hi, interesting article, I'll be posting my comments here. This is on the "Early life" section, will get back with the rest of the article.

  • I think there is a bit of overlinking in the article. I wouldn't link Georgians, country names, corn, manganese, backgammon, Persia, Baku, Paris, Tiflis,.
I removed the countries, and larger cities as noted here. Kept some of the smaller places that I don't expect people to know, but if I missed any please let me know.
  • "he had an brother, Papulia" missing word?
Fixed.
  • "was a member of a small, impoverished Georgian noble family" I wasn't sure what small meant here. Lower-ranking? Or just few family members?
It's more a synonym of impoverished, and thus redundent, so I removed it.
  • I wasn't sure why all the details about his father's second marriage are important. I would suggest: "Unable to take care of his son, Konstantine sent Grigol to live with aunt and uncle, David and Eka Ordzhonikidze, who also lived in Ghoresha. Konstantine would later re-marry and have three more children. Grigol grew..."
It's included for two reasons: I find it useful to include the names of his siblings (and their birthdates, if available), and as his younger brother Konstantine was later arrested, I wanted to note who he was. However I'll modify it to what you noted, and add a footnote with that information, perhaps that would work?
  • A little more context might be useful at the end of the Youth and the start of the Bolsheviks section. When did he complete school, work as an orderly, etc.? When did he move to Baku?
Unfortunately none of that is listed. Khlevniuk, who wrote the only modern biography of him, has nothing more than what is included here. The works by Ordzhonikidze's wife and Dubinskiy-Mukhadze may include something, but unfortunately I can't access either right now, and even so I don't know if they note that either, or else I feel I would have included it (though of course I may be mistaken). I definitely would like to include more if possible though.
  • "By 1905 he was given more dangerous assignments and was arrested for the first time in December 1905 for transporting arms, spending several months in prison" The end is somewhat grammatically ambiguous. I'd suggest: "By 1905 he was given more dangerous assignments. He was arrested for the first time in December 1905 for transporting arms and spent several months in prison"
Done
  • "While imprisoned, Ordzhonikidze shared a cell with a fellow Georgian revolutionary, Ioseb Jughashvili, who would later adopt the name Joseph Stalin. " Stalin is linked twice.
Fixed
  • "At this meeting the Bolsheviks, the majority faction of the RSDLP and led by Lenin, confirmed themselves to be a distinct party and established themselves as a separate party" The "and led by Lenin" sounds awkward to me. The end is repetitive.
Moved the mention of Lenin leading the Bolsheviks to the first mention of his name. It is an important part to note, as that is arguably the defining trait of Lenin
Done.
  • "He also was interested in statistics relating to the Russian economy, especially detailing the production of food and agriculture, as well as the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels." Maybe: "...statistics relating to the Russian economy, especially details regarding the production..."?
Done
  • "historian Oleg Khlevniuk has noted that "he joined the Petrograd Bolshevik Committee, often addressed rallies, and carried out party work at the city's largest factories"" is there any need for the quote, couldn't this be paraphrased?
I've re-worded it.
  • In the Bolsheviks section, I might have been interested in reading more about his political views. What drew him to the Bolsheviks? What were his views about the political controversies in Russian socialism and the Bolshevik party? Do the sources say anything about that?--Carabinieri (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there isn't anything I found about this that I found. It's unfortunately a reality of the topic that this isn't covered in great detail, especially the earlier years of activist lives.
Thanks for the review. I've addressed everything above. Any other comments please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. Sorry, I'm so slow right now. It's because of work stuff. I did a little copyediting, but if you disagree with anything feel free to revert. Here are my comments on the next sections:

  • "The outbreak of the Russian Civil War in 1917 saw Ordzhonikidze appointed as the Bolsheviks' Commissar of Ukraine, South Russia, and the North Caucasus" It appears that this position was a military role. Maybe you could briefly describe what it was, like how many troops he as commanding and so on? I mean, if the sources have any information on this.
Unfortunately I haven't found anything that gives details like that, at least nothing that I've come across.
  • "both the North, which was nominally under Bolshevik control, and the South Caucasus, comprising the independent states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia" this is mentioned again in the following section, which I think is the more natural place for it. Maybe just "...under Bolshevik control, and the South Caucasus)"?
Done
  • "Owing to his years of service as an organizer and theorist Makharadze was well-respected among the Georgian Bolsheviks, while Mdviani was a strong proponent of Georgian national sentiment, which was not as popular" Does this mean unpopular among Georgian Bolshveviks? Or unpopular in Georgia in general?
Clarified
  • "This led to a clash between the two parties" What two parties is this referring to exactly? Makharadze and Mdviani? Ordzhonikidze on one side and the locals on the other?
I re-worded it, hopefully that makes it clearer.
  • "Khlevniuk speculated that Ordzhonikidze ..." Is Khlevniuk a historian or someone directly involved? Maybe briefly say who he was?
Done
  • I'm never quite sure how British English works, but the article currently uses "organise", "Recognised", "authorised", etc., but also "organized", "revitalized", "familiarize" and so on.
That's what happens when a Canadian tries to use British English without the training in it. I've went back to US spellings to keep consistency.
Added a note to clarify that.
  • I think several quotes in the "Rabkrin and Control Commission" section could easily be paraphrased and probably should be.--
Removed some of the quotes and paraphrased them.

Carabinieri (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: Thanks for the additional comments. I currently have limited access so I may not be be able to address things here for a couple days. I hope the FAC coordinators will allow that to happen, and once I can I'll be sure to get this done. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I hope the coordinators will understand that under present conditions many people have limited access to libraries and therefore sources. I'll continue adding my comments as I find the time, but take as much time as you need to reply.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: Apologies again for the delay, took longer getting home than I expected. I addressed things above, hopefully it looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just two more things:

  • "Early in Ordzhonikidze's tenure at the NKTP saw the downfall of Vissarion Lominadze, a fellow Georgian and an ally of Ordzhonikidze" That sentence is a little strange. It needs a subject. I couldn't quite figure out how to change it.
I re-worded it, but still feel it could be improved. If you have any idea I'll be happy to further work on it.
That looks good, and adding the qualifiers is a smart choice, thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: Just wanted to check if you have anything else to add? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay (and thanks for the reminder). My concern about that change to the lead is that it's a little ambiguous about what is contested. The fact that Ordzhonikidze shot himself? That this was a result of his deteriorating relationship with Stalin?

I changed it a bit to clarify it was the shooting itself that is contested.

On a different note, I've checked a few of the sources and I think I found a few issues, but please correct me if I'm misreading any of them:

  • "At this meeting the Bolsheviks, the majority faction..." is referenced to Swain 1983, pp. 136-139. I think there's something wrong with those page numbers. Maybe this is a result of different editions of the book. The edition I'm looking at discusses Longjumeau, the Russian Organising Commission, and plans for the Prague conference, but not the conference itself.
I unfortunately don't have a copy of the book available, but do have a different source that is more concise, so replaced that.
  • "From the formation of the TSFSR until 1926, Ordzhonikidze would serve as its First Secretary, the leader of the state" Fitzpatrick doesn't discuss this at all.
I took a look, and Fitzpatrick does say: "Ordzhonikidze, a Georgian, had previously been First Secretary of the Transcaucasus party organisation." I'll grant that doesn't give dates, so reworded it and added a citation from Knight ("Ordzhonikidze, who became secretary of the Kavburo in 1920 and later secretary of the Transcaucasian Regional Party Committee (Zakkraikom). This should hopefully confirm things.
I actually overlooked that. Thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenin, in particular, favoured a peaceful approach, noting the considerable strength of the Mensheviks within Georgia and the Bolsheviks' weak position" Smith's account seems to be slightly different. According to him, those in favor of an invasion of Georgia (Stalin and Trotsky) pointed to the Bolsheviks' weakness in Georgia as a reason to invade, since there was little hope that the locals could topple the Mensheviks on their own.
Reworded it to make the position clearer.
  • "Ordzhonikidze and Stalin, both natives of Georgia, were concerned about the nationalism displayed by the remaining Georgian Mensheviks (most had left in 1921), who were initially allowed to work with the Bolsheviks. They considered Georgian nationalism as serious a threat as Great Russian chauvinism, in that both variants dominated over ethnic minorities within their regions (Georgia over the Abkhazians and Ossetians, Russia over several ethnic groups)" Smith doesn't seem to be saying this about Stalin, only about Ordzhonikidze.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added an additional citation (Martin) that makes clear Stalin felt the same way. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses and changes. I've double-checked a few more citations and they all looked good. I'm now happy to support.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kober

edit

Hi there. A well-researched article on a controversial person. The biography is written quite evenhandedly. I'm adding my five cents to the review process.

  1. Youth subsection: "Konstantine sent Grigol to live with aunt and uncle, David and Eka Ordzhonikidze." — Please reorder the words; David was an uncle and Eka was an aunt.
    Done.
  2. Bolsheviks subsection: I think it would be useful to mention that all these 1905-07 assignments and arrests took place in the context of the Russian Revolution of 1905.
    Made a note of it.
  3. Bolsheviks subsection: "In September 1916, while exiled in Yakutsk, Ordzhonikdze met his wife Zinaida." — Would-be wife? The following sentence actually says that they married in 1917.
    Clarified it was his "future wife".
  4. Bolsheviks subsection: "Ordzhonikidze was still in Yakutsk when news of the February Revolution reached him. He quickly left for Petrograd (as Saint Petersburg had been named since 1914), reaching there by the end of May." — Please mention that the February Revolution occurred in 1917.
    Done.
  5. Russian Civil War: "Ordzhonikidze also organized meetings with the local Chechen and Ingush population and urged them to join, arguing that the soviet (council) system was not unlike that used by the Chechens." — I think it would be helpful to clarify this by adding "unlike the system traditionally used by the Chechens" or something along this line.
    I added some clarity that it was similar to the Islamic system favored there, which is what the Marshall text says. Hopefully that should make it better, but if you think it needs more let me know.
  6. Russian Civil War: "By late 1918 Ordzhonikidze effectively controlled every Bolshevik organ." — The word "organ" in Russian political vocabulary has two meanings: a party or governmental organization or the main periodical associated with a particular group. Admittedly, I'm not a native English-speaker, but I think it would be more natural to translate this into English as "a body".
    This is true, and changing to "body" doesn't lose any meaning, so doen.
  7. Russian Civil War: "With vast deposits of oil in the region around Baku, it was of vital importance to the Bolsheviks that they [...] the area. " — A missing word?
    Indeed, is fixed now.
  8. Russian Civil War: "After Ordzhonikidze consolidated control in the North Caucasus, Lenin him issued an order on 17 March 1920 to prepare for an invasion of Azerbaijan." — Please rectify the word order.
    Done.
  9. Georgian Affair: "Ordzhonikidze and Stalin, both natives of Georgia, were concerned about the nationalism displayed by the Georgian Mensheviks, who were initially allowed to work with the Bolsheviks." — I think adding the qualifier "remaining" to the "Georgian Mensheviks" would be helpful as their leadership had left Georgia after the 1921 invasion.
    Done.
  10. Stakhanovite movement: "On 6 September Stakhanov's record was made a front-page story in Pravda, alongside fellow minors who had also set new records in the meantime. " — Please correct the typo: minors --> miners.
    Fixed.

Thanks for your contributions. Keep it up! --KoberTalk 16:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally introduced the errors in 7 and 8 and have now fixed them.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kober: Thanks for looking it over. Always nice to have someone familiar with the topic give it a review, and appreciate your help. Have addressed everything above, but if you think anymore is needed just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good job. --KoberTalk 19:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kober, can I ask if you feel the article is ready to be promoted to Featured Article status, or if you feel more work is needed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I looked through the article again. I believe Kaiser has done a tremendous job writing a good prose and fixing all the issues. So I think the article is ready to be promoted to FA.--KoberTalk 15:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Two months open but if the latest comments can be resolved pronto I'm prepared to give it a bit longer. I don't think we've had a source review for reliability and formatting so pls seek that too ASAP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

edit
  • The prose says that Zinaida "published a memoir of Ordzhonikidze's life that was first released in 1956". The year given in the source is 1967, with no original year included: assuming that this is the same memoir, it would be good to use the |origyear= parameter for clarity.
  • Add a JSTOR link (4209080) for "Bursa, G. R. F. (April 1985)".
  • No OCLC for "Dubinskiy-Mukhadze, I. (1963)"? (I know there isn't always for foreign-language sources.)
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything like that, despite efforts to do so.
  • Add a DOI (10.2307/2496711) for "Fitzpatrick, Sheila (September 1979)".
  • Add an OCLC (459737452) for "Kazemzadeh, Firuz (1951)".
  • Is this an online link for "Kvashonkin, Aleksandr V. (January–June 1997)"? If so, please provide it, to aid verification.
  • "Marshall, Alex (2010)" only lists "Abington" as the location, whereas other sources provide a Town/City and a State/County, except for major cities.
  • Is there an OCLC for "Ordzhonikidze, Z. (1967)"?
Again I've not been able to find anything like that.
  • And for "Pipes, Richard (1964)"?
I'm not familiar with the OCLC system, so am not really sure how to do searches for it. But I did find the LCCN number for the specific book, so added that. If more is needed let me know
  • "Rees, E. A. (1987)" lists "New York City, New York", but elsewhere, this has just been "New York City".
  • "Reiber, Alfred J. (2015)" needs to disambiguate "Cambridge" for the location, given that "Cambridge, Massachusetts" has also been used. Same for "Schlögel, Karl (2012)", "Siegelbaum, Lewis H. (1988)" and "Swietochowski, Tadeusz (1985)".
  • Did you access any of the book sources through Google Books? If so, please provide links for verification.
I only used hard copies, no Google Books.
@Harrias: Addressed everything here, with notes on a couple things that needed addressing. Thanks for going through it, and will be ready for further comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the sources are offline or paywalled, which is no problem. Spot checks on those sources I have access to reveal no copyvio or close para-phrasing concerns, and the article accurately interprets those sources.
  • The only further query I have is whether the content in Soviet History, 1917–53 is worthy of inclusion. Francesco Benvenuti wrote a chapter, "A Stalinist Victim of Stalinism: 'Sergo' Ordzhonikidze", which is accessible on Google Books. Harrias talk 10:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. It does look like it has a couple things that could be used (I have incorporated a couple into the early life section), but I'm only able to get the first few pages (I'm in Canada if that impacts their preview ability). That said I will order a copy of it from the local library as soon as possible, but I don't think that will be any time soon unfortunately. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Skimming through what I can see (limited, but a bit more than your three pages!) I am happy that the article doesn't seem to be omitting anything major, so I will mark the source review as "passed". Harrias talk 16:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 June 2020 [39].

Secretarybird

edit
Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Aa77zz & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unusual African bird of prey (trying to balance systemic bias in the process too). Three of us have worked on it (so should mean triple the speed of response) and it got a good going-over at GAN. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Finally! Thi'sll be a placeholder for now, will review in full later. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was depicted as bistarda deserti in the 13th century work" Do we have this image? Might be nice to show.
It doesn't seem so. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's here[40] free. The take home message is it was first thought to be a bustard, which I think should be mentioned here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Kinzelbach black -and-white image is fairly low resolution. A scan of the original in colour is here v18. The resolution seems to be the same but colour makes it much more attractive. Unfortunately, the Vatical puts watermarks on their images (and claims copyright). I've screen-dumped the image and tried removing the watermark in Photoshop but I'm not very skilled and the results aren't wonderful. I'm also hesitant about using a manipulated image. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not that important to show the image but I think it should be stated explicitly it was thought to be a bustard (maybe just translate "desert bustard" as the source does). FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fair point - added note about bustard issue now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the short video behind bars adds much but clutter.
ok removed video Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have photos of the chick, but perhaps this drawing[41] could be a placeholder under breeding?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the text under captivity would make more logical sense under Threats and conservation?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we could show a close up of the feet under feeding? Since they are important for this behaviour, and they are barely visible in the other photos.
Ah, seems we don't have any such images. Perhaps show how it uses it feet for attack instead? We have these images:[42][43][44][45] Not great, but it gives an idea of the motion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, this seems to be the last unaddressed point. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggested that the species was called "Sagittarius"" And who called it that?
I've gone with "Dutch settlers" (rather than Boers). The original Dutch has Boeren the French translation has Païsan du Cap. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French naturalist Georges Cuvier erected the genus Serpentarius in 1798,[11] and the German naturalist Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger erected the genus Gypogeranus from the Ancient Greek words gyps "vulture" and geranos "crane" in 1811." Do we know why these other names were erected? And you should probably state they are junior synonyms.
I have been unable to find a later source that lists the current name and all synonyms - I found one source mentioning priority at least (clarifying the oldest name). I doubt we will find a source discussing why otther authors gave new names - it seems to have been a very common occurrence back then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometimes, the enigmatic bird Eremopezus" You should state already here that it is prehistoric or fossil.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • State where Eremopezus was found.
Eremopezus was discovered in Egypt - BUT - embarrassingly neither of the cited sources appear to mention Eremopezus. The 2001 article here assumes Eremopezus was a large ratite but the 2001 article does compare the tarsometatarsus with that of the secretarybird's. I've deleted the sentence as I don't see how Eremopezus could ever be classified as an early relative of the secretarybird. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were not discovered in Africa but France." Just say in France then.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French polymath Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon suggested" State when.
1780 added. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Position of the secretarybird in the order Accipitriformes." I think the caption could mention both the method sued and the date.
added "molecular phylogenetics" as method - is this what you meant?. This part of the avian tree seems solid - Prum et al 2015 obtained the same result. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the skeleton image could be moved one section down to behaviour, as it clashes with the flight picture, and has nothing to do with distribution.
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marbled grey and black colouring the base" At the base?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one or more of the chick" Chicks?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of the flexible crest? Since it develops so early, it doesn't appear to be of a sexual nature? But must be important otherwise? The following can't be the only function? "Their crest feathers may raise during a hunt, which may serve to help scare the target and provide shade for the face."
nothing has turned up (surprisingly), so can't really speculate Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only with small prey items such as wasps will the bird use its bill to pick prey items directly." Awkward with double "prey items".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the extinct Phorusrhacidae" Perhaps say (terror birds) in parenthesis, so unfamiliar readers might recognise the name better.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although widespread, the species is thinly spread across" Perhaps say thinly distributed, to avoid double spread?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "call the bird Inxhanxhosi and attribute great intelligence to the bird in folklore." Double "the bird", could be "it" second time around.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just me, or is the conspicuous crest not mentioned in the description?
Oops! Added now! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a flattened dark crest" But it is flexible, so not always flattened?
well, it's always sort of is (compared to (say) a the crest of a cockatoo, which can be erect.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though it does kill snakes." Though it also? It is written as if all readers would assume to begin with that it mainly eats snakes.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "anecdotal observations and the results of localised surveys" The article body doesn't say the evidence is only anecdotal.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively to the kicking image suggestions above, you could move the skeleton down to the paragraph about its legs under feeding (it shows the legs well), and under behaviour instead for example show a pair roosting in a tree as is discussed there[46][47], or a bird doing a wing threat display at a jackal.[48] FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bibliomaniac15

edit

A couple notes. bibliomaniac15 19:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with FunkMonk that the short video doesn't really seem to add much to the article.
video removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In captivity should probably be moved into the Relationship with humans section at least. I think it can still be kept as its own section apart from Threats and conservation though.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
one image added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adults are normally silent but in nuptial displays and when at the nest can utter a deep guttural croaking noise, quite unlike other diurnal birds of prey."
    • I'm not entirely clear what exactly is "quite unlike other diurnal birds." The phrasing of this sentence is also really awkward; perhaps "Adults are normally silent; however, they can utter a deep guttural croaking noise when they are in nuptial displays or at the nest"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a prominent feature on the coat of arms of South Africa, adopted in 2000, with its wings outstretched it symbolises growth and its penchant for killing snakes translates as a protector of the South African state against enemies."
    • This sentence sounds kind of clunky and I'm not entirely sure how to copyedit it.
I have split the sentence and tweaked it a bit. Does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. bibliomaniac15 23:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Went for a second go-over, this time doing a source and image check. bibliomaniac15 23:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images look good, with no licensing issues as I can see.
  • Spot checked the sources. I don't have journal access to scientific papers anymore, but I tried what I could. Here are some citations that might need some attention.
    • Citation 43: The statement about stamps needs some revision. First, the website cited has been updated to a different page number now, shown here, and the stamp numbers are different from the version cited in 2018, shown here.
I have updated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation 36: In the article it says that the secretarybird has no cecum, but the source itself mentions that there probably is, albeit rather small (0.4-0.6 cm), and that it was mistakenly reported to have two of them.
I have changed that now. I think we can leave out as nonnotable/historical that someone in 1902 mistakenly thought there was an extra pair. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation 55: I revised the statement a bit to mention that the breeding and raising was specifically at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park rather than the San Diego Zoo. There's some other interesting details about the history of secretarybirds at the Zoo(s) but I don't know what level of detail you intend to go into regarding the "in captivity" section. The part about "trained" secretarybirds is perhaps something to look into.
Just digesting - will think on how much detail to add today Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on the general longevity of the bird in the wild and/or in captivity?
I saw that on that webpage - looking for any other info, otherwise will likley add the webpage added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence needs fixing in the breeding section: "The age at which they leave the nest is very variable but is usually around 75–80 days but can be anywhere between 65 and 106 days." bibliomaniac15 02:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
reowrded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement in the lead doesn't really seem representative of the body text, and having the word "likely" in there is a little odd: "Rodents and grasshoppers likely form the bulk of its diet, though it also kills snakes."
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
better late than never! thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous

edit
  • This article contains no native African-language names for this bird. Names included should correspond to languages spoken in endemic regions.
Yes there is, see culture. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are few African accounts or characterizations of the bird included in the article. Historical African accounts of the bird should be included before accounts by European colonizers.
Yes there is see culture. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question whether the Cultural Significance section, which should be central to the article, should be a subsection of the Relationship With Humans section.
Its not big enough. I don't see why that section should be central. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial sentences in the article imply that the bird was 'discovered' by white men, which is preposterous. Please begin with an African account.
We have no information on that. Classification section are always written from a Western perspective since that's the system that is used. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SerpentariusSkeleton.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see that a date of death has been added? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image was replaced by File:Secretary bird skeleton.jpg. bibliomaniac15 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from JC

edit
  • The secretarybird is instantly recognisable as a very large bird with an eagle-like body on crane-like legs which increases the bird's height to as much as 1.3 m (4.3 ft). - It isn't clear to me what increases the bird's height (the body? the legs? both? if either of the latter two, should be "increase"). For that matter, "increase" suggests a positive change relative to something else, so not sure that's the most precise word choice.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We learn about Vosmaer's theory on the etymology of "Secretarius", but aren't told to take it with a grain of salt until five or six paragraphs later. Any way to bring that train of thought together?
good point and juxtaposed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.3 m is converted to 4.3 ft in the lede, but 4 ft 3 in in the article body. 4.3 feet rounds to 4 ft 4 in. Also some other variation between decimals and feet-inches throughout the article.
aligned. template issues. the other imperial units using the template and resulting in decimal points are inches, which seems prudent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • so birds reaching down to the ground or drinking must stoop to do so → "so it must stoop to drink or reach the ground"? A little more straightforward, but perhaps just a matter of preference.
Well, it's obviously either activity. I have removed drinking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • tipped with white tipping - Suggest removing "tipped"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • although the male appears to be slightly smaller on average - Is this "appears" in the sense that it looks smaller side-by-side, or that we suspect it's smaller but can't say for sure? If the former, it's unnecessary.
I have removed size difference as there is large overlap anyway, and there is some conflicting information in the secondary sources on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bluer-grey plumage - "more blue"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the coastal plains to the highlands. - Do we have anything like a highest recorded occurrence?
can't see anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "savanna" in Distribution but "savannah" in the lede.
aligned. spelling Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for consistency between spelled-out numbers and numerals. Example: Eggs are laid at two to three day intervals until the clutch of 1–3 eggs is complete.
changed all to numbers - there are so many numbers > 10 that it looks odd with numbers-as-words and I think makes it slightly less readable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • most likely occurred further north along the Nile. - Suggest adding "than in present day" at the end.
added "in days of yore historically" as slightly more precise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would love to see any recent conservation actions or research since 2013, but understand if none available.
nothing much coming up, sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see to complain about. Looks good! – Juliancolton | Talk 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

edit
  • As the oldest published binomial name should "oldest published" by hyphenated?
I can see the basis for this but that looks really odd to me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some ornithologists place the family Cathartidae in a separate order Cathartiformes why?
This is only in for completeness - the rationale for the move is (I think) beyond the scope of the article. We can just take out the footnote altogether if it otherwise leaves readers pondering Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More recently when?
1977 - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, Buffon's etymology is almost certainly correct according to whom?
reworded to indicate it is Fry's opinion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glenn who is Glenn?
Professor Ian Glenn is mentioned a few paragraphs up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I thought there was an issue with fixing image sizes but agree it is small so set at 300px. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been hypothesised by whom?
By this guy - have specified same Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • although this is changing as of when?
Source doesn't specifiy (I mean I'd guess and say over much of the 20th century but can't back that up) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
although this is changing according to whom? Therapyisgood (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comes from Handbook of Birds of the Wolrd (many authors) - is unattributed in the text itself Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to a recent rapid decline across its entire range when is "recent"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentioned early on - not seen other mentions of it. Will take another look (now that you point it out) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you move the multiple image to the top of the "Breeding" section right below the file? It's breaking the page for me. Otherwise, if the other comment above is addressed, I'll be happy to support. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sainsf

edit

I feel I am pretty late here, amazing to see 3 supports in just 10 days :D Lovely article, thoroughly enjoyed reading. Just a few things I observed (ignoring a few points that the earlier comments have raised already): Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 09:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The German biologist Ragnar Kinzelbach proposed When?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Described as bistarda deserti Is this a scientific name or a Latin phrase?
Latin phrase. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is a rough translation possible? Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following words state that it was mistaken for a bustard (bistarda), deserti should be obvious. LittleJerry (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. For a moment I was unsure what it meant. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 20:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the species was called "Sagittarius" Why does the name start with "S"? It is not a proper noun or a scientific name is it?
Proper name, see Sagittarius. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I thought the name would be like "crow" or "pigeon", no caps. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor Ian Glenn Of where?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icones animalium et plantarum I wonder if an English translated title can be added right after this. Just improves understanding of what the work was about. Also for the other foreign language titles. I have been told this must be done at least in the citations (using the "trans-title" parameter).
The trans title parameter is for "cite book" template. Anyhow, one of the titles translates as "Board relationships animals" which doesn't make sense in English. The others seem to be obvious (you can guess what Voyage à la Nouvelle-Guinée means). Casliber? LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wanted to be clear whether the titles can be translated simply and if they are too confusing to understand (I didn't look at all of them). It can be done with "cite journal" too, which I've done often on request. Anyway, all clear now. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 01:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buffon's etymology is almost certainly correct The wording may be a bit too strong
agreed and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the Dutch "secretaris" Italics for foreign terms
agreed and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • speed of 2.5–3 km/hour Convert template
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oldest confirmed by banding I did not get what "banding" means
Its linked. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed that. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 20:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faune de la Sénégambie (Caption) Should be in italics
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • its population has been estimated at anywhere between 6,700 and 67,000 individuals When are these estimates from? What are the latest numbers?'
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • threatened by loss of habitat[54] Just a nitpick.. putting references in the middle of a line may not look so good, no harm in putting it at the end.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is C. Hilary Fry?
He was an ornithologist at Aberdeen University. I don't know whether he was Scottish or not and I don't know whether his study was restricted to birds so paused before writing "Scottish ornithologist". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to just the institution name then. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose: All the issues or points that I felt were worth discussing have been addressed and I feel the article meets FA prose standards. All the best! (Also, as I forgot to state earlier, I plan to list this review in my WikiCup submissions.) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 01:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit
  • Important article. I have some slight concerns about coverage, as I feel there is some more that should be added, but see details below.
Coverage of some aspects of its biology have been patchy to say the least. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the oldest published binomial name, it has priority over later scientific names – but this should refer only the second part of the binominal name.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French naturalist Georges Cuvier erected the genus Serpentarius in 1798, and the German naturalist Johann Karl Wilhelm Illigererected the genus Gypogeranus from the Ancient Greek words gyps "vulture" and geranos "crane" in 1811. – Suggest to add a sentence explaining that these names are later found to be synonyms or similar; otherwise this is a bit without context.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The feet in these fossils are more like those of the Accipitridae; – Maybe add what is similar. Feet are also not described anywhere in the article, could be added in any case.
Casliber can you take this last one? LittleJerry (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking now. Requires some reading Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay regarding Pelargopappus, it is on page 524 of this review paper by Mayr. In essence, it is " tarsometatarsus with a more strongly developed trochlea for the second toe and a more pronounced medial hypotarsal crest", which seems a bit off-topic to introduce on the page. I'll now look for foot description Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to find. I was able to add one thing that illustrates just how short the toes are. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • through French., – excessive dot
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology is discussed in two separate locations (second and last paragraph of Taxonomy), this might not be ideal.
second paragraph is on the genus name. Last paragraph is on the common name. LittleJerry (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • inter-tarsal joint – link?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sub-terminal – not sure if this can be expected to be understood by a broad readership; an alternative could be "close to its end"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adults are normally silent – this means juveniles are not? If so, juvenile vocals should be mentioned.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely miss a description of the beak
Sources don't describe it other then it being "relatively weak". LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before starting with roosting in Behavior and Ecology, we need basic information about their social life: Are they living singular, in paris, or in flocks? When reading "roosting", I first thought about communal roosting. Maybe just adding "pair" somewhere would suffice.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • from a nestling banded on 23 July 2011 in Bloemfontein and recovered 440 km (270 mi) away in Mpumalanga on 7 June 2016 – This seems overly detailed at this point in the text, which is about age; it would be of interest under distribution, however, as an example how far they may disperse?
I felt that splitting material on banding into different parts of the article would not be a good idea. Thinking about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by chasing each other with their wings up and back, much like the way they defend their territory. – The way they defend their territory was not mentioned anywhere in the article; but this should be specifically stated I think.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their weight gain over this period is variable, from 56 g (2.0 oz) at hatching, to 500 g (18 oz) at 20 days, 1.1 kg (2.4 lb) at 30 days, 1.7 kg (3.7 lb) at 40 days, 2 kg (4.4 lb) at 50 days, 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) at 60 days, and 3 kg (6.6 lb) at 70 days. – not sure what to make of these numbers. Are these mean values from multiple individuals? Or a case study of a single individual? Isn't "variable" meaning "variable in different individuals"?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young can catch their first prey after 2 weeks and by 4 to 8 weeks – after two weeks from fledging or hatching?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but how can that be? They are supposed to leave the nest after 65 days of age at the earliest; how can they go to expeditions with their parents after four weeks? Seems contradictory. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. It is unneeded as it repeated statements at the beginning of the paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon suggested that the name secretary/secrétaire had been chosen because of the long quill-like feathers at the top of the bird's neck – this needs explanation: what do have the feathers to do with a secretary?
That secretaries used quills to write things down? LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, found something about medieval scribe with quill behind the ears and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Males and females can also perform a grounded display by chasing each other with their wings up and back, much like the way they defend their territory. – what role do the crest feathers play in courtship?
We couldn't find a source discussing this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secretarybirds specialise in stomping their prey until the prey is killed or immobilised. – "until it is killed or immobilised"?
agreed and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to a recent rapid decline across its entire range,[1] particularly in South Africa – Is the "particularly" covered by the source? This implies that the population is declining in South Africa more rapidly than in other African countries, but I doubt that these other countries make similar efforts to monitor population size.
Yes - combining the two souces in one sentence was an error. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent lack of sights in western Africa could be mentioned (in the Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive?), I would also mention to what degree it can adopt to landscapes transferred by human activity, see Hofmeyr (2014) source. I think these are important points.
The alteration of habitat in Kruger is mentioned, and the source does not talk in detail about elsewhere in South Africa Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf and Jens Lallensack, are we finished? LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly done. One of the points seem to have escaped your notice. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 22:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By unresolved issue I meant the point about the foreign title translations wherever possible. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 00:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood and Jens Lallensack: Are you satisfied? And did a source review get done (I do see the spot check, but nothing about reliablity...) --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW @Ealdgyth:, Therapyisgood is blocked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still need a source reliablity check, I think? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary? Casliber and I have both done many FAs and my last FA had a spot check. LittleJerry (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks aren't always necessary, but the reliablity of the sources does need checking for every article. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah LittleJerry, no-one gets a free pass...and that's fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth:, its getting close to a month since I listed the article for source reliability checking and no ones biting. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

edit
  • "the secretarybird occurs over a very large range". "very" seems a little WTW/POV to me. It does not seem to be repeated in the main text, so I can't check what the source says. I would suggest deleting "very"; if not, add it to the main article and source it. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agreed and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Formatting mostly good, a few points:
  • In many places the initials are like "A.B." while they should be like "A. B." per MOS:INITIALS.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were some instances where scientific names were not italicized. I have fixed all that I could find, feel free to revert any changes and fix any more errors.
  • The titles in refs 20 and 22 should be italicized as it is in a foreign language
Fixed. 22 already is. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant the chapter title in 22. I've fixed it. Sainsf (t · c) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think ref 27 needs the mention of the country.. you generally mention just the city everywhere except Alice, where it is justified to include the country as the name itself seems obscure
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the location for refs. 56 and 57
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any page range for ref 5?

Casliber? Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks done, all good. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 18:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Sainsf -- are you signing off on the reliability of the sources as well as formatting and accurate use? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yes, I am. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [49].

The Boat Race 2020

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The race that never happened. Historically notable as pretty much only war has prevented this event from taking place. The article follows several previous FAs so it shouldn't be too far from acceptable. As always, I will work tirelessly and diligently to resolve any issues brought up, and thank you in advance for your time and energy in reviewing it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

Hi TRM. Just a few more comments from that I arrose at the GAN.

sorry, wrong year. 1845. in the lede Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thus linked. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it for a first pass Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski thanks, I've addressed and/or responded to your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski anything else? Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski are you happy with the article now? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

edit

My first thought on seeing the title was "what 2020 boat race"? Sadly, my first thought was indeed correct. Hope that everything is okay in the UK now. (We haven't had a case of COVID-19 here in Canberra for nearly three weeks now, and things are returning to normal, but looks like I'll still be working from home from home until next semester.) Anyhow, this is a fine article, and I support its promotion to featured. Just to prove I read it though, I have a few minor quibbles, which you can feel free to ignore:

  • "He is assisted by Paddy Ryan and Katy Knowles" Suddenly shifted to the present tense here. Suggest staying in the past. ("was" instead of "is")
  • "Actin took a slight lead by the Black Buoy which they extended to be several lengths up on Myosin by Hammersmith Bridge." (comma after "Buoy" I think)
  • "By the town buoy, Cambridge held a quarter-length lead which they extended to three-quarters by Craven Cottage" (comma after "lead" or substitute "that" for "which")
  • "Hammersmith Bridg" Should this be "Bridge"?
  • "Brookes held a one-third length lead by the Town Buoy" ("one-third-length"?)
  • "A further blade clash before the Mile Post saw OBUBC take a half-length lead which they extended to two lengths" (comma after "lead" or substitute "that" for "which")
  • "a indoor rowing challenge to raise money for charity" ("an")
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 cheers, all comments addressed, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Only two images. Both Wikipedian-created, on Commons with appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus, thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by Chidgk1

edit
  • Consider amending the short description from "Cambridge vs Oxford rowing race, March 2020". Maybe "Cancelled Cambridge University vs Oxford University rowing race"
Chidgk1 hi, thanks for those comments and your support. I've made the appropriate adjustments, I guess I have about 170 articles to update for the better "cox" link now!! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're all bang on. You can trust me... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source rev

edit

 Doing... ——Serial # 15:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No spot checks carried out, as a) the nom is an experienced FACker, and b) the usual over-reliance on a single source makes the source reviewers task like his eggs. Over easy  :)
  • Quality and reliability: all good, no tabloids etc.
  • Sources listed chronologically.
    Everything's fine, nice article, as we're used to. Cheers. ——Serial # 16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [53].

Super-Science Fiction

edit
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a minor magazine from the late 1950s. It wouldn't have had enough meat on the bones to get further than GA if it weren't that Robert Silverberg, a well-known sf writer, reminisced about it in the introduction to one of his collections of stories. It's short, but I think it's complete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian

edit

Good to see you back with another sf mag, Mike. Recusing coord duties, I've lightly copyedited and have the following suggestions:

  • The Comics Code, introduced in 1954, forced Feature to stop publication of all three titles by late 1956 -- although not strictly germane to this story, it'd be interesting to briefly hear the grounds for the Code's decision re. what now appear to be quite innocuous titles.
    There's nothing specific about those titles in Ashley -- he just says, for example, that "Frankenstein Comics was wound up under the Comic Code in 1954". Our article on Frankenstein Comics similarly just says the Comics Code led to its demise. If you look at the criteria, it seems pretty straightforward that a horror comic about Frankenstein's monster would have a hard time meeting the code, but I don't think I can say anything specific in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott paid two cents a word for both fiction and non-fiction, a rate that made the magazine competitive with the other major titles in the field -- does the source mention any such titles that might be dropped in to give the reader context?
    Silverberg says "it was twice as much as what most of the science-fiction magazines we were selling to then would pay", but I know from other sources that two and sometimes three cents a word was available at the top end of the market (Galaxy, F&SF, Astounding). I don't think it would be OR to make the reference, but since Silverberg doesn't get specific I thought it wasn't necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the spring of that year Ellison took Scott some stories -- can we avoid the seasonal reference?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find infoboxes particularly useful or necessary in these magazine articles but happy to defer to main editor/s -- and of course consensus -- in these situations.
    I avoid them where they cover up ambiguities, but here the title, frequency, editor, and publisher are all constant, so I think it's harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- all refs impeccable, no surprises here; formatting-wise, the only thing I noticed was that the ISBN of Asimov's title could be consistent with the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how to do the split? I know it would start "978-0-..." but where would the hyphens go at the end? Your copyedits look fine, except that I changed "knowledgeable of the genre" back to "knowledgeable about the genre"; the former sounds quite odd to me. Perhaps an AusEng/BrEnd thing? And thanks for the review and support, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • Ian may have an opinion on this: what prevents Silverberg's reminiscences from being primary sources? Ie WP:PRIMARY states "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on" and "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
    Much of what Silverberg says is supported to a greater or lesser extent by Ashley. There are some points that rely specifically on Silverberg's recollections, such as the anecdote about the manuscript that had been rejected eighteen times, the wordage rate, the dates, and the mention of Harry Altshuler, but these don't seem controversial to me. Is there anything he's cited for that you think is dubious? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular issues in that respect, but if Silverberg is a primary source, then given that 21 of 47 cites are to Silverberg it seemed to teeter on the edge of breaking "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]." But going through in detail, you seem to have cannily kept on the right side of that. So false alarm.
  • Several sources which I would consider reliable state that SSF was published by Headline Publications, eg The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1979). (I understood Feature Publications, aka Crestwood Publications, to have predominately or exclusively published comic books.)
    Headline was an imprint of Feature -- this is mentioned in the article, and you can see Headline Comics listed in our article on them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that - but missed it! Apologies.
  • "In 1957 the liquidation of American News Company, a major distributor, meant that many magazines had to scramble to find new distributors. Independent distributors often required that the magazines be monthly, and that they be in a larger format than the digest-size common among science fiction magazines. The larger format required higher revenue to be profitable, but in many cases it proved impossible to attract the additional advertising income that would have kept the magazines afloat" Given that SSF had independent distribution, how is this information relevant?
    See next response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the surviving distributors often failed to cooperate with smaller publishers". Was the publisher of SSF "smaller? If so, why are we not told; if not, how is this relevant?
    I don't know how big Feature was, but per your previous point the discussion of the collapse of ANC didn't affect SSF directly. I did think about cutting the discussion of ANC, but it's a key part of the overall story -- there were something like 45 sf magazines published in 1953 and only 10 or so by the end of the decade. ANC wasn't the only reason for the collapse; the market had been over-saturated, and I doubt the monster movie craze, which might have brought new readers to the genre, was helpful in the longterm. So the intention was context -- "At the end of the 1950s lots of magazines died because of ANC, and more died for other reasons". Is this simply not worth including, or is it that I'm lacking a summary sentence to bring that point out? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. I kinda knew everything you say anyway, and each sentence is individually fine. But by the end of the paragraph I was confused. (Admittedly I confuse easily, but still.) Starting the paragraph with "there were something like 45 sf magazines published in 1953 and only 10 or so by the end of the decade" might help. Maybe mention SSF a bit earlier in the paragraph? Maybe try to tie the points more to SSF? Even if only to say they didn't apply.
Yes, I think you're right that something needs to be done. I'll think about it and will post here when I have a rewritten version of the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: I've now rewritten that paragraph to focus more on the market situation, using ANC as just an example of the disruption. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Yes, that works. IMO it pushes a bit at the boundary of "places the subject in context" and "without going into unnecessary detail"; but just about stays the right side. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Any chance of a citation? I would make it the first section not the last, but that's your call.
Oops; cited to Stableford's article in the original Encyclopedia of SF; I added Ashley to cover the fact that Headline was an imprint of Feature. I've typically made these sections last because they can go into some esoteric details which I don't think are of enough interest to place higher in the article; see Weird_Tales#Bibliographic_details for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the date of the last issue be given? "only three more issues appeared" leaves a reader counting on their fingers. And coming to the incorrect answer if they assume monthly publication.
    Also answered in the new section; is that OK or do you think I should put it in the text? I sometimes leave this sort of detail out if I think it's obvious from elsewhere, and the table does answer the question after all, so I've also moved the table up to the publication history section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works, especially moving the table up.
WorldCat gives an ISBN and an OCLC.
I believe that's the original Doubleday edition, which is different, but I hadn't thought of including an OCLC and have now done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead : "the remainder, which generally comprised material rejected by other magazines first, was sent in by literary agents." I am not sure that this is fully supported by the text of the main article.
    Reworded to make it "much of the remainder", which I think is what the concern was? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was, cheers.
  • "though Silverberg considers the material he wrote for Scott and other action-adventure magazine publishers to have helped him learn his trade as a writer." While Silverberg was a/the major contributor, might it not be more appropriate to end the lead with a more general summary? Perhaps from Ashley?
    I tried making it "Silverberg considers the material he wrote for Scott and other action-adventure magazine publishers to have helped him learn his trade as a writer, but the magazine is not highly regarded by critics" but I don't like it that way round. As it stands the last sentence gives the critical opinion, followed by a qualification -- the point about Silverberg. The revised version would make the comment about Silverberg the main point, but the critics' opinion is not really a qualification of that so it reads oddly. I'd like to leave this as it is -- it does give the critical opinion in the last sentence; it's just that the qualifying clause is longer than the main clause.
Given how much Silverberg contributed, fair enough.

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note
edit

Hi Mike, I have just been reading Silverberg's Collected Stories Vol 5 (1997). On page 13 he writes that he wrote 36 of SSF's total of 120 stories. He also directly links SSF's decline to the collapse of American News Company and comments on the going rates for stories. It seems to me worth trawling for information - unless you have already done so. If you don't have it I could scan and email you the relevant page. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd very much like to see it -- I'll send you a Wikipedia email to reply to. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just read through it. I think there's nothing I need to add to this article, though this would be a good source for the article on Silverberg himself. He talks about the influence of the disappearance of ANC on the market, but in the intro to Tales from SSF he makes it clear that SSF did not use ANC, so the general discussion of the impact on the market is all that's needed. Thanks for sending it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit
Support Just a couple of things
  • Language in the lede "couple of", feels a bit informal. Asimov's participation is probably lede-worthy.
    I've added a mention of Asimov to the lead. The trouble with "couple of years" is that the sources don't say just when Feature decided to make the change to a monster focus. The first monster issue had a cover date of April 1959 and was probably on newsstands in March, so given lead times in the industry it's practically certain that the decision was made in late 1958, but I can't really cite that to anything, so I've left it vague. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There have been no anthologies of stories from the magazine,[11] but in 2012 a collection of Robert Silverberg's stories, titled Tales from Super-Science Fiction, appeared, with an introduction in which Silverberg reminisced about his involvement with the magazine.[12]" This is somewhat ambiguous, whether it means that no stories from the magazine have been anthologized or there have been no anthologies consisting entirely of stories from this magazine. The Asimov stories have been anthologized.
    Changed to "no anthologies consisting solely of stories from the magazine". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Short but sweet.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support; let me know if you think "couple of" really needs to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47

edit
  • I support this article for promotion. You have done a wonderful job with the article. I only have two quick comments, but they are both nitpick-y and not major enough to hold off a support. My comments are below:

Again, great work with the article, and I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [54].

James P. Hagerstrom

edit
Nominator(s): ~huesatlum/ 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a U.S. Air Force fighter pilot who was a flying ace in both World War II and the Korean War. It passed a thorough MILHIST A-Class Review in 2018, and I believe it has only improved since then and meets the FA criteria. As this is my first FAC nom, Nick-D was gracious enough to mentor me through the process, and I hope to get the article to FA in time for it to run on TFA next January for the 100th anniversary of his birth. Enjoy! ~huesatlum/ 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

edit
  • Recusing coord duties, I reviewed and supported at the article's MilHist A-Class Review and have checked changes since then, copyediting as I went.
  • I don't see anything about the circumstances of his being awarded the Silver Star, LoM, DFC and Air Medal... Not expecting full citations as for the DSC, but would've like to see brief statements during the narrative of when and why he received them. Incidentally, according to Sherwood (2000) p.4, the Silver Star was with five oak clusters.
    • I added context for those awards. Regarding the Silver Star with five clusters, it seems Sherwood got that fact wrong, as I found several sources (Oliver & Lorenz 1999, p. 80; Inouye 1994; Hall of Valor) that only mention one Silver Star, and no others that say six. ~huesatlum/ 17:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given this is the nominator's first FAC, I've spotchecked some sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing:
    • FN5: our article mentions “(which used coveralls and civilian uniforms due to the lack of standard uniforms)”; the source says “coveralls and a civilian suit” – I’d suggest that “civilian suit” sounds more like a business suit than any kind of uniform but in any case I don’t think we really need this level of detail and could safely lose the whole bit that’s in parentheses.
      • Changed uniforms to suits. I'm inclined to keep the parenthetical because I think it shows the lack of resources the recruits dealt with, but I'm not attached to it. ~huesatlum/ 17:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN18: okay although I tweaked wording slightly.
    • FN45: mostly fine but don’t think the source clearly states it was the Chinese pilot’s own base, rather “the enemy airfield which was directly below the action”.
    • FN48: okay.
    • FN53: okay.
    • FN59: okay.
  • I performed a source review for reliability and formatting at the MilHist ACR and on a fairly quick glance things still look okay in that respect but I'll try and make another pass at that later to confirm.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed changes since I last looked and just tweaked a couple of things so happy to support. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit
  • Seems very well written. Just a few comments.
  • Are military history articles supposed to be day month year or month day year as this one is?
  • The material he took to Korea. Were all these taken in the plane?
  • Were there any repercussions from his continuing the chase into Chinese airspace on the 2/25/53 kill?
  • "to start a fundraiser for Risner's bail," Bail? Were POWs available for release with cash?
  • "of the Federated States of Micronesia," Well, as you mention Saigon by its former name, this should probably be the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands since that is what it was then.
Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and your support. ~huesatlum/ 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Interesting read. Well done on this so far. I have some comments:

Lead and infobox
  • the infobox caption should read "Hagerstrom with an F-86 Sabre in Korea, c. 1952" as it is unlikely he flew the one aircraft in Korea
  • I would drop the Air Medal from the infobox as it is a common award
  • suggest "and was posted to fight in the"→participated in the"
  • suggest "There, he mainly escorted bombers flying P-40 Warhawks with the 8th Fighter Squadron" and link, as it is unlikely he flew the same aircraft on every mission, and given he flew with the single squadron, mentioning it in the lead is appropriate
  • suggest "He later transferred to the USAF and flew F-86 Sabre fighter jets with the 18th Fighter-Bomber Wing in "MiG Alley", the nickname given to the area around the northern border of North Korea with China." then "During his service in Korea he shot down 8.5 Chinese, Soviet, and North Korean MiG-15s."
  • the "30 combat missions" in Vietnam begs the question of what sort of aircraft and missions he flew.
Body
  • James Hagerstrom→James Philo Hagerstrom as his full name is in the lead and needs citation in the body
  • "The family lived in a small wooden house in Waterloo, Iowa"
  • were Iowa State Teachers College and Iowa State University different institutions at the time?
  • "which usedwore coveralls"
  • "in basic flight training at the same time"
  • "was commissioned as a second lieutenant"
  • the caption should read "Hagerstrom flew the P-40 Warhawk in World War II."
  • delete "Hagerstrom was temporarily given the duty of quarters officer, and he arranged for the group of forty second lieutenants to stay at the Mark Hopkins Hotel.", it really isn't encyclopaedic information
  • "Port Moresby, Territory of Papua" and link
  • Dobodura Airfield isn't near Moresby, it is about 140 klicks over the Owen Stanleys. Suggest "to Dobodura Airfield near Popondetta" and link the latter
  • say the P-38 Lightning was also a fighter
  • Hagerstrom was givenawarded the Distinguished Flying Cross
  • "Tsili Tsili Airfield in the Territory of New Guinea" and link the latter
  • "after two raids on August 15 and 16 that did little damage"
  • "due to another enemy reconnaissance plane in the area"
  • "the co-located P-38s to take off"
  • "was sent to Australia for three weeks to recover."
  • "P-38 Lightnings to escort bombers"
  • the Ki-61 Tony is referred to as a Ki-61 Hien in the Victories table
  • "He requested to be inan assignment to a unit that flew jet aircraft"
  • in P-47 Thunderbolts→flying P-47 Thunderbolts
  • "The couple were reunited"
  • what aircraft did the 111th Fighter-Bomber Squadron fly?
  • "special mirrored sunglasses that allowed him to see twice as far as normal" seems an extraordinary claim. Is there any explanation as to how sunglasses would permit him to see further? Surely binoculars would be required?
  • the caption should read "Hagerstrom flew the F-86 Sabre in the Korean War."
  • "propeller-driven F-51 Mustangs to jet F-86s", as they were redesignated F-51 by this stage, as you have noted above, and we already know the F-86 was a jet
  • "on February 25 he was part of the 18th FBW's first patrol in Sabre jets" but hadn't he been flying F-86s with 18th FBW?
  • "and would bewas the only one from the 18th FBW"
  • link Chongchon River
  • "Tachikawa Airfield in Japan"
  • delete "Hagerstrom volunteered for extra flights on his days off, once flying under a pseudonym." as these things have already been relayed with reference to particular incidents
  • "U.S. pilots were not allowed to attack planes on the ground" in China? Surely they were allowed to do so in North Korea?
  • "and headedcommanded the 450th Fighter-Day Squadron" if that is right?
  • "he advocated for retaining guns on fighter jets instead of replacing them with missiles" but weren't guns retained as well as missiles? This seems counter-factual.
  • link Office of Inspector General (United States)
  • what aircraft did the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing fly?
  • same question about what sort of combat missions he flew in Vietnam and in what types of aircraft
  • "The ambush of the VC" it doesn't seem to have been an ambush, more an air strike
  • "using this to argue that air attacks cause fewer casualties than a war of attrition strategy with ground forces" I don't follow this at all, why would he promote the idea of causing fewer casualties on the enemy?
  • full stop after Shreveport
  • I think the list of the other dual aces is unnecessary, in any case William T. Whisner Jr. is duplinked. You could create a navigation template at the bottom of the article instead
    • I don't think a navbox would be appropriate, as there is no main topic article and they are connected just by a bit of trivia. Perhaps a footnote? ~huesatlum/ 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for consistency, I suggest adding the nickname for the Ki-46 to the table
    • I think that would be inconsistent, as Zero and Hien are part of the names for those aircraft, whereas "Dinah" is just a nickname used by the Allies for the Ki-46. ~huesatlum/ 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the DSC citation "he caused it to burst into flames"
Sources
  • I have queries about the reliability of Hall of Valor and the need for using the Social Security Death Index (it is redundant, as Oliver & Lorenz 1999 has all the cited info)
    • From the About page, Hall of Valor is curated by a Military Times editor, and they seem to have a solid verification process. Regarding the Death Index, I'd rather keep the birth date double-cited because one source incorrectly lists his birth date. ~huesatlum/ 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Nothing too drastic, mainly tweaks throughout to improve the grammar and enhance clarity. A couple of queries about claims/statements made. Well done so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed review. I believe I have responded to everything; if I didn't explicitly reply to a point, that means I accepted your suggestion. ~huesatlum/ 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

This was the 10th article I ever copy edited for GoCE, back in my first month of being active on Wikipedia. It seems to have coped with the experience remarkably well. A few random comments.

In James P. Hagerstrom#Sources#Books these two citations need the page ranges of their chapters.
I added the page range for Werrell and removed the chapter specification for O&L, as there is a footnote from outside the chapter. ~huesatlum/ 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers with a place name in their name frequently publish from another location. In any case it is usual to be consistent with regard to either giving all book publisher locations or none.
Done. ~huesatlum/ 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he shot down 8.5 Chinese, Soviet, and North Korean MiG-15s" I am unconvinced that it is possible to shoot down 0.5 of an aircraft. This is phrased better in the main text.
Possibly 'he was credited with the shooting down of 8.5 Chinese, Soviet, and North Korean MiG-15s (the half coming from a shared credit)' would make the flow a little easier for a reader.
Changed to "he was credited with shooting down..." ~huesatlum/ 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hagerstrom joined the rest of the 8th FS at Kila Airfield" Is it known when?
  • "The 8th FS switched to escorting B-25 Mitchell and A-20 Havoc bombers but saw little action themselves. They saw more combat ..." Should the 8th FS not be 'It', not ""They"?
I know the feeling - have have done similar rewordings myself.
Possibly "took" → 'undertook'?
Changed. ~huesatlum/ 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He got a pair of moccasin boots lined with felt, a silk-lined flight suit for winter insulation" → 'He got a pair of moccasin boots lined with felt and a silk-lined flight suit for winter insulation'.
You are right. But it reads as if both the boots and the suit are "for winter insulation", which caused me to stumble over the grammar.
Reworded to clarify that both were for insulation. ~huesatlum/ 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to see with twice the visual acuity as normal" Is this acceptable AmericanEnglish? In British English it would be 'to see with twice the visual acuity of normal'.
  • "(including 10 pounds [4.5 kg] of rice) The MoS suggests that "[4.5 kg]" should be '(4.5 kg)'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copy edits then and your comments now. I have responded to them. ~huesatlum/ 02:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments on your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fine piece of work and well up to the FA criteria. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [55].

MAUD Committee

edit
Nominator(s): JMcC (talk) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the MAUD Committee, which performed a feasibility study of the claims in the Frisch-Peierls memorandum that an atomic bomb was practical. It led to the establishment of the British, American and Russian development projects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

All of the sources appear to be of high quality and reliable. I searched for other academic papers regarding the committee, and didn't find anything other than a 1993 article by Gowing in the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.1993.0007, but it looks from the abstract to be mainly about Chadwick rather than the committee per se. As I raised at Milhist ACR, the 2011 book The First War of Physics: The Secret History of the Atom Bomb, 1939-1949 by Jim Baggott seems to have a bit about the committee. Have you looked at it? Spotchecks not conducted due to nominators long history at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have Gowing's paper. Although I have a large library of works on the British bomb project, I don't have Baggott, and it isn't in the libraries here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat seems to think ACT Library and Information Service has it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a general history like Rhodes, but much shorter. The sources I have used are more detailed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

All images are free and correctly licensed, no issues. buidhe 01:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR in 2018, and going through it again, couldn't find much to quibble about. A few comments:

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

edit

G'day, Hawkeye, nice work as always. I have a suggestions/comments below: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Regardless of how crazy it seemed" --> "crazy" seems a little informal, is there potentially another way to say this?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from each University laboratory" --> " from each university laboratory" (lower case "u")?
    Well spotted. Deacpped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was not considered worthwhile to immediately" --> "it was not considered necessary to immediately"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frisch-Peierls Memorandum" (header) --> endash instead of hyphen? Also should it be a lower case "memorandum"? In the text you use lower case
    Should be a hyphen. And lower case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "response to the Peierls-Frisch memorandum" or "Frisch-Peierls"? (name order)
    Weird. Swapped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "funded out of the universities' own pockets" (seems a bit informal)
    Probably trying to avoid saying "funds" twice. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which also began to pay some university staff's salaries" --> "which also began to pay some salaries for university staff"?
    Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was only able to get involved because of Peierls, who pointed out" --> "he was only able to get involved after Peierls vouched for him, pointing out that..."
    Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure if this is completely necessary: "This is based on Graham's law, which states that the rate of effusion of a gas through a porous barrier is inversely proportional to the square root of the gas's molecular mass. In a container with a porous barrier containing a mixture of two gases, the lighter molecules will pass out of the container more rapidly than the heavier molecules. The gas leaving the container is slightly enriched in the lighter molecules, while the residual gas is slightly depleted". Perhaps, "Basing their work around Graham's law, Simon's team..."
    I'm not sure how well-known Graham's Law is; it wasn't on the physics syllabus when I was in high school, but likely was back then. I picked up a pen and paper to convince myself. (It's easy to derive.) However,m if I had been asked to separate two isotopes, it wouldn't have been my first guess. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor mine, but despite being an engineer, I actually only know how to break things. Perils of a corps-allocation system that doesn't take into account one's undergraduate degree... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "kilogram per day of uranium enriched to 99 per cent uranium-235" --> "kilogram per day of uranium-235 enriched to 99 per cent"?
    That would be incorrect. The enriched uranium would be 99% uranium-235 and 1% uranium. In practice, the plant would not have been capable of enriching it this much. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, no worries, my concern was to try to reduce repetition of the word "uranium" but this doesn't seem possible given what you say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest maybe adding a very short sentence to both the US and Soviet sections detailing when they successfully produced an atomic bomb? This information is in the linked main articles, so would only need to be very short.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following terms appear to be overlinked: Klaus Clusius; Physical Review and Manhattan Project
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi Hawkeye, I'd want to see commentary from someone outside the MilHist fraternity, perhaps see if you can scare one up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Graham Beards

edit

This is an excellent article. I have a copy of Clark's "The Birth of the Bomb" and I was familiar with this history during my time at The University of Birmingham during the 1970s. (I walked past the Poynting Building most days). There's a couple of videos on You Tube and this website [56] which complement the article, but this is the most comprehensive account that I have read. Graham Beards (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [57].

Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those not yet surfeited on First Punic War articles, I offer this relatively short article on Rome's nine-year-long attempt to end the war by capturing one of Carthage's last two strongholds on Sicily. How did it go? Read and find out. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support from Harrias

edit
  • It is unclear from the Background section; did the Carthaginians hold Sicily prior to the First Punic War?
Who controlled what expanded somewhat to make this clearer.
  • "The remaining Roman consul, Lucius Caecilius Metellus sent out.." Add a comma after Metellus.
Done.
  • Move the Lilybaeum link to the first use.
Done.
  • "..under the command of Himilco." Who? Everyone else has been introduced with some sort of title or position.
Done.
  • "..as being 20-metre -deep (60 ft) and 30-metre -wide (90 ft)." Not quite right, should just be "20 metres (60 ft) deep and 30 metres (90 ft) wide."
I know what you mean, and I have amended to suit, but how I originally had it is how the convert template renders it and how virtually every other FA renders similar conversions.
If it were "a 20-metre-deep (60 ft) and 30-metre-wide (90 ft) dry moat", then I would completely agree. But as "a dry moat that was 20 metres (60 ft) deep and 30 metres (90 ft) wide", the size isn't being used as an adjective, so it shouldn't be hyphenated. I think. Harrias talk 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption states "The south-east corner where the Romans started their assault is bottom right." but the article says "assaulted the south-west corner of the fortifications."
I don't know what it is with south west/east; I kept messing this up in my Gascony articles. Thanks for picking it up. Fixed.
  • "The Romans also lost men to exposure.." Exposure to what?
Just wikt:exposure: "Lack of protection from weather or the elements". The only Wikilink is to hypothermia, which isn't quite the same thing. Privation is no use at all. I could add the Wiktionary link? Or switch to wikt:privation?
Maybe we need to tighten the language in the article. Wiktionary wikt:exposure also gives "The condition of being exposed, uncovered, or unprotected." which remains vague. Possibly rephrase the article to "The Romans also lost men to the elements, disease and poor food; including rancid meat."?
Changed to "The Romans also lost men due to disease, inadequate shelter and poor food; including rancid meat."
  • "..derogatively as "mercenaries"[43] Their loyalty.." Could do with a full stop.
Inserted.
  • "..intending to betraying the city." -ing.
Removed.
Drat. Done.
  • "The Roman assault continued. The Romans broke down part of the wall using catapults. The defenders built an inner wall." Not keen on the bullet point-like sentences here.
No? I have run it into "The Roman assault continued and they broke down part of the wall using catapults; the defenders countered by building an inner wall." Better?
I prefer that, yes. Harrias talk 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By means which are unclear in the sources, possibly by tempting them further into the city, Himilco destroyed them and recaptured the wall." The phrasing of this suggests OR or EDITORIALIZING; try to rephrase it to make clear that this is what the secondary sources say, not Wikipedia.
Done.
  • The article Battle of the Aegates says "The Romans modelled the ships of their new fleet on the vessel captured from Hannibal the Rhodian.", but this article is cagier: "The Romans modelled the ships of their new fleet on a captured blockade runner with especially good qualities, possibly Hannibal the Rhodian's." Be consistent.
Why? There is no policy or guideline requiring consistency between articles.
Sure, but why be vague in one, and definite in the other? If we're sure, then let's say it, and if we're not, let's not. Harrias talk 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Polybius is clear enough. It is some of the modern sources who want to hedge their bets. Given the gap between capturing Hannibal's ship and the shipbuilding programme, I can understand why. Let's go with Polybius. Changed.
  • It goes against normal policy, but I would suggest linking Battle of the Aegates again in Naval clashes, given that it is a long time since the first mention, which is also in a section that many might skip. Usability over policy!
I entirely agree, but had stopped doing it because it is always picked up by rulesworths. Done.
  • Date the Battle of the Aegates.
Done.
  • "The question of which state was to control the western Mediterranean remained open.." Sounds a bit OPED-y.
Plenty of sources, but I have gone for the blander "Tensions remained high between the two states, and both continued to expand in the western Mediterranean."

Also, try to avoid the single-sentence paragraph.

I do. As you know. But occasionally a single sentence is all there is to say. Now doubled.
@Gog the Mild: Anything on this one? Harrias talk 19:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me at the moment. Another nice article. Harrias talk 12:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias that was very swift. If you liked it, much of the credit should go to Eddie891, who put in a lot of work at GAN. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Harrias. I missed it down there. Now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from T8612

edit
  • I would make it clearer in the lede that the Romans took the city after the Treaty of Lutatius was signed, but that they were unable to take it through a military assault.
What is unclear about "... the Romans ... made a concerted effort to take Lilybaeum by assault, but were unsuccessful and the siege became a stalemate ... By the terms of the resulting Treaty of Lutatius, Carthage had to withdraw its forces from Lilybaeum and the rest of Sicily."
I would say something like "The city held the siege until the end of the war, and was only evacuated by the Carthaginians after the Treaty of Lutatius was concluded..." but it is related to the "Roman victory" in the infobox that bothers me. So I wanted to say more clearly that Rome did not take the city before the end of the war.
I am inclined to agree with you that it is the infobox where the real issue lies; see my suggestion below. I have also tweaked the last sentence of the lead to try and bring out this point.
Yes, the lede is better. What about making a note on the "Roman victory" in the infobox? I would be fine with that.
  • Same with the "result" in the infobox (not sure if it's possible to summarise this in the infobox, but I wouldn't be against saying "stalemate/Carthage evacuates the city in 241").
I am not keen on complicated explanations against "Result" and it is discouraged. I understand where you are coming from. The usual option, if it can't be summarised in two or three words is "See aftermath".
Would you say the siege was a victory for Rome? They couldn't take the city... I'm not sure how to formulate this though.
I'm not entirely sure that I would. That's why I said that I understood where you are coming from.
Happens all the time at MilHist. I have just checked the guidance - Template:Infobox military conflict - and it suggests leaving it blank in inconclusive cases. Not helpful.
Arf, yes, not helpful.
I have changed the infobox to "Roman victory – see Aftermath" Does that work?
  • Perhaps you can shorten the Roman names in the infobox to avoid them spanning over two lines: Gaius Atilius Regulus Serranus-->C. Atilius Regulus Serranus; Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus-->L. Manlius Vulso Longus; Publius Claudius Pulcher-->P. Claudius Pulcher; Gaius Lutatius Catulus-->C. Lutatius Catulus.
If, I did that, and I don't want to, I would need to put a [note] against each one. Which would make it pointless. I would be happy to miss the praenomina out altogether in the infobox.
Yes, removing the praenomina could do it.
Done. It looks better on my screen.
Me too.
  • In the Primary sources section, perhaps you can mention Philinus of Agrigentum among the pro-Carthaginian sources Polybius used.
Done.
  • Can you move up the map "Territory controlled by Rome and Carthage at the start of the First Punic War" so it doesn't push the "Background" title in the middle of the screen?
What size images do you have your preferences set to? Currently, the map is as high as it can go without making a sandwich on 2 of the 4 screens I have checked it on, and doesn't get near the "Background" section on any of them. I could email you screenshots? Or you could send me one?
I've disconnected and this is what I see: https://imgur.com/a/rClvi8v
Harrias has emailed me a screenshot and I was surprised how bad it looks on their screen. I sent them an image of my most crowded screen and assume that they were just as surprised. I am not sure what the answer is.
I have moved the map up as you suggested, which creates a slight MOS:SANDWICH on several of my screens, but should look better on yours.
Didn't change anything for me... I've made an edit and now the titles are not pushed in the middle, but all the pictures are stacked on the right side. Tell me if that's better for you. T8612 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes things slightly worse for me, but that is mostly aesthetic. If it resolves your issue - great.
  • In the Siege section, I would say "Lilybaeum and Drepana (modern Marsala and Trapani)" to match ancient and modern names (you have reversed the order).
Gah! What an idiot. Thank you. swapped.
I thought about that when I was writing it, but what happened 39 years earlier in a different war didn't seem too relevant. But if you think that it would help, then done. See what you think.
  • I think the term Fabian Strategy is anachronistic here, as it was designed in the Second Punic War. Moreover, the Fabian Strategy was a war of attrition, while Hamilcar waged a guerrilla. I would use guerrilla instead; although the term was coined later too, it is more accurate here.
All language is anachronistic, as you note. "Fabian strategy" is lifted from a RS. But if you think it jars, then fair enough. Rephrased.
  • I would move up the picture of the denarius to remove the large white space above the Aftermath section.
I think that you have your image preference set on large. But moved up anyway.
  • In the Aftermath, I would say that Carthage tried to recapture Lilybaeum at the beginning of the Second Punic War (in 218). Source: John Briscoe, "the Second Punic War", in J. A. Crook, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie (editors), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VIII, Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C., Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 61.
Very good point. Smacks head. Not that their was a lot, if anything, to it. Done.

T8612 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that T8612, you are very quick off the mark as well. All of your points addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Np^^ There is still this question of whether it was a victory for Rome. Do we have another featured article with the same situation? I've found Siege of Dunkirk (1944–45), but it's not a FA. This might be a question for the MilHist wikiproject. T8612 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Responded above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: And further responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, support promotion now. T8612 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Attar

edit
  • "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral". Is it? I understand why some scholars might consider him objective, especially if they are inspired by positivism. However, no historian is objective and we cant say that Polybius is objective because many scholars consider it as such. For example, the objectivity of Polynius is contested in this work. Therefore, it should be stated that a group of scholars consider Polybius neutral, but not present this as a consensus or a fact.
    • Comment from the peanut gallery: The sentence already qualifies itself with the word "considered". I have no knowledge of what the scholarly consensus on Polybius is, but finding a single naysayer is not proof that there is no consensus so we should just "teach the controversy," per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Moreover, reading that passage in GBooks, it doesn't even seem clear that it's actually attacking Polybius himself, but rather simply saying all historians are biased and that Polybius wrote for a literate aristocratic audience - which is not directly contradictory to the article's sentence, since the point of the original sentence is an implicit comparison between Polybius and other ancient sources, many of which are horrendous. SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"naysayer"? Just because I showed one example doesnt mean its the only one. I will wait for the nominator reply for now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"we cant say that Polybius is objective because many scholars consider it as such" Well possibly. But the article doesn't say that. As you quote, it reads "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective". (Emphasis added.) Or to look at a different way "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective [ ... ] as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view". I don't see that the article gets into the relativistic debate as to whether "objectivity", however one may wish to define that, is possible.
In the source you give Champion is a little theoretical; in Champion, Craige (2015) [2011]. "Polybius and the Punic Wars". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 95–110. ISBN 978-1-119-02550-4 he states "Polybius’ work (along with that of Thucydides) has set the standard for historical accuracy and precision by which all other examples of classical historiography" and "Polybius lived up to his own rigorous historiographical standards as a painstaking researcher and historian " and summarises "Therefore, all in all, Polybius was a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian, who well deserves the reputation for accuracy and precision he has enjoyed throughout the ages [ ... ]. By the standards of ancient historiography, we could not hope for a better source on the Punic Wars."
I feel that if anything I have understated the modern academic support for Polybius, and do not feel that my phraseology says that "Polybius is objective". It says what the scholarly view is. If you like, I could amend to "Polybius's work is considered by modern historians to be broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view"
  • "traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out". Can an example be given here?
It could. (Eg a further reference to the war against Pyrrhus of Epirus which is mentioned further down.) But I am not sure that a passing mention to a single example helps, and getting into enough detail to make the point is likely to lose focus. I have added 'as they had done several times during the Sicilian Wars of the previous two centuries.'
  • "war elephants which the Carthaginians had shipped to Sicily". Maybe a note explaining the origin of these elephants as I know that African bush elephant were not used by humans and this elephant is probably the first to come to mind when a reader unfamiliar with the history of war elephants read the sentence "war elephant". Carthage may have used the North African elephant, but maybe also the Syrian elephant-Surus being an example.
The sources specify that they were African bush elephants. (The existence of the North African elephant as a separate spices, or even sub-spices is seriously doubted these days. Even the lead to its Wikipedia article states "it has not been widely recognized by taxonomists".) As it is off-topic - elephants did not feature at any point in the siege - I have put a brief summary in a footnote.
  • "It was the long-standing Roman procedure to appoint two men each year to senior positions, known as consuls". Senior positions is too broad. It should be noted that the consul was the highest position a politician can get (sort of a president)
Tweaked.
  • "In 278 BC it had withstood a siege by the highly-esteemed Greek commander Pyrrhus of Epirus". A short background is useful (like in the context of a war against Carthage...etc). Also, "highly-esteemed" sounds a bit celebratory, but its optional for Gog to keep it or remove it.
"highly-esteemed": fair point, removed; the rest of the sentence gives, I feel, sufficient information for a reader to form their own opinion.
I think that the sentence give sufficient background; eg after "he had captured every other Carthaginian possession on Sicily" stating that this was during a war with Carthage seems redundant. And it would arguably be off topic to the point of not meeting criterion 4.
  • "Carthaginian citizens played a limited role in their army, most of the rank and file were foreigners". From where mostly?
I have a source for the origins of the original garrison, which I have added, but have not been able to find one regarding the reinforcements.
  • Adrian Goldsworthy is introduced in the Primary sources section so there is no need to re-introduce him in the Naval clashes section (just using his surname is enough)
Oops. Fixed.
  • "By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding". "By now" or "by then"? Im not the grammar expert so I might be mistaken.
Me neither. My understanding is that either is acceptable, but I have rephrased to duck the issue.
  • "At the start of this war there were reports of a Carthaginian plan to recapture Lilybaeum" can this be elaborated? like who mentioned this and to whom was is attributed? (for example: Polybius wrote that a Carthaginian leader -enter name- expressed his intentions to reconquer the city...etc)
It was Livy. I haven't prefaced all the other sentences with 'Polybius stated', 'Diodorus claimed' etc and the last sentence seems an odd place to start.
It was a rather vague report, that I have only found in two modern sources and wouldn't want to make too much of. I have expanded with what there is.

Nothing more to say. Great read and a comprehensive article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Attar-Aram syria, I feel honoured to receive a review from you. And a nicely probing one - thank you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

This article has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Criteria 3 met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

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

  • link siege
Done.
  • "could be supplied and reinforced by sea" this also applies in the body
Done.
  • move the link to Ancient Carthage up to first use of Carthaginian
Done.
  • link Ancient Greek instead of Greek language
Done.
  • move link to Roman Republic up to first use of Roman
Done.
  • there are a few duplinks
Removed bar Battle of the Aegates. See comment by Harrias above.
  • link Balearic Islands
Done.
  • no article for the capture of Panormus in 254 BC?
No.
  • comma after "Publius Claudius Pulcher"
Done.
  • author-link Sebastiano Tusa, Jeffrey Royal and Peter Jones (classicist)
Done.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker and thanks again. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit
  • I am seeing nothing concerning with the sources. A check for additional sources did not uncover any. No source checks done. buidhe 04:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, this source[1] says that there was a third siege of Lilybaeum involving Octavian, Sextus Pompey, and Lepidus. Do we have an article on that and if so, can it be hatnoted? buidhe 05:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hayne, Léonie (1974). "THE DEFEAT OF LEPIDUS IN 36 B.C." Acta Classica. 17: 60. ISSN 0065-1141.
Thanks Buidhe.
No. It is pretty obscure. It doesn't even get a passing mention in the Sicilian revolt article and I don't see it ever having its own article. So I am inclined to leave it, but not strongly so. I note that your source says it is not even known if the siege was successful. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99

edit
  • In mid-250 -- no BC? (even though you use it twice later in the paragraph)
Groan. Good spot. Corrected.
  • earlier, pro-Carthaginian, historians -- I don't think you need the second comma
I prefer both, but the second deleted anyway.
  • Other sources include inscriptions, archaeological evidence, and empirical evidence -- as I recall it, you don't use the last comma in style
Correct. Thank you.
  • Other, later, histories -- do you need the second comma here?
IMO yes. I don't see that it is even grammatical if it is removed.
  • Do you need the Operations in Sicily subheading if there's only one? Can't it replace Background?
It can, it can. Done.
  • had come to dominate southern Spain -- wouldn't this be better as Iberia?

More in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks truflip99, some good stuff there; all addressed now. Looking forward to the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Peppered with missiles -- This might need to be clarified, as I'm painting a particularly out-of-place scene in my head
I decline to be held responsible for what happens in your head. Changed to 'riddled'.
@Gog the Mild: hahaha! I meant the word missiles. Do we have an idea what the objects were? I take it they are not what's depicted here.
truflip99, I am glad that I inserted my disclaimer. "Missile" has been used since 1656 to mean "Any object used as a weapon by being thrown or fired through the air, such as stone, arrow or bullet." (Wiktionary's first definition, which also offers the quotation "The Rhodians, who used leaden bullets, were able to project their missiles twice as far as the Persian slingers, who used large stones.") I have changed to 'Peppered with javelins'. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation is good to me! You didn't actually need to change it. I'm most likely in the minority of not knowing that regarding this topic. Anyway, I'm supporting. --truflip99 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 m (60 ft) deep and 30 m (90 ft) wide -- could the units be spelled out? usually it's first instance, but I could see why you wouldn't want to do so here. optional I suppose
Done.
  • After a fight which Lazenby describes as "confused and desperate", they were forced to withdraw without success. -- perhaps explicit state who are "they" here as I got lost and had to back read a few times
Done.
  • but due to the prevailing sea conditions they were unsuccessful. -- what were the conditions?
Yes well. Three modern sources:
1. "closed the harbour mouth with a massive timber boom" which was smashed by " high winds ... [and] ... the surging sea". Further attempts were made but failed for unspecified reasons.
2. "dumping boulders and spoil into the sea", which "was swept away by the current".
3. 15 blockships, loaded with stone, were sunk in the channel "and blocked the entrance to the harbour". A little later "Nothing is said about the 15 blockships ... so either this was untrue, or the blockships had been ineffective or the Carthaginians had somehow removed them".
So if I am a little vague, it is because the sources are! I note that the last source in their speculation misses (*OR alert*) the possibility of their being moved by the currents which Lilybaeum was famous for.
  • the Romans distracted the Carthaginians with a feint at one part of the wall -- is it possible to link feint?
Done.
  • built, equipped, and crewed without state expense -- last comma
Removed.
  • Carthage evacuated Sicily, handed over all prisoners taken during the war, and paid an indemnity of 3,200 talents -- last comma
Removed.
  • both continued to expand in the western Mediterranean. -- link Mediterranean?
Really?! Done.
  • When Carthage besieged the Roman-protected town of Saguntum in eastern Iberia in 218 BC -- you use Iberia here, but Spain up top. Iberia would probably be better.
Changed.

--truflip99 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi truflip99 and thanks again. Your comments addressed. How's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query to the coordinators

edit

Hi Ian: given the above, could I have permission toss another on the barbie? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struth, go for it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [58].

MAX Yellow Line

edit
Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a service of TriMet's MAX Light Rail system in Portland, Oregon. It has one of the more eventful histories of any rail line in the city that started with attempts to build a bi-state "South–North Line" between Vancouver in Washington and Oregon City. The project failed thrice in 1995, 1996, and 1998. North Portland residents, still wanting to benefit from light rail, convinced TriMet to build just the segment of the South–North Line in their neck of the woods. To fund the project without costing tax payers, Portland created an urban renewal area. That same urban renewal area ended up displacing many of the local residents, mostly minorities. In 2008, Oregon and Washington tried to extend the line to Vancouver again with a freeway bridge megaproject. The project failed for the fourth time in 2013, but plans still exist. truflip99 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • My first thought is that this has too many images. Eleven for a 3,200 word article seems unnecessary; and many are similar.
There are now eight.
  • Be consistent in use of alt text - including for the image in the infobox.
Done.
  • "File:FREEWAY (ROUTE I-5) RUNS DIRECTLY THROUGH THIS ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA OF NORTHEAST PORTLAND - NARA - 548092.jpg" Can we have a proper "Source" for this? (Most of the required information seems to be in "Record ID".)
I'm not sure that I should edit this as it was part of a wikiproject with the National Archives, and there are a ton of images that have been uploaded using the same format.
I have amended it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions: two use "shown in" while the others use "in". I think it would be best to standardise on "in".
Fixed.
Map(s)

I am putting this in a separate subsection as I suspect that it may be a running theme.

The main map is much improved by having MAXYL in red. Not sure why the others are labelled as "dark grey", they show as black to me. It would be helpful to also have maps which show:

  1. The stations of MAXYL, which may be schematic.
Added a link to the official TriMet schematic (link to website as it's copyrighted)
  1. The other lines of the system, and/or those which share stations and/or routes with MAXYL.
I contemplated this, but it would take me weeks and potentially drive me insane.
  1. Portland and Vancouver with the failed proposed routes on and locations named in the text shown. Eg Clackamas and the Willamette River.
I think this is beyond the scope of the article--I plan to draft a separate article on the "South–North Line" in the future.

I don't insist on all of these, but hopefully it can be seen how these might improve comprehension. Currently the article is difficult to follow for a non-local.

A push pin map is like the one labelled "Location of Auberoche in modern Nouvelle-Aquitaine, and other places named in the text" in Battle of Auberoche. If you look at it in edit mode you will see how it is constructed. A list of available maps can be found here, although [59] may be more useful. Instructions are here. I have put a rough draft of the start of a possible map in a sandbox; it may not be the most suitable map and does not have the locations you want.

I didn't think this was possible for the raw JSON maps because I haven't seen any examples, but after some research I found a way to add pins for the station termini with links (have to click) which hopefully suffices. --truflip99 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Place holder Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for agreeing to take this up! I really appreciate it. --truflip99 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It seemed a bit of a niche area - even by my standards! So it seemed appropriate to help out. Let's see what we have.

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • How about an explanation of MAX in the first sentence? - "(or Metropolitan Area Express)".
The official name "Metro Area Express" is so underutilized that I think it's only worth mentioning in the parent article, MAX Light Rail.
I disagree. This is an encyclopedia article. Even if the formal name is never used I believe that its origin should be mentioned - it does not have to be in the lead - to meet 1b.
Sounds good. I have added an explanation in the first paragraph.
  • "an average of 12,960 weekday riders daily" If we are only counting weekdays, then it is not "daily"> → 'an average of 12,960 riders each weekday'?
Indeed, that sounds a lot better. Changed.
  • Halfway through reading the lead I realised that I would need a map to understand it. The one in the article doesn't cut it: there are few place names and none named in the lead. I couldn't even work out which of the thick black lines was MAXYL. In despair I Googled a map, clicked on the best looking one, and ... it was already in Wikipedia Commons. Is there any reason why File:Portland rail map.png is not used? Also note MAX light rail maps.
I've edited the lead hopefully to explain it more clearly. Unfortunately with this article, the Yellow Line's color blends with the map (as opposed to MAX Red Line). That Portland rail map is outdated now and a new one would need to be drawn. As far as not using this map (I created it), I would prefer to use a map that would be responsive to change should an expansion take place (a vote will take place this year for a new line).
  • "via a potential route" → 'via potential routes'?
Fixed.
  • And maybe a pushpin map with other oft-mentioned places on? (Eg, where the Devil is Clackamas?)
Could you please elaborate/provide an example?
  • "Preliminary alignment studies to Washington's Clark County" Does Clark County have some connection with Vancouver?
Yes, Vancouver is the county seat/principal city of Clark County. I have edited the text to clarify this.
  • "and accepted a proposal that would have crossed the Willamette River on the Steel Bridge and recommended a new span at Caruthers Crossing" Is Caruthers Crossing on the Willamette?
Yes it is.
  • "terminating an additional mile north of Lombard Street in Kenton" Additional to what?
to the proposed 15-mile (24 km) line between Lombard Street and Clackamas Town Center
  • What is "Regional government Metro"?
Metro is the regional government of the Portland metro area; they typically decide on these rail projects
  • "renew voter support for another $475 million bond measure" Does the use of "another" mean that it is over and above the $475 mn approved in November 1994?
It is the same amount, just a new bond measure. I've clarified the text.
Sorry, but "a new $475 million bond measure" sounds like, well, a new bond measure, not a confirmation of the one previously approved.
Well yes, that's because it was. They were trying to reaffirm voter support; see if people would still pay for a light rail line. I tweaked the wording again to reflect this.

--truflip99 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long to get around to this, and I am now going to take a break, but more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've all the time in the world, un/fortunately! --truflip99 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued
  • "North Portland residents and community business leaders" Optional: "community" seems redundant to me.
Changed to city, as they weren't exclusive to North Portland.
  • "that the Federal Transit Administration approved that September" Is it possible to avoid having "that" twice in seven words?
Removed.
  • "required a 16-day closure of the operating segment" I assume that the closure is of the Eastside MAX line? If so, could this be made explicit?
Done.
  • "Proposed extension to Clark County, Washington" section: the first paragraph refers to Vancouver; the second to Clark County. Is there a reason for this? If not it would be helpful to be consistent.
Done, retained Vancouver in the first part as the name of the line had Vancouver in it. Some early plans extended beyond the city of Vancouver. --truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good responses. Two above with ongoing comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have been addressed. --truflip99 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, good work; supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciate the great feedback, which I will be using in related articles. Thank you! --truflip99 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DAP

edit

Place holder. DAP 💅 03:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: my sincerest apologies for the nearly three week-long delay for a response. With that being said, the prose and article scope are exceptional of rail Wiki pieces I've read, and all of the minor faults raised seemed to have been already addressed. Well done, happy to provide my support. Cheers! DAP 💅 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DAP389: Not at all! Thank you very much for the quick support. --truflip99 (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Historical Digression 2

edit

Place holder. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In your summary above, you note “That same urban renewal area ended up displacing many of the local residents, mostly minorities.” As you note, it’s part of the line’s significance and certainly was a hook for me. Should such a sentence be included in the lead?
Added
  • “…which voters turned down by 69 percent on February 7, 1995.” Is it just about taxes or was there some other rationale to vote against that you could include here? If just money, fine.
From what I read in the articles, it was just about the taxes
  • “Amid fears that the exclusion of Clark County would result in ridership too low to justify a North Portland segment…” seem awkward. Maybe, “Amid fears that ridership would not justify a North Portland segment if Clark County were excluded…”?
Replaced
  • Early proposals section: I see how the image of the interstates is relevant. But what I really could use in this section (being totally unfamiliar with the Portland area) is a map that locates at least some of these many neighborhoods and places being mentioned. Is this possible? Or, for that matter, do you have access to any maps from the early proposals? The external map below does help but it would be helpful here to see the line in the original/alternate proposals, if possible.
Acquiring relevant images for this article was actually pretty difficult... and there aren't really any available photos to illustrate the early proposals. Even I'm a little iffy about the actual alignment and I would probably have to deep dive into some old newspaper scans at the library (the sources I use are text only). Unfortunately, libraries are closed atm.
  • “those against the measure narrowly defeated it, 52 percent to 48 percent.” Again, is there something to say briefly about reasons for opposition?
Sources don't really say because it was actually unexpected
  • “Meetings and polls conducted in June of that year determined that people…” What people?
changed to locals
  • Throughout the History section, I’m having trouble with terminology—and maybe I’m just being dense. But can you add some explanation for dummies like me as to the relationship between the “Interstate MAX” and the “MAX Yellow Line”? It’s probably painfully obvious to a local, but not at all to me. And I’m not really finding clarification here. Are they one and the same? In the History section are you discussing the creation of a larger system or just the MAX Yellow Line. If you’re addressing the creation of a larger system, maybe the section titles need to call this out with explanation heading up the section?
No, you make a fair point. I've reworded the opening section to clarify the two a little better. But yes, they are technically synonymous. --truflip99 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Just a few more comments from me:[reply]

  • “Attempts have since been made to restore rail service to Clark County.” In a few places you refer to such plans being rejected by Washington taxpayers. It prompts the question, if they don’t want it in Washington who keeps proposing the extension and why? This spot might be a good place to elaborate in just a sentence or two on this?
Just bad traffic. The last paragraph in that section now says who and why.
  • “This culminated into the Columbia River Crossing project in 2008.” Should be “culminated in”?
Replaced
  • Under ridership, “attributed to crime and lower-income riders being forced…” reads like crime is modifying riders. Maybe, “attributed both to crime and to lower-income riders being…”
Done

A well-written article. I particularly like that you cover the social and political issues. Very good.Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really appreciate your feedback. --truflip99 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting my support above because I feel this article meets all the FAC criteria. It goes above and beyond most rail articles to address social and political context. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I have submitted a request in the talk page. Thank you! --truflip99 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Passed image and ref reviews and four supports. Is there anything else I need to do? --truflip99 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

I will do some spotchecks. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 9a - seems fine.
    • However (not related to spotchecks), Officially named the South–North Line, 63 percent of Portland area voters approved a $475 million bond measure in November to cover Oregon's portion of the project's estimated $2.8 billion cost has a dangling modifier.
Could you pinpoint? I'm dumb.
The line is Officially named the South–North Line. However, this is immediately followed by 63 percent of Portland area voters. The modifier "Officially named the South–North Line" should be followed by a mention of the line itself. Otherwise, "Officially named the South–North Line" can describe the voters instead, and I don't think voters are officially called the South–North Line. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Fixed! --truflip99 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 - seems fine, but it looks to be a blog.
Yeah, not sure why it has that but it comes from a reliable source.
  • 23b - seems fine
  • 24 - I don't see the headline "Bridge to the Future" in the article. Also, and more importantly, this doesn't seem to support the sentence Much of the proposal's southern half, from Caruthers Street to Milwaukie, would also remain shelved until the opening of the Orange Line in 2015.
Replace entirely.
I will send these over to your Talk page.
Seems fine. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 66 - seems fine, but this source seems like it has an informal tone. Is there a better source available?
I don't believe it gets any better than a source coming from a newspaper of record
  • 70 - seems fine
  • 90 - page number?
Dang it, thought I did that. Done.
  • 91 - this is paywalled, so you should send this over to me
Sending.
Seems fine. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other formatting issues:

  • You linked "The Oregonian" once but "Arcadia Publishing" twice.
Good spot thanks
  • Be consistent on whether you include publisher locations.
Amended
  • For some of the PDFs (e.g. refs 1, 65), you should cite page numbers if the sources are more than a couple of pages.
This seems relative. I do this when it's more than 5 pages. Is there a MOS?
Not a MOS that I know of, but generally I include page numbers in sources with more than 2 pages (and, depending on context, even in sources with 2 pages). The purpose is to be as specific as possible. WP:PAGENUM kind of touches on that, but doesn't specify how big a page range must be - only that, if the relevant info is on one page only, it would be best to cite these specific pages. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's because the title is vague and we couldn't provide an online article version, so it would help readers to have the quote.

Thanks for the ref review, Epicgenius. I have responded to these. --truflip99 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: No problem. I talked with some people off-wiki, and they believe the PDF citations should have page numbers that are as specific as possible. That's the only outstanding point for this source review 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Fair enough! Page numbers have been added. Thanks again! --truflip99 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Passing this source review. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, tks for taking the time to spotcheck and review ref formatting -- can you confirm if you're signing of as well on the reliability of the sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yes, I can confirm I am also approving the reliability of the sources. epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [60].

The Grand Budapest Hotel

edit
Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After conducting a significant, months-long overhaul, I present The Grand Budapest Hotel, the Wes Anderson-directed film of a hotel concierge's (Ralph Fiennes) quest for fortune and a priceless Renaissance painting with his newly hired lobby boy (Tony Revolori). The technical achievement of this wonderfully colorful onscreen world makes The Grand Budapest Hotel unique among Anderson's work. It was also a surprise box office success, and (with Moonrise Kingdom) raised the director's profile to a casual audience. It is a fairly new good article, and after a few moderate revisions, I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. Have at it! DAP 💅 01:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

edit
  • Ref 79 "Dilley 2017, pp. 29" should be just p.
  • Ref 83 " Dilley 2017, pp. 463" same
I'm not sure how to approach this. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs should be ISBN-13 for works published after January 1, 2007 per Wikipedia:ISBN, all in the "Bibliography" section should be changed
  • They initially struggled to develop their idea further, but the experience touring Europe what experience touring Europe? perhaps "an"
This refers to the producers' early location scouting.
  • The film earned $173 million in box office revenue worldwide what currency?
US dollars. Revised for clarity.
  • bolstered by fatiguing interest in resurgent studio films hoping to capitalize on the prestige of their accolades and crossover appeal to young, casual moviegoers. not sure what this means
  • intense (but confusing) shootout with Zubrowkan troops why is it confusing?
The troops were shooting at each other. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agatha, who died of illness with their infant son they both died? Did she die while pregnant? Did the son survive but saw Agatha die?
Correct, they both died. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though their prototype gave impetus led to?
  • the nascent Anderson–Guinness collaboration soon stalled cut nascent and soon
  • He became fascinated maybe quote "fascinated" otherwise it's a bit WP:SYNTH
  • well before the project's conception cut "well"
  • Per custom, Anderson taps into a troupe of longtime collaborators what "custom"? "taps into" is a bit POV, how about "uses"?
This is a routine practice he does in every film. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • though Fiennes did not refer to them too often, however cut "however"
  • had long wished to work with Fiennes. how long? If it's a quote quote it
  • was eager to depart from his famously villainous roles and found Gustave's panache compelling. eager should be quoted, compelling should be quoted, possibly WP:SYNTH if not, in fact "eager" doesn't appear in the source article once.
  • The archive link gives me a "not found" page.
Fixed. DAP 💅 05:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 22 needs a (subscription required) template
Not necessarily. The New York Times (and a number of the cited print sources) provide a certain number of free articles before activating their paywall. DAP 💅 05:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was initially unsure how to approach his character because the inner workings of The Grand Budapest Hotel left actors little room for improvisation according to whom? Why?
Revised for clarification. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiennes drew on diverse sources according to whom? WP:PUFF words
  • Pitfalls beset Aibel's months-long search for prospective actors what actually happened? WP:SYNTH
Revised for clarification. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abraham spent only about cut only
  • accents to no avail. cut "to no avail"
  • Ronan's decision to play Agatha with her native Irish accent was Anderson's idea, after experimenting with German, English, and American accents to no avail. They felt that an Irish accent projected a warm, feisty spirit into Agatha. maybe combine with a semicolon
  • Yeoman drew on → "Yeoman stated he "looked at"
Are they not the same thing? DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • financed by regional and federal film-funding organizations. which ones?
  • The filmmakers staged their most significant interior what makes them most significant?
  • Anderson felt so strongly about the Warenhaus WP:SYNTH
  • His economical approach wp:POV
  • fresh methods for shooting the scenes. not sure what this means
  • unusual in contemporary cinema. according to whom? WP:OR
  • Production used Academy ratio for scenes set in 1932, which, according to Yeoman what you're supposed to do
  • The Cooke lenses produced a soft, but diffuse composition WP:OR WP:SYNTH
Revised. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • accentuating the set's daylighting WP:OR
  • Yeoman was pleased with the lighting choice WP:SYNTH
  • The development of the film's effects team was swift WP:PUFFERY
Sorry but how? DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yet at times difficult. WP:POV yet→but, according to whom?
  • but their eagerness to master the nuance of said task resulted in constructive problem solving and camaraderie WP:PUFFERY
How? DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to "Set design" Therapyisgood (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood, thanks for the feedback! Let me know what you think. I believe I was amenable to most of your concerns unless stated otherwise, though kept inline attribution at a minimum as the text reads much easier without them. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the tone isn't where it needs to be in my opinion. It needs a copyedit. Often sounds too promotional, not neutral enough. The files need personality rights templates as well. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Squirrel Conspiracy

edit

As I've never seen the film, I'm not 100% sure what File:The Grand Budapest Hotel (14977721802).jpg is. My initial thought was that it was a still from the film that was put through Flickrwashing, but based on the other images in the set on Flickr and the photographer's body of work, it looks like the photographer might have been on set instead. Whomever does the image review should have an extra look at this one. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by mujinga

edit
  • This was an enjoyable and detailed read about a great film.
  • Lead
    • "The French theatrical release preceded the film's global rollout on February 26, followed by releases in Germany, North America and the United Kingdom on March 6–7" could be rewritten, maybe just move "on February 26" to after "theatrical release" for clarity. Also maybe mention the North American release as well?
You mean elaborate? There's already a brief mention of the North American release. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the US premiere was the same as the release, so scratch that comment. Moving the date really helps that sentence. - done Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting
    • "Ronan's decision to play Agatha with her native Irish accent was Anderson's idea" then it doesn't feel like her decision, maybe it can be rephrased
  • Filming
  • "buying the property from demolition" maybe better "buying the property to save it from demolition"
  • Cinematography
    • "35mm film" better 35 mm
    • "a fluid head from Mitchell's OConnor Ultimate product line" - my first thought was that Mitchell was a person, so maybe better to extend to "Mitchell Camera Corporation's"
  • "provided the filmmakers greater-than-routine headroom" - maybe "provided the filmmakers with greater-than-routine headroom"?
  • Set design
    • "Anderson liked the novelty of miniatures, having used them in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) and more extensively in Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), and the audience's tendency to recognize artificial shots afforded the freedom to employ them again in The Grand Budapest Hotel." - I don't think the second half of the sentence is doing much
  • Themes and style
    • "According to the film expert and author Donna Kornhaber, The Grand Budapest Hotel reinforces the increasingly dark subtext of collectivity defining late period Anderson films, extrapolating the worst excesses of otherwise innocent preservation." - I can't check the source and I can't say I really understand what is being said here
Screenshot per ebook source. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the screenshot. So she is talking about how Anderson is exploring the darkness of collective action, I see now. I don't think the second half of the sentence is needed. Also on a re-read film expert and author sounds strange for an academic so i would suggest something like "According to the academic Donna Kornhaber, The Grand Budapest Hotel reinforces the increasingly dark subtext of collectivity defining late period Anderson films." Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "steadfast resolve to his livelihood" - "steadfast commitment to his job"?
  • Box office
    • "so successful that they outperformed the national box office" - didn't see this in source and also don't understand how paris takings could be more than the national takings, which would surely include paris
Per source, "Wes Anderson scored a coup in France this week. The Grand Budapest Hotel opened on Wednesday, booking the best opening numbers in Paris in its first showings." DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • i'm still confused, that doesn't say anything about national box office, so then would suggest to replace "In Paris, The Grand Budapest Hotel screenings were so successful that they outperformed the national box office" with something like "In Paris, The Grand Budapest Hotel screenings were successful" or "In Paris, The Grand Budapest Hotel screenings were the weekend's biggest numbers" Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • non-breaking spaces not used consistently before millions
Removed altogether. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
still seeing some non-breaking spaces in use eg "£1.27 million" and MOS:NUMERAL suggests using them Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The week of March 6 saw The Grand Budapest Hotel" - title needs italics
  • "Fatiguing interest in films" maybe better "fading"?
Mujinga, thanks for the review! Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hiya i made some extra comments - sorry i didn't get the ping for some reason (or see changes in my watchlist) so only noticed this now Mujinga (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga:, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 12:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
great, changing comment to support Mujinga (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

edit

I love this movie! I intend to take WikiCup points from this review, and have the following concerns:

Other than that I can't find that much wrong with the article right now, I'll have a better look at this later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! Let me know what you think, John M Wolfson. DAP 💅 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson:, pinging again since it doesn’t appear anyone received a notification last time. DAP 💅 12:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Supporting prose from Truflip99

edit

Reserving my spot here for comments in the hope you could return the favor and do a review of MAX Yellow Line if you have time. --truflip99 (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Monsieur Gustave H, -- full stop after H (as you have done in the Plot section)
  • but the experience touring Europe and researching the literature of Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig -- but their* experience?
  • tragedy, war, fascism, nostalgia, friendship, and loyalty. // followed by releases in Germany, North America and the United Kingdom -- inconsistent use of last comma
  • Ralph Fiennes as M. Gustave, the Grand Budapest Hotel's renowned concierge -- include the H.?
  • Tilda Swinton as Madame D., the wealthy dowager and secret owner of the hotel -- is there a reason why you provide the initial for Monsieur and spell out Madame?
  • He and the producers toured Budapest, small Italian spa towns and the Czech resort Karlovy Vary before a final stop in Germany // Auditions were held in Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, France, England, and the United States, before revising the role's ethnic criterion. -- incnosistent style here too
  • He and Anderson rehearsed together for over four months before the start of filming to rehearse their script -- a bit redundant

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exterior shots of Hainewalde Manor -- Is there a wikilink for this? If not, could you briefly explain what it is?
  • As Look Effects opened their Stuttgart headquarters after The Grand Budapest Hotel filming wrapped, Sanchez was only able to reference his prior experience with Anderson, and the California-based artist became homesick working his first international assignment. -- this is worded kind off oddly... Why was Sanchez "only able to reference" his experience?
  • Only four artists from the newly-assembled team -- omit dash
  • intense greens and golds of the Schloss Lutz evoke oppressive wealth, and the derelict Checkpoint Nineteen decays in a cool bluish-gray tint. -- omit comma, I thinknvm
  • To age Swinton, makeup artist Mark Coulier applied soft silicone rubber prosthetics -- perhaps link Prosthetic makeup

More in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • nobility, dignity and self-control -- comma?
  • reds, pinks and purples -- comma
  • and the United Kingdom (a top-three debut, with £1.53 million from 284 theaters) -- convert so it can be comparable with the USD figures in the list
  • The Grand Budapest Hotel ended its North American run on February 26, 2015.[2] -- perhaps replace this ref with this instead
  • American Sniper, Selma and The Imitation Game. -- comma

I believe that's it from me. --truflip99 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now....

but the frigid weather and reduced daylight of early winter disrupted the shooting schedule - err, why not just "freezing" or "cold" rather than "frigid"?

Ack, prose was good enough that I just lapsed into reading mode (loved the film). Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! DAP 💅 13:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce review/spotcheck

edit
  • References consistently formatted
  • Sources look reliable
  • FN 48 used twice - material faithful to source.
  • FN 63 used twice - material faithful to source.
  • FN 87 used twice - material faithful to source.

Okay am satisfied. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2020 [61].

Mount Takahe

edit
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Marie Byrd Land, and one of the (relatively) best studied of the edifices there. It is not currently active and almost entirely covered with ice and snow, but deposits of volcanic ash from Mount Takahe have been found in ice cores and suggest that it was very active during the latest Pleistocene and early Holocene. As far as I can tell, no Antarctic volcano is currently featured, so if this FAC passes it'd be the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
That depends. If the "8 kilometres" meant 8,000 metres (if it did then it should say so) then yes. But to convert 8 km to 5.0 mi implies a false precision.
I've put in a parameter, let's see if it works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just inserted "|sigfig=1" here. If you don't like it, revert.
  • I find the history in the lead a little confusing: "ages of 300,000 years and less ... reached its present height about 200,000 years ago ... [m]ajor eruptions took place around 17,700 years ago". Maybe open the paragraph with a statement summarising the period over which it is believed to have been accurate?
    Did a minor change, but I am not sure if it makes this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not either. Let me sleep on it.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, to me it conveyed that they were"! (I don't say this just to make a rhetorical point - I thought that that was what was being communicated. Is there not a better form of words?
Attempted a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Most volcanoes are large" → 'Most of these volcanoes are large'?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later research published in 2013" Delete "later".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire volcano may have formed in 300,000–400,000 years or even less than 200,000 years" Would this not be better expressed as 'The entire volcano may have formed in 200,000–400,000 years'?
    Possibly, can Mount Takahe (IVD B.2) is unusual, because it apparently formed entirely within the last 300,000-400,000 years. be interpreted in that way though? If no, merging the numbers like that could create WP:SYNTH issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean replacing "The entire volcano may have formed in 300,000–400,000 years or even less than 200,000 years" with 'Mount Takahe (IVD B.2) is unusual, because it apparently formed entirely within the last 300,000-400,000 years.' then yes, that addresses my concern.
Actually, that was a quote from the source. The source for the 200,000 number says This is one of themost thoroughly sampled and dated volcanoes in Marie ByrdLand, and <200 ka seems a short time to accumulate 552–780 km3of dominantly trachyte lava; I was wondering if we can merge these number statements w/o creating SYNTH in the process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. If it were one of my history FACs I might put something like "The volcano is believed to have formed in less than 400,000 years, with some experts suggesting less than 200,000." Lots of scope for tweaking this, it is just a general suggestion.
Attempted a tweak. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but in this context I think that would be an unnatural reading.
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessarily anthropomorphical; Wiktionary: "A period of time during which something has existence".
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it is also possible that the growth of the ice sheets at that time squeezed magma chambers at Mount Takahe and thus induced an increase of the eruptive activity." Perhaps add a brief explanation of the proposed mechanism?
    The source does not explain that. The idea is that magma tends to squeeze out of a magma chamber compressed that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that if you put weight on something it is liable to squeeze its contents out. But a reader is left to infer this or to scratch their head and go "huh?". Surely there is a general source which states the mechanism in general terms?
I looked a bit around on Takahe sources and none of them goes into more detail than "increased lithostatic pressure on the magma chamber triggers eruptions". Honestly, I think that most people are familiar with the concept of squeezing toothpaste out of a tube so it might be clear enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK - rather reluctantly. Something like "the growth of the ice sheets at that time caused the magma chambers at Mount Takahe to be squeezed and thus induced ... " would make me happier, but I leave that to your discretion.
  • "60,000&–57,000"
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the latter part of this period" Do you mean 'In the latter of these periods'?
    Changed it to something similar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Byrd Station tephras originate at" Maybe 'that the Byrd Station tephras originate at'?
    Not sure on this one; some of the tephras there, as elucidated elsewhere in the article, might come from Mount Berlin instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In particular, tephra deposits at Byrd may originate from eruptions at Mount Berlin, and tephra layers between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago have been attributed to the latter volcano." This sentence confuses me. It seems to say the same thing twice and I am left unsure whether there is disagreement or not between sources regarding the origin of some tephra layers.
    Attempted to reword this a bit. It seems like that attribution of these tephra layers has changed over time - first they were linked to Takahe and now to Berlin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Berlin has produced more tephra layers over the past 100,000 years than Mount Takahe" I don't relly see how this is relevant.
    Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can "a magmatic eruption 7,500 years ago" "correspond ... to two 6217 and 6231 BC tephra layers"; ie 8,237 and 8,251 years ago?
    The problem with this whole section is that nobody has attempted to cross-correlate tephra layers. In this case though ice core researchers have connected the tephra layers to the 7,500 years event - I presume it's because of margins of error. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In two sentences you mix "Years ago", "BC" and "BP". As this is Wikipedia, I am not sure that BP works that well here.
    Yeah, but I am not confident on converting between units, as it's not clear how the margins of error would interact with a conversion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think that you need to attribute them inline.
Spelled out BP instead; I am not convinced that this is a situation where intext attribution is normally used or would help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is now Note d; the fourth under Mount Takahe#Notes.
Ah, that one. Corrected the grammar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A great article. I enjoyed that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, I have responded to your queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff; thanks. A couple of thoughts above. I'll give it another read through and see if anything else comes up. (Which may be tomorrow, in an attempt to come at it "fresh". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts
edit

One response above. Some further thoughts below. Most are varying degrees of optional; any that aren't I will clearly separate off.

Lead
  • "snow-covered shield volcano 200 kilometres (120 mi) from the Amundsen Sea in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica" → 'snow-covered shield volcano in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica 200 kilometres (120 mi) from the Amundsen Sea'.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the volcano is formed by" "is" → 'was'.
    No; the volcano still exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is within the West Antarctic Rift System" "within" → 'part of'.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although late Holocene eruptions are also possible" This seems an odd use of tense and would recommend changing. Something like 'it is also possible that there were eruptions in the late Holocene'. (I assume that you are not trying to say that future eruptions, within the late Holocene, are possible?)
    Rewrote that part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "late Holocene" or 'Late Holocene'.
Geography and geomorphology
Geology
  • "Volcanic activity there commenced about 34 million years ago" Specify "there". It could be read as the West Antarctic Rift System or as either of the areas mentioned in the previous sentence.
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of these volcanoes are large, capped off by a summit caldera and appear to have begun as fast-growing shield volcanoes. Later, calderas formed" The two mentions of "calderas" and the mid-sentence change of text is confusing. Maybe 'Most of these volcanoes appear to have begun as fast-growing shield volcanoes. They are large, and capped off by summit calderas which formed later. Late in the history of the volcanoes parasitic vents were active.' or similar?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "came from a 80–90-kilometre-deep (50–56 mi) lithosphere" a lithosphere? → 'came from 80–90-kilometre-deep (50–56 mi), in the lithosphere'.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
Tephra in ice cores; 2nd paragraph: the first has "and", the other two "–". Very optional, but the lack of consistency jarred a little.
Notes
Less optional
OK. I am officially an idiot. That never occurred to me, in spite of my being familiar with mountain wind patterns.
  • Caption: "Topographic map of Mount Takahe (1:250,000 scale)" Delete "(1:250,000 scale)". It will be pure coincidence if a screen's settings and a viewer's preferences happen to produce a 1:250,000 result.
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even by your standards this is well written and clear. And an interesting read. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

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

  • The wind appears to blow around the mountain. I think I must be missing the intended meaning; why is this worth saying?
    It probably isn't worth saying. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Eruption history" starts with the definite statement that the oldest rock sample is 310,000±90,000 years old, but then gives contradictory evidence. If the source for this first statement has primacy for some reason (e.g. it's a recent survey taking into account the other cited sources) then we should make that clear; if it does not, we should qualify it with reference to the date as we do with the other statements about date in that paragraph.
    That's why the definitive statement is "the oldest rock sample"; the 360,000 age is limiting age that the source does not really expound upon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, not really seeing how this can work. I understand that the "oldest" refers to a specific sample, but since that's 26 years earlier than the source that says the oldest possible date is 192,000 I think we have to point this out. You do say "although", but I don't think that's enough. I see LeMasurier is cited (to two different papers) for the 192,000 maximum age and the 192,000 maximum age for caldera rim rocks; is it possible that the former is really just talking about caldera rim rocks or is he definitely saying that's the maximum age for anything anywhere on the mountain? If it really can't be reconciled, perhaps putting the research dates in chronological order of publication and pointing out the inconsistency when it comes up would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: LeMasurier 2016 says A total of 24 K–Arand40Ar/39Ar ages have now been published, none older than 192 ka while LeMasurier 1990 says A late Quaternary age for Mount Takahe was indicated by the K-Ar ages of three samples collected during the 1967-1968 reconnaissance [LeMasurier, 1912a, c], and this has been confirmed by recendy completed results from the 1984-1985 field season. Among 12 new dates the oldest is 0.31 ± 0.09 Ma (Figure B.2.2), and the remainder are all younger than 0.1 Ma (LeMasurier and Rex, unpublished data, 1987).. I see that LeMasurier 2016 does not cite LeMasurier and Thomson 1990 for its claim. To me this sounds like they either forgot their own research, discounted it for some reason not expounded in the source or something else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is that the article says "no rock older than...occurs" and "maximum ages", which both imply that no older rock is possible, but the source seems to be saying only that those were the maximum ages found from the samples tested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: The former can certainly be improved, although I confess that I am a little unsure what to say otherwise. On the latter, I am not sure if the article text as-is conveys that it is one study's findings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "The volcano was active in the late Quaternary. Radiometric results reported in 1988 include ages of less than 360,000 years for rocks in the caldera rim and of less than 240,000 years for volcanic rocks on the flanks. In a 1990 paper LeMasurier gave 310,000±90,000 years old as the oldest date for the samples tested to that point, citing K-Ar dates from an unpublished paper, but in a 2016 review of dates for Mount Takahe LaMesurier reported none older than 192 ka." This doesn't include the 2013 data but if you agree with this approach it wouldn't be hard to slot that in. This approach is explicit about the contradiction which I think is necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie:That works for me, if it includes the 2013 paper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then how about this:
"The volcano was active in the late Quaternary; radiometric results reported in 1988 include ages of less than 360,000 years for rocks in the caldera rim and of less than 240,000 years for volcanic rocks on the flanks. In a 1990 paper LeMasurier gave 310,000±90,000 years old as the oldest date for the samples tested to that point, citing K-Ar dates from an unpublished paper, but in a 2016 review of dates for Mount Takahe LaMesurier reported that none were older than 192 ka. LaMesurier had also reported K-Ar dates in a 2013 paper, again with no results older than 192 ka."
This is slightly out of chronological order, but since the 2016 paper is the one that directly contradicts the 1990 paper I think they should be mentioned together; the 2013 paper just lists more results without claiming to be a survey of all dates, so it can be mentioned at the end. If this wording works I'd rather you made the change as I don't have the sources in front of me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Added a variation on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find. It's a very technical article, and I'm not qualified to evaluate the geological content, but it reads well enough and the prose is clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Replied. In case you're interested, the next topic I want to bring to FAC is Laguna del Maule (volcano) which however needs a little more work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The wording in the eruption history section is tricky because the sources are inconsistent, but I think the last edit does as good a job as can be done with it. Re Laguna del Maule, I'll keep an eye out for it but I am behind on some other obligations at the moment so will probably not look at it until it gets here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry

edit
  • Suggest reducing reliance on semi-colons. These can hamper readability. Sometimes short sentences or a conjunction work better.
    Reduced them a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glacial erosion is not pronounced however, with only a few corries Both "however" and this use of "with" are discouraged.
  • However, it cannot be entirely "however" again (NB, it's listed on WP:WTW)
    Removed the earlier instance, but I think the second needs to stay. There is a bit of a source contradiction/uncertainty between sources going on here that needs a word of contrast mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A series of eruptions about 200-years-long took place You don't need the hyphens there. It's not a compound adjective in that usage.
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very well written and very engaging, even to somebody with little knowledge of volcanology and I'm not sure why it's sat here for six weeks. I had to be extra nit-picky just to find something to comment on! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Done, with one exception. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2020 [64].

Tweed Courthouse

edit
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Tweed Courthouse, a historic building in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the late 19th century. Its construction was famously mired in corruption, and Tammany Hall leader William M. Tweed and his political allies siphoned off millions of dollars from work contracts. Much maligned until the mid-20th century, it was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1974 and as a New York City landmark in 1984, and now serves as the New York City Department of Education's headquarters.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Lizzy150. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Truflip99

edit

Reserving spot. --truflip99 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • May as well link courthouse in lead
    • Done.
  • Something needs to be done about the 3 red links
  • Modern restoration and historic preservation of the courthouse were completed in 2001. Since the completion of the renovation, the Tweed Courthouse has contained the headquarters of the New York City Department of Education on its upper floors, and schools on its ground level. The Tweed Courthouse was made a New York City Designated Landmark in 1984 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974. -- possibly reorganize this by chronological order?
    • Done.
  • It consists of four and a half floors, including a half-floor attic, but excluding two mezzanine levels. -- I'm not really following this.
  • with the longer side being located on the west-east axis. -- you can omit "being" here
    • Done.
  • The roof was replaced three times: first with an iron roof in the early 20th century, then with an asphalt roof in 1978 or 1979, and finally with a stainless steel-over-rubber roof in 2001. -- roof is redundant
    • Fixed.
  • "some of the finest mid-19th century interiors in New York." -- the period should be outside the quote here, per MOS:LQ
    • Done.

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The portico is approached by a reproduction of the building's original large granite stairway which was removed to accommodate a widening of that street in the mid-20th century[7][10][16] but restored in 2002. -- possibly merge these refs into one and put it at the end of the sentence. Also, just curious -- how did the restoration affect the widened street?
  • original pilasters, centered colonettes, and paneled blind railings, and are set within a marble surround. -- "which" are set?
    • Done.
  • Multiple documents and testimony -- not testimonies?
    • Done.
  • he worked with Richard Upjohn and Otto Blesch, collaborating with both architects -- borderline redundant
    • Removed.

More later. I got distracted by the muntin article while reading this and ended up shopping for DIYs. Looks good so far though. Well done! --truflip99 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Tweed Courthouse is located at the northern end of City Hall Park[39] and is the second-oldest municipal government building in Manhattan, -- place ref at end of comma
    • Done.
  • The courthouse site had been occupied previously by the city's public commons and by a poorhouse. and Other government buildings would be built at the courthouse's future site, including an almshouse, -- isn't this rather redundant?
  • after New York City Hall to the south. and City Hall was situated just south of the courthouse site, -- this too?
  • "a classic in the annals of American graft." -- MOS:LQ
    • Done.
  • "many holes both in the floor and roof are visible in which to bury the money of the tax-payers." -- MOS:LQ
    • Done.
  • demolish the courthouse[75] as part of the restoration of City Hall Park. -- ref at end of sentence
    • Done.
  • Usage of the building was also changed several times. -- omit was
    • Done.
  • A long-term $6.3 million[86] renovation began in 1990, -- ref end of comma
    • Done.

Might be it from me on prose. Interesting read! --truflip99 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

truflip99 Thanks, I have done all of these. epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting! --truflip99 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: for the ref section, I don't think you need the "Notes" subheader, as those are not even notes. --truflip99 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

edit

I'll take WikiCup points for this.

  • Why is the pre-restoration courtroom photo, which presumably dates to 1919, placed in a section dealing mainly with the 1970s?
  • File:EAST_FACADE_-_New_York_County_Courthouse,_52_Chambers_Street,_New_York,_New_York_County,_NY_HABS_NY,31-NEYO,116-5.tif says it was made in 1933, but I see the old World Trade Center in the background. Caught myself
  • The fourth floor contains a similar T-shaped plan to the floors underneath it. Like the floors below, it contains marble floors, plaster walls and ceilings, and corner stairs leading from the third floor. Stairs extend upward to the attic.[21] ... The attic contains a floor made of concrete and wood. A lattice truss and other structures supporting the roof, as well as the rotunda's skylight, are also located in the attic. should be condensed to one paragraph, methinks.
    • Done.
  • Perhaps the second-floor view and interior view of the rotunda are redundant.

That's all for now. I ran into this issue before, so let me state that this does not constitute a full image review. Otherwise this looks pretty good so far. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • The building's facade was constructed in 1861–1872 to designs by architect John Kellum and political appointee Thomas Little. Not only is this suboptimally written, the "facade" remark leads me to believe that the building was only its exterior facade and otherwise gutted, which is contradicted in the body (since it was occupied by 1876).
    • Fixed.
  • Quite a few links, such as "foliate" and "Harper's Weekly", are linked multiple times throughout the article, contrary to best practices. You can use this tool to highlight them.
    • Done.
  • City Hall and the now-demolished Rotunda What Rotunda? (ditto for its future appearances) Also, I think the City Hall was built earlier than 1874.
  • New York City Board of Supervisors I believe it should be County.
  • Given the extent of the graft it would be nice to have inflation figures. {{Inflation}} can help with that where the year is known.
  • There were several attempts to destroy the courthouse throughout most of its first century of existence. "Demolish" might be a more "neutral" word.
    • Done.

Otherwise I'm inclined to support this. Nice work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: The Tweed Courthouse was made a New York City Designated Landmark in 1984 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974. should probably be in chronological order. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "and the corruption involved in the building's construction was disclosed to the public." perhaps "exposed" for "disclosed"?
  • Done.
  • Panels of granite and Tuckahoe marble[11] and Sheffield marbles[12]" a bit run on?
  • Fixed, good catch.
  • " no documentation regarding the use of other quarries has been found.[6]" I might add a year.
  • Done.
  • Elevators is linked on second use.
  • Fixed.
  • Painted-over probably doesn't need the hyphen.
  • "brownstone" In the sense of a residential townhouse?
  • "He redesigned Kellum's neoclassical interiors with rich polychrome effects in Romanesque Revival style, as well as added ornamental and architectural detailing (such as arches and foliate detail) to integrate the new wing's design with the rest of the courthouse." Not sure "as well as added" works, maybe "and also added"
  • Done.
  • You say it was financed by stocks. Stocks in what? Were these more like bonds?
  • Some mention of Tweed's death might be useful.
  • Done.
I've made a few minor edits, feel free to change or revert as desired. That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thank you very much for your comments. I think I've addressed all of them now. epicgenius (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

I'd like to go ahead and do the image and source review for this. Hoping you could do MAX Yellow Line's ref review in return if you have time.

  • maybe move some images to the left in alternative fashion?
  • could you create a summary for the fireplace and mosaic floor photos?
    • Done.
  • source link for Portrait of Leopold Eidlitz?
    • Done.

Sources to follow. --truflip99 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the image review truflip99. Regarding Hoping you could do MAX Yellow Line's ref review in return if you have time. - Sure, I could do that. epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a couple more pics to the left? --truflip99 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: I have done so. Technically MOS:IMGLOC says that images should be placed to the right if possible, but I don't mind moving some images left. epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs - pass

edit

Starting. --truflip99 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The NYT scans should have page number included
  • infobox ref 2 -- move it to cover Leopold Eidlitz as well, since that ref states his name
    • Done.
  • "Historic Structures Report: Old New York County Courthouse". National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. 1974. -- this bibl links to an NRHP nomination form, contrary to its wiki title, and seems to be a duplicate of ref 109
    • Removed.
  • ref 32 -- page?
    • Already given, just that {{cite journal}} formats it differently.
  • ref 49 -- page?
    • Removed.
  • ref 50 -- page?
    • Added.
  • ref 61 -- date is wrong
    • Fixed.
  • ref 64 -- expand the title with the sub title as it's too vague
    • Done.
  • ref 74 -- check year
    • Fixed.
  • Schuyler, Montgomery (1884). American Architecture And Other Writings – via Internet Archive. -- publisher? editor? why isn't date 1961? ISBN?
  • 109b -- does not support sentence
    • Removed.
  • 110 -- does not support sentence
    • Removed.

Appears to be it. --truflip99 (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: Thanks, I have addressed these. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Just a note to myself that source/image reviews are still required and have been requested at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: It looks like the source and image reviews have been done. Additionally, this has four prose supports and no opposes. Is anything else needed for this nomination? Thanks in advance. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

Sources: All appear reliable and appropriate to the context. A few formatting inconsistencies:

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate these, and have addressed all of them. epicgenius (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2020&oldid=965291832"