This article is about preening, a behaviour that all birds use to keep their feathers in good shape. It's a behaviour that most of us have probably witnessed at some point, as birds spend quite a bit of time each day preening — up to 15% of their day, in some species. I've enjoyed researching this one; though I've been birding nearly my whole life, even I didn't know some of this before I worked on the article! This started as a WP:BIRD collaboration in 2017, but unfortunately fizzled out pretty quickly. I've been working on it in fits and starts since then, and think it's finally finished. MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which variety of English spelling is used in this article? There is color and colour, behavior and behaviour etc. The article is mostly in British English but there are behavior, neighbors and neighboring rather than behaviour, neighbours and neighbouring.
"barbules" should be linked at first mention in the lead.
Done; I also added links in the caption, and in the first instance following the lede.
The picture showing the structure of a feather is poor. The article cited at the bottom of the picture, Sullivan et al 2017, has a different (and better) version - see here but the licence is CC-BY-NC-ND. The picture is also not well placed - it would fit better near the section headed "Preening action" where the structure is explained. The article certainly needs a diagram to explain barbs, barbules, barbicels etc.
I'll see what I can find; I replaced the previous picture with this one at the recommendation of the GA reviewer. Unfortunately, these is little available online that is CC, and I'm a lousy artist. MeegsC (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've found a fellow editor who has agreed to do some diagrams for me. It may take him a week or two though as he's busy IRL. MeegsC (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A great find. Fig 3 in Zhao et al is 2020 is certainly an improvement on the present picture and you should upload it. Feathers are complicated and tricky to illustrate well. Confusingly, in Fig 3 the arrow in (a) appears to be pointing in wrong (opposite) direction to that used for the view in (b).
I've looked at diagrams (rather than micrographs) in textbooks. The diagram in Gill 2007 is poor (Fig. 4.1). The diagrams in Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016 (p. 103 Fig 4.02 A & B, not available on Google Preview) are much better - but would be impossible to reproduce. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz How about this one? This is the first pass of the one Shyamal is doing. He's planning more detail in the square, and I've asked for an intermediate step between the square and the closeup. Do you think this one is preferable?
The title of journal articles should have a consistent case. My preferred choice (and much the most common when listing articles in a list of references) is the use of sentence case. Compare ref 4 with ref 10.
Ref 10 Cotgreave & Clayton 1994 - the link is broken. There is a spurious "1" at the end of Cotgreave. I suggest you include jstor=4535237 in the reference template.
Ref 62 Delogu et al 2010 - as this is an open-access article I suggest you include doi-access=free in the template.
Bibliography
Campbell & Lack 1985 - need to add url-access=registration
Gill 2007 - the 3rd edition (not the 2nd) was published in 2007. The isbn is for the 3rd edition as is the IA link. Perhaps surprisingly, registration is not required. The page numbers are correct for the 3rd edition.
duplicated links - In Preening action "herons" is linked twice. The other duplicated links (ostriches, albatrosses, black guillemots) occur in different sections which I consider to be OK.
I think Shyamal's diagram is easier to understand. The picture from Zhao et al may be useful in the feather article. In the square in the centre of Shyamal's diagram it is unclear which feature is labelled as barb and which feature is labelled as barbule as it is difficult to see where the lines end. Perhaps it would be easier to label the features in the round enlargement at the bottom. I notice that Shyamal has chosen not to introduce the word "ramus" for the central shaft of the barb. It is yet more jargon to confuse the reader and isn't strictly necessary. The term isn't used in the wiki feather article but the term is mentioned in Lovette & Fitzpatrick. Lucas & Stettenheim discuss the definition of the word at the bottom of page 241 here. It can probably be safely be omitted - but what do you think? - Aa77zz (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aa77zz: I have followed your suggestion above and added ramus into the diagram (but avoided introducing the plural form rami). Would it help to mention hooklets/barbicelles? Shyamal (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a formal sources review as such - but when reviewing an article I look at the type of sources used and where possible check some of them for accuracy/completeness/plagiarism etc. My preference is not to include links to google scans when access is limit/restricted as access can depend on where one lives - but on Wikipedia I believe this is considered a matter of personal taste. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There is evidence that filoplumes, specialized feathers buried under a bird's outer covering of contour feathers, help to signal when contour feathers have been displaced" how?
"preen on the wing" I wonder if the meaning of this would be lost to most layreaders. Maybe "during flight" would be safer?
I put "while flying". Is that okay?
You use both ise and ize endings, should be consistent. I assume this is UK English, since you write behaviour?
"The preen oil of several gull and tern species, including Ross's gull contains a pink colourant which does the same." Shouldn't there be a comma after "including Ross's gull"? As it appears to be a parenthetical sentence.
"the vast majority of these involve icterids, though at least one instance of mutual grooming between a black vulture and a crested caracara has been documented." Was this in captive or wild birds? To show if it is a "natural" occurrence.
"when done with between members of a mated pair" Seems the "with" is redundant?
I was the GA reviewer on this one, and thought Meegs did a great job. Here is my fine toothed comb reserved for FA reviews:
I sat and watched through the YouTube videos in the EL. I think the allopreening video is poor quality and should go. Its shaky, and doesn't really show it that well. I think the in-body video of the ducks is sufficient. Plus, it looks like the ducklings are engaging in a little bit of allopreening, and is very high quality, so I think that covers all the video bases. If you wanted to leave the owl video, you can, but I am hesitant about external video links in general. I admit my understanding of WP:YOUTUBE could probably use some enlightenment, so use your judgement here.
I've replaced the allopreening video with better quality one. I still think it's useful, but if the general consensus is to lose them, I won't fight it.
Should not the lead say "disease-causing organisms" instead of "disease organisms"? I know that will result in two mentions of "cause" in the sentence, the second "cause" could be changed to "lead to"
I would not put "abnormalities" in scare quotes, given that you have the next sentence explaining it now
" contributing as they do to insulation," remove the "as they do"
Note on the use of emdashes vs. endashes. You have a set of emdashes. Emdashes are longer than endashes, and are used without spaces. Endashes are shorter, and are used with spaces. So either remove the spaces, or swap to endashes (I personally prefer endashes)
"One study found that some gull species spend 15% of their daylight hours preening during the breeding season, for example, and another showed common loons spend upwards of 25% of their day preening". The "for example" breaks up the sentence awkwardly. I would try to restructure/word the sentence so it flows better.
"For example, one study showed that the presence of the symbiotic bacteria Enterococcus faecalis in the preen oil of hoopoes inhibited the growth of the bacteria Bacillus licheniformis, a species which breaks down keratin, the main component of feathers" A very long sentence with a lot of punctuation. A solution I often employ when I have too many commas is to replace one of them with an endash. Makes it easier for the reader to keep track of the various clauses and statements.
"microscopic crypts" crypts is not a very common word in this context. Is it accurate? If so, a link could be useful. Otherwise, maybe pits would be a better word?
At your suggestion, I've used pits here. The source uses "crypts" and mentions that these features are unique to hoopoe eggs, but I guess "pits" is probably close enough.
" and such contact allows" I haven't read the associated paper, but it feels like there could be evidence enough to change the "and" to an "as"
I've changed this to "where"; is that okay?
"louping ill virus, for example, can be" Feels like another overuse of "for example"
I've removed all but one instance of "for example" from the article. ;)
The video needs an Alt Text
It has alt text already; I'm not sure why it's not displaying.
The remaining review comments above are pretty minor, and I'm happy to support this excellent article. One statement that is misleading or incorrect though; ...neighbouring black guillemots that engaged in allopreening were much less likely to fight. Since fights often lead to eggs or chicks being knocked off breeding cliffs...— Unlike Common Guillemots, Black Guillemots don't breed on cliffs, they use crevices, caves and even artificial "holes". Cornell lists a wide variety of nest sites, but they are all basically holes, not ledges Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right; I just checked that ref myself, and it looks like I put that in way back in 2017. Eek! Fixed now. MeegsC (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now, an FAC whose title I do not know how to pronounce. Confederate cavalry was retreating across Kansas after being defeated near Kansas City two days earlier. After slowing down at a river crossing, they were attacked by pursuing Union cavalry, who hurried the retreat along. This minor action set the stage for the more significant Battle of Mine Creek later the same day. Hog FarmTalk14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jenkins 1906, p. 52.: Supports that Sedalia raid was successful. Assume that the other source supports Glasgow.
Scott 1893, p. 329.
Scott 1893, p. 330. Supported
National Park Service 2010, p. 5. Supported
National Park Service 2010, p. 12. Supported
National Park Service 2010, p. 14. Mostly supported, but "the site of the battle is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places," needs a citation to an updated listing of protected battlefields and an "as of" date.
@Buidhe: - Would a page from the Kansas Historical Societyhere be good enough to establish that it is not listed? It's hard to find up-to-date stuff saying that most things aren't on the NRHP, so it'll likely be difficult to cite this without arguing on absence from a list as an argument from silence. Hog FarmTalk03:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an official, current list of NRHP sites in Kansas that would be best to cite imo. The absence from the list shows that the site currently isn't recognized. You could also supplement with the Kansas Historical Society source. (t · c) buidhe04:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the official NPS list. It's very long and you have to start typing in the search box about halfway down the page to get results to come up, so I'll support with with the KHS source. Hog FarmTalk04:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A minor thing, but I notice that this article has "Part of Price's Raid" in the infobox, but the other events in {{Campaignbox Price's Missouri Expedition}} have "Part of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War"—surely all of them should be one or the other? Aza24 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically both are correct. I have no idea what the relevant style guidelines for that are, but I personally think the more specific Price's Raid (or Price's Missouri Expedition) is more meaningful. Willing to go with either one though. Hog FarmTalk04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the more specific Price one as well. What I wonder is if we can/should—for uniformity's sake—switch the other articles to such a parameter? Aza24 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that and see if I get reverted. I'm the primary author of about 2/3s of the Price's Raid articles, and they aren't very highly edited, so I don't expect reversion. Hog FarmTalk15:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: - Thanks for the review. I've added alt text to both images lacking it although I have to admit I'm not really sure what sort of alt text is best for complex maps. Hog FarmTalk03:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the Union Army supported the United States and opposed secession" A local faction of the Union Army? Because it's written as if it was local to Missouri, but as far as I can read it was the general army of the union?
I've rephrased this to make it clearer that this is only referring to Lyon's small part of the Union Army
"and join the Confederate States of America" Is "of America" needed in subsequent mentions after the first one?
The Confederate States of America is the formal name, so I have a preference for using that. I'm unaware of any MOS specifically dealing with this, and it's not a big deal to me, so I'm willing to change this if desired.
"As events east of the Mississippi River turned against the Confederates, General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department, was ordered to transfer the infantry under his command to the fighting in the Eastern and Western Theaters." It is unclear from reading this sentence and the preceding what side he was on.
Confederate, clarified.
"allowing an enemy force to operate in his rear" By or at his rear? "In his rear" reads a bit, erm, oddly...
And that's what I get for using military jargon. Rephrased.
" Blunt suggested an ambitious flanking movement, but was overruled by Major General Samuel R. Curtis,[26] commander of the Department of Kansas.[23] The plan would have involved only using a token force to attack the Confederate position at the Marais des Cygnes and slipping most of the rest of the Union army around the Confederate flank and then attack Price's army in the morning." Flanking is linked twice in this paragraph.
Unlinked the latter. It's actually two links to slightly different articles, which is why the duplink checker didn't catch it for me.
Flanking is linked for a thirds time under battle.
Removed. I'd linked to a redirect that time. It's hard to remember what you've linked and what you haven't sometimes when writing content
"and Blunt's plan did not considered the fact" Consider?
Yep, that's what it was suppose to be. Corrected.
"A brief friendly fire incident involving the 4th Iowa Cavalry and the 2nd Colorado Cavalry ensued" Anything on what triggered this?
Added. Iowans didn't know there was friendly troops in their front.
Any pictures of what the battle could have looked like, or the kinds of units in it?
I've added the best image I'm aware of. It's from a Union veteran of the campaign and shows Confederate cavalry during the raid and is probably pretty representative. Neither side really had combat photographers or artists west of the Mississippi at this point, so it's probably around the best available.
Fixed to a redlink. None of the people at the dab page are the right ones.
"Marais des Cynges" should be Cygnes.
Apparently I can't spell Marais des Cygnes in addition to not being able to pronounce it.
Anything on what this event meant for the wider war? Part of a series of defeats? Sign of weakening Confederacy?
Frankly, this didn't mean really anything for the wider war. The preceding battle (Westport) and the succeeding battle (Mine Creek) are considered significant, but this one was really just an insignificant skirmish. The sources don't really ascribe this as anything beyond a rear guard/delaying action.
@FunkMonk: - Thanks for starting a review. I've replied to all of the above and made the changes except for two. One there's really no answer to due to lack of overall significance for the battle, and the other I haven't implemented yet but am willing to implement if desired. Hog FarmTalk06:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that's all from me, the American Civil War is kind of exotic for us Europeans, so even if it was a minor incident, it was still interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"with a cavalry force with hopes of drawing". "with ... with". Maybe 'with a cavalry force in the hope of drawing'?
Done
"without participating in any heavy combat." Delete "any".
Done
"bringing the total Union strength present to 3,500". Do we need "present"?
Not in particular; removed.
Infobox: "over 2,000" → 'Over 2,000'.
Done
"As the American Civil War began in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state". "As" → 'When'.
Done
"and a portion of the state legislature voted to secede and join the Confederate States of America, while another element of the legislature". Optional: Delete "of the legislature".
Done. I'm too use to writing college papers with minimum word counts where being excessively wordy is essentially rewarded by the word count.
The second paragraph of "Background" is long. Consider splitting at "Despite having limited".
Done
"All in all". Would anything be lost if this were deleted?
I've changed to "Overall". Is this acceptable?
It was an open question. Personally I prefer "Overall" to "All in all". Personally I wouldn't have either. But I'm not the nominator.
"The Confederates suffered at least 800 casualties during the engagement and their morale suffered". "suffered →
suffered". Time for a synonym?
Rephrased
"able to recruit between 1,200[18] and 2,000 men." Do you mean 'either', rather than "between"?
It's really that nobody can agree on this number. I've added another estimate and rephrased this.
"with the camp split into two segments by the Marais des Cygnes River". That seems an exceptionally stupid thing to have done. Do we know why?
In a self-trout type moment, I somehow managed to miss the detail that Price was expecting an extended flanking maneuver, not a direct attack on Trading Post in my approximately 10 readings of the relevant part of Collins. While I left Buresh and Stalnaker at home when I went back to college, I checked Collins, Sinisi, and Lause and that's the only really relevant thing related to that that's mentioned. I will note also note that Shelby and William L. Cabell were the only two high-ranking Confederate officers involved in this campaign who can really be described as particularly competent.
And that gave me a good chortle.
"then attack Price's army in the morning." "attack" → 'attacking'.
Went with "to attack" instead and rephrased this down to only one "and" in the sentence
"Blunt's plan did not considered the fact". ?
Also caught by Funk above, I've corrected this.
"was not conducive to a rapid movment". Delete "a"; insert an 'e' in "movment".
Done
"A battery was also deployed at this time"> Perhaps 'An artillery battery was ..."?
Done
"on a row of two 140-foot (43 m) tall mounds". Can two of anything be said to form a "row"?
Changed to "a pair"
"the 4th Iowa Cavalry on the Union right attacked, using the broken ground as cover. Confederate marksmanship at that portion of the line was very poor, and the Iowans easily took the right of the position". If the Iowans were on the Union right, would not the (Confederate) position they captured be on the (confederate) left? Perhaps best to drop the second "took the right"?
Done. After reading back through the source, I am highly confused as to what I was trying to say with the second "took the right"
"but despite firing at a 15° angle". 'a 15° elevation'? Note the link.
Done
"of the misses did strike". "did strike" → 'struck'.
Done
"so the mound was abandoned." "mound" singular?
Yes. The Confederate commander facing the two militia cavalry regiments ... is referring to one mound, while the Iowans captured the other. Does this overall section need rephrased?
I think that if you did something like add 'which included one of the mounds' to the end of "and the Iowans easily took the position" it would help. I am assuming that was the case?
"The 2nd Arkansas Cavalry, operating in a mounted role". Why is it necessary to state that a cavalry unit was operating in a mounted role. Won't a reader assume that? (Unless told otherwise.)
Removed
"and the Union troops were temporarily halted". Possibly add 'by these'. Assuming that was the case.
Done
"presented another challenged to the crossing." I suspect a typo. Or a "misspeak".
Typo. Fixed
"Sanborn left to personally go find Curtis for orders". Suggest deleting "go".
Done
"formed a line from the cavalry brigades commanded by". Suggest "from" → 'with'.
Done
The "Battle" section has four mentions of "the field", including two in consecutive sentences in the last paragraph.
I've rephrased two of them, including one from the last paragraph
"that had begun the campaign with 12,000 men." Suggest deleting "men".
I was about to support, but this tweak - "the Iowans easily took the position, which consisted of one of the mounds. Union artillery fired on the mounds" - seems to have thrown your chronology. I assume that the artillery ceased fire on the right hand mound once it was captured by friendly forces? The article currently suggests not. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the order of the sentences there so that the artillery fire is mentioned before the capture of the mound, which should solve the chronology issue. Hog FarmTalk17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very hard fought World War II battle which was part of the 1941 Battle of Crete. So hard fought that both sides lost. It has gone through GAN and ACR and is hopefully now ready for FAC scrutiny. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"dead ground" a link or explanation might be useful.
Removed.
"All of the Allied units were well dug in and well camouflaged.[24][25] Food stocks were limited and were supplemented by local foraging.[27] Rethmyno itself was defended by a battalion of 800 well-armed Greek civil police.[28]" are you being consistent with the use of hyphens after well?
I honestly can't see where you are suggesting that one is missing.
"(Luftlande-Sturm-Regiment) " Italics?
Done.
"Ju 52s" Link? I see you link on a later usage.
Oops. Fixed.
"No Royal Air Foce (RAF) units were based permanently at Crete" versus " after 29 of their 35 fighters based on Crete were destroyed the RAF ..." is "at Crete" or "on Crete" preferred, or does it not matter?
Personally I have tried to mix in, at and on to provide some variety in the prose. "at" does look a little odd so I have changed it to 'on'.
"German intelligence summaries stated that the total Allied force on Crete consisted of 5,000 men and that the garrison of Heraklion was 400 strong[32] and that Rethmyno was not formally garrisoned.[24]" and ... and
Fixed.
"Sturm's plan was for the regiment's 3rd Battalion (2/III), reinforced by two artillery units, would drop approximately 2 mi (3 km) of Rethymno and capture the town." for ... would. Reads oddly, but perhaps it's just Engvar.
Ha! That is generous of you. No - I mangled it in an ACR edit. Fixed
"Refuelling was carried out by hand and took longer than anticipated.[41][20] " Cites in reverse numerical order which is of course OK if you are doing major source first.
I automatically tend to go for major source first. But I get picked at for it. And into debates as to which really is "major". So swapped.
"Having been informed at 14:30 of the attacks to the west, the Allies realised this may be the prelude to a paratrooper assault.[34]" May should probably be might, as a past event.
It should, it should. Fixed.
"Campbell ordered his two heavy tanks to counter-attack, but both became immobilised in the rough terrain. Campbell set up ..." Consecutive sentences beginning with Campbell.
I see a slightly incoherent treatment of ranks: why 'Lieutenant General' for the Germans but 'Major-general' for the British?
Standardised.
confusion and delays at the airfields in Greece 'in the Greek mainland', perhaps?
Done.
Background
In Directive 31 Hitler asserted -> In Führer Directive 31 Hitler asserted... I also note that based on the list at the article redirected to, the directive outlining Unternehmen Merkur was 28, not 31. This needs to be checked.
Good spot. Thank you. 31 is about military organisation in the Balkans and I assume that I became confused. Text of Directive 28 for checking.
The British forces had seven commanders Are the British forces on Crete meant, or in the theatre of operations generally? Please clarify.
"... especially in the backwater of Crete. The British forces had seven commanders in seven months" seemed clear to me, but further clarified.
I will use the Hellenic Army's concise history (henceforth 'Concise History', I added it to the sources) to check some things and recommend some additions/clarifications, but will simply provide you with the information here and let you incorporate it as you see fit. I hope that is OK. I could probably scrounge up some German-language sources too, but this would take a few more days, and the German bibliography is generally well utilized by English-speaking authors; the Greek, not so much, even for a conflict taking place on Greek soil.
Yes, I noticed a distinct lack. And a couple I found - in English but by Greeks - did not seem very reliable. I consoled my self with WP:NONENG: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". The information you give below is incredibly helpful, thank you.
The Greeks were 2,300 strong and ill-disciplined, ill-equipped and extremely short of ammunition. per the Concise History (p. 229), the Rethymno Group comprised the local reservists' training battalion, and a battalion (Τάγμα Οπλιτών Χωροφυλακής, roughly "Gendarmerie Soldiers' Battalion") made up of the Gendarmerie Academy that had been moved to the island in March (900 men, 15 officers, p. 224). That would also be the '800 well-armed Greek civil police' (which therefore were not really 'civil police', since the Gendarmerie was a semi-paramilitary body) in Rethymno itself, mentioned below (and which should be moved up, since the landing strip is discussed separately from the Rethymno city area).
Added "paramilitary" and the link and moved it up.
Does that mean that the local reservists' training battalion was ~1,400 strong? Does the Concise History give its strength?
Hmmm, no it does not, but it certainly was not that strong. The bulk of the Greek units in the area were likely the two 'Regiments', each probably around 600 strong (the total manpower of the eight recruit training battalions was 4910 men and officers). However, there was also (pp. 223-224) a recently formed civil guard (πολιτοφυλακή), meant to guard rear area installations, with a total strength of ca. 1,500 men, also divided into four battalions (one per prefecture). The source that gives the number of 2,300 likely omits the gendarmerie battalion from this total, right? Then the 2,300 would make sense, ca. 1200-1300 men in the two 'Regiments', some 350-400 men in the civil guard, and the rest from the reservist battalion. Total Greek forces would then be ca. 3200, which is (almost) the number in the infobox. Constantine ✍ 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I follow what you say, but "each probably" and guessing at the strength of the civil guard, or even whether they were at, or how many were at, Rethymno smacks a bit of OR. I would prefer to use the Concise History for Greek strengths, but it seems that the only non-Greek sources give "precise" numbers, while the CH would seem to broadly support them. I don't see any specific changes i can make here, but I am sure that you will come back at me if I am wrong.
The Australian 2/1st Battalion (2/1st) ... was positioned on and around Hill B. per the Concise History (p. 229), the Australians had ten field guns in total (6x75 mm and 4x100 mm, I assume the calibres are not exact)
I take this to mean that you would like the article to give the number and calibre of artillery pieces available to the Allies? I have done so. Long gives 4x75 mm and 4x100 mm, so I have used those numbers.
The Greek 4th Regiment was situated on the ridge between the two Australian units and the 5th Regiment... Again based on the Concise History (p. 224), these 'regiments' were so only in name. They were in fact battalions from the recruit training centres in the Peloponnese, evacuated in April. In total, there were 8 of them on Crete, some 4.900 men in total. These were renamed as 'regiments', but were completely worthless, as the recruits comprising them had received a few days' worth of training at most. Their equipment was disparate, with 5-20 bullets per gun at most, while about a third of the men had no guns at all.
Agreed. Which is why the article describes them as "ill-disciplined, ill-equipped and extremely short of ammunition". Is there something you would like to adding or subtracting from that?
Hmmm, the main point I'd like to see added would be that the Greeks were a hodgepodge of recent, ad hoc recruit and armed civilian formations, most of them with barely any training at all, with the gendarmerie academy battalion virtually the only somewhat well-trained and well-armed formation. And the 'extremely short on ammunition' could be clarified with the numbers given above. Personal aside here: I admit I am leery of blanket descriptions of 'ill-disciplined' troops. This always triggers alarm bells in me. I've seen this often enough, and whenever I've been able to examine the views of both sides from the respective literature (not just for British descriptions of Greeks, but also German views of Italians, US views of Chinese, etc), there's usually more than a smidgen of racial/ethnic prejudice and superiority complex at work, that tends to obscure the actual root causes—to whit, when you are unarmed, or with an antique Gras rifle with ten bullets, and have had a week's training at best, where on earth would 'discipline' come from?—reveals a lack of understanding of and engagement with the troops in question, obscures/explains away any omissions by the respective commander—their deficiencies being well known, why did the British not undertake to at least arm these men properly during the previous weeks? Was it really that difficult for the British Empire to find 10,000 rifles and ammunition?—and, finally, it is a code word that prepares the reader for the ultimate failure, because when one has 'ill-disciplined troops' that were not up to the task, of course one would fail. Admittedly, the lack of discipline may well be true here (again, we are talking about troops with barely any training), but it is better to rely on objective facts than value judgments. Say that the 4th and 5th Regiments were battalions composed of green recruits with a few days' basic training (verbatim from the 'Concise History') and describe their lack of armament, which by itself is enough information. Constantine ✍ 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. I have removed "ill-disciplined" in favour of something more nuanced. ("most had received little training") And added more detail on the ammunition situation. See what you think.
Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign the campaign began on 14 May (Concise History, p. 234), and also aimed at preventing shipping from reaching Crete, forcing the supply of the Allied forces on Crete to happen during night, and mostly with smaller vessels.
Changed to "the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters".
Battle
In Greece the Germans as above, 'In the mainland...', which makes the 'in mainland Greece' after redundant.
Oops. Resolved.
the Allies realised this might be the prelude to a paratrooper assault. Might we also add explicitly that this meant that the Germans had lost the element of surprise, and that the delay between the bombing and the landings allowed the Allies to recover from the bombardment?
What would you suggest is added to further emphasise that surprise was lost. The Allies did not know that they were also going to be attacked. They could only strongly suspect that "this might be the prelude to a paratrooper assault". The article says of the bombardment "as fewer than 20 aircraft were involved it was ineffective" so there was not much to recover from, even given a source - Concise History I assume - stating that there was time for recovery a reader may be left a little puzzled as to how one recovers from something which was anyway inefffective.
total of 160 Ju 52s 161 according to the Concise History (p. 239)
Thank you. An odd error by me. Well picked up. Corrected.
at the Greek airfields mainland airfields
Done.
The surviving Germans of the 2/I Battalion...suffered 400 dead or wounded. per Concise History (p. 240), the paratroopers first captured the village of Stavromenos, and from there attacked Hill A. The rest is more or less the same.
Yes, Beevor says "The main part of Kroh's force fell round the olive oil factory at Stavromenos, two kilometres to the east" (of Hill A). I have tweaked accordingly.
many members of the 2/II Battalion I think you mean the 2/III Battalion
D'oh! Given that the 2/II was at Heraklion, I do of course. Fixed.
landed as planned near Platanes per Concise History (p. 240), to the west of Platanes, at Perivolia, which was held by the Greek reservists' training battalion, which, being virtually unarmed, simply collapsed.
Added.
the Cretan police as noted above, not the Cretan police, but the Gendarmerie recruits
Changed.
per Concise History (p. 240), Campbell requested reinforcements from Allied HQ for his counterattack, but this was not granted. The Georgioupolis group (rest of 19th Brigade including brigade HQ), which faced no attack and thus was available, was sent to Chania instead.
Added.
At first light on 21 May Concise History offers some details here. There were two axes: 2/11th Battalion attacked towards the coastal plain and part the 5th Greek Regiment towards Platanes, and the other with 2/1st against Hill A and the rest of 5th Regiment towards Stavromenos (p. 244). 60 prisoners were taken at Hill A,, the rest is as described (pp. 244-245). The Greeks reached the outskirts of Stavromenos in early morning, but were pinned down, and 5th Regiment commander asked for artillery support and a tank to attack it, but Campbell denied this and ordered him to return to his initial positions after leaving a company with 2/1st Battalion (p. 245).
Constantine, I deliberately haven't gone into too much detail here. Long, pages 262-263, gives further detail, similar to the Concise History's, but I have communicated it in summary style. I confess that there seems to be no logical stopping point on the spectrum from "it neglects no major facts or details" broad-brush overview to a platoon action by platoon action "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail", but to me going into the detail of which Allied unit did exactly what, Hill A aside, creeps over the line into the latter.
I figured as much. I merely wanted to give the option, in case the information was not available. As the article author, judging the appropriate level of detail is of course up to you ;). The only thing I would insist on would be to clarify the units involved on the Allied side (2/11th and 5th Regiment), as this allows the reader to follow the tactical dispositions. Constantine ✍ 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The German 2/III Battalion per Concise History (p. 245), in the afternoon (17:15), the Gendarmerie managed to recapture the village of Kastelakia, and the Germans were restricted to the cemetery of Perivolia around the church of Agios Georgios. The same source also gives total German losses for 21st May as about 70 killed, 300 wounded, and 200 prisoner.
How is "The German 2/III Battalion was unable to renew its attack on Rethymno on the 21st as it was pinned down around Perivolia by the Greek gendarmerie from the town and armed civilians." I have added the casualty figures.
"The German 2/III Battalion renewed its attack on Rethymno on the 21st, but was beaten back and pinned down around Perivolia by the Greek gendarmerie from the town and armed civilians"? Since the Germans did actually attack in the direction of Rethymno, and were driven back, losing ground. Constantine ✍ 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not unanimous about that. But it is a nuance and I consider it reasonable to use the Greek history for actions solely involving Greeks. (On the Allied side.) So done.
per Concise History (pp. 247-248), from the morning of the 22nd, the Luftwaffe increaisngly flew bombing sorties in order to assist the paratroopers, including against the city of Rethymno, where there were several civilian dead (including the local prefect and the Gendarmerie commadner). Otherwise the information on the day's events is about the same.
Added.
per Concise History (pp. 250-251), Rethymno was bombed again on the 23rd for about seven hours (13:00-20:00), including the local hospital, despit eit being marked with a red cross. On the 23rd, another attack on Perivolia failed (p. 251), and a three-hour truce was arranged at the airport to bury the dead. During this, the local German commander, having learned of the German successes further west, requested the Australians' surrender, but was refused (p. 251). Another attack on Perivolia in the early hours of the 24th failed (p. 251). This was followed by a German counterattack from Agios Georgios, but was defeated by 14:00 (p. 251).
Some details, especially on the bombing of Rethymno, added. Some others not, on the grounds that it is creeping into "unnecessary detail" territory. See comment above.
On 26 May the Australians... per Concise History (p. 255), this was a joint attack with the 5th Regiment, and captured 100 German prisoners, of whom 42 were wounded that were abandoned in the factory. On the 27th, the Germans at Perivolia attacked the Gendarmerie positions at Kastelakia, without any result (p. 255).
Information on the factory added.
The Germans attacked and isolated the Allied positions east of Rethymno. The Allies had all but consumed their food supplies and exhausted their ammunition and so Campbell surrendered some detail should be added here. Per Concise History (p. 259), the commanders of the 4th and 5th Greek regiments decided to withdraw on 22:00 of 29 May, to Adele and Arkadi respectively. 5th Regiment, which comprised many Cretan recruits, then simply dispersed, while 4th Regiment surrendered to the Germans. The Concise History also notes that Campbell surrendered after noon on the 30th, and that the commander and many men of the 2/11th Battalion fled to the mountains, but it does not mention whether they managed to escape or not. There's some info in other sources (e.g. [4] about locals helping several British, Australian and NZ soldiers to escape via the Preveli Monastery though.
Time of surrender, withdrawal and fates of the 4th and 5th Regiments added.
Aftermath
than in the entire campaign in the Balkans. "...than in the entire campaign in the Balkans until then", technically, the Battle of Crete is part of the Balkans campaign.
Done.
The Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations "...during World War II", perhaps also mention that this was due to the high casualties among the German paratroopers specifically.
Done.
Both the 2/1st and 2/11th battalions reiterate that this is the Australian units you are talking about.
Why? I haven't written 'the 2/III battalion, which as I mentioned above was a German unit' each time I mention it. After fully naming at first mention it is usual to then just give whatever commonly used shortening was in parentheses afterwards.
I feel the section is a bit thin. Could we have some (brief) additional information about the subsequent fate of both the Australian units and of the German ones? The German paratroopers for example fought in Italy after 1943. Was there any assessment of the battle in the post-war works you have examined? For example, the failure of the Allies to eliminate the Germans, even though the latter made a complete mess of the first day, is quite surprising. This is something that probably should be addressed somehow. Crete in general is a German victory that should not have been one, and was helped along by lethargic Allied leadership, so perhaps this can be analyzed a bit?
I don't think that this is the place for any of that. The detailed fate of the various battalions belongs in the histories on them or their parent units. I would be unhappy working in what a descendant division did in a different country, 30 months after two of its battalions fought on Crete. Logically this would open the door for a full history of each unit involved.
What happened at Rethymno, according to the RSs, was irrelevant to the outcome of the battle. No Allied reinforcements were sent, so Campbell not completely wiping out the Germans made no difference to the outcome of the Battle of Crete. Rethymno would only have effected this battle if the Germans had captured the landing strip, and there was never a possibility of this. And if it had been captured it would have ended in the same result - a German victory.
Again, I don't think this article is the place for an analysis of the Battle of Crete. That has its own article. And, as noted, the Battle of Rethymno was all but irrelevant to its outcome.
Hmmm, all right. My point was rather whether Rethymno itself was analyzed in any way, either independently or as part of the general Allied failure in Crete (which probably all stem from the same root causes)—in other words, whether Rethymno was indicative/representative of the battle as a whole—and what lessons could be (and if, indeed, they were) drawn from it. Constantine ✍ 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and many more murdered less formally is a rather awkward turn of phrase, just state outright that many more were murdered in reprisals and atrocities.
Tweaked.
That's it, content-wise. There's some minor prose issues, but they are dealt with by Wikibenboy94 below. Once the above comments are done, I'll make another pass through the article, before supporting. Overall the article was a nice read, and easy to follow. Well done, as usual. Constantine ✍ 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Constantine, you have gone well above and beyond on this one. Your input has been extremely helpful and I much appreciate it. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments above. Note that this does not necessarily mean that I have actioned them as you may have wished. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Gog the Mild. Your changes are good, and I am now happy to support. Thanks for your work on this. If you ever want to take on the main Battle of Crete article or other sub-articles, ping me; apart from the Concise History I've got some German sources that might be useful/interesting (particularly in somewhat demolishing the myth of the elite Fallschirmjäger). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for getting so involved in this Constantine, it is much appreciated.
Do you have Gola (2006)?
I assume that you have noticed Battle of Heraklion which is currently (also) working its way through FAC.
I am hoping to do articles on three more of the component conflicts of the Battle of Crete, but that article seems to have a lot of strong opinions and the current shape and weights of the article are so far from how I would like it to be that I suspect that I will decide to allocate the time to something else when I get there. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll have a look at Battle of Heraklion as soon as I may. I don't have Gola 2006, but I have on order from an antiques bookshop his other book on the fall of Greece, which may include Crete as well (it's probably going to get here sometime in the next fortnight). I am however currently reading Sönke Neitzel's book on the institutional history of the German military from 1871 to today (Deutsche Krieger, if it ever gets translated into English, I heartily recommend it), and there are some remarks that the performance of the Fallschirmjäger was inadequate, partly because of the insufficient homogenization of the corps, with those who were carried over from the police (Police Regiment 'General Göring') still notably being less proficient than their army counterparts, and that this was not overcome until after Crete clearly highlighted their deficiencies. Student's planning is also heavily criticized by German sources (underestimation of Allied force strength, lack of a clear Schwerpunkt). Constantine ✍ 18:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source for Australian/Greek overall strength in the infobox?
Arguably OR, so removed.
Source for alternate spellings in note 1?
Oops. Added.
How are you organizing Sources?
My A to Z went to pot. They should now be in alphabetical order, with "2/11th Battalion" under A for Australian War Memorial and the obit under H for The Herald.
The obit has a specific date that should be included, and why include publisher?
Now have a citeref error on Hellenic Army History Directorate, and that ref if kept needs cleaning up - endash in title, repeating publisher as author when other refs do not, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I have found material in Hellenic Army History Directorate not covered by an English language source and so am now using it. This loses the citeref error, and I have tidied up Constantine's formatting. Re the duplication, apologies: I had understood that one should reproduce the author and publisher as given on the title page. This work gives the author as "Grèce. Dieúthynsī istorías stratoú" and the publisher as"Έκδοση Διευθύνσεως ιστορίας στρατού". Both translate as Hellenic Army History Directorate. Now better educated re this unusual case, I have deleted the publisher. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is my first contribution to a peer review so I apologize upfront if some of my suggestions for the prose come across as naïve or amateruish, regardless of my efforts in adhering to WP:FACR. I've currently got my own review open for the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered with the intention of getting it to FAC, and was directed to one of your reviews on by ImaginesTigers you had reached out to. However, it seems that peer review is now on the verge of closure so I have moved on to this relatively-new one instead.
Hi Wikibenboy94, I appreciate your spending the time to review this.
Linking
"heavy weapons" needs amending as it links to the video game Heavy Weapon.
Oops. Who knew? Fixed.
The following terms in bold should be linked:
Ah ha! There are nuances to how editors approach linking. I tend towards the light touch per MOS:OVERLINK. Clearly you tend towards the "better save than sorry" view. IMO "Australian", "Greek", "paratrooper" and "Adolf Hitler" fall into the not needing to be linked category under this guideline. Eg it seems unlikely that many readers of the article will be unfamiliar with Adolf Hitler.
"artillery" is already linked in the lead but not the article! Good spot. Fixed.
"Belligerent" and "taxiing" now linked.
"the Greek island"
"Australian and Greek forces"
"paratrooper"
"artillery"
"Belligerent"
"Adolf Hitler"
"Taxiing"
Lead
"defended the airstrip near Pigi[...]" Is there just the one airstrip? This is the first and only mention of it so perhaps it should be referred to it as "an airstrip", or otherwise clarify its location before the noun?
"Pigi" removed; rephrased as 'defended the town of Rethymno the nearby airstrip'. Yes, there was just the one.
That change doesn't seem gramatically correct to me, like it's missing a word.
Sorry. Somehow the cut and paste dropped a word. The article reads "defended the town of Rethymno and the nearby airstrip against a German paratrooper attack".
"The attack on Rethmyno was one of four airborne assaults on Crete on 20 May [...] following on from attacks against Maleme airfield and the main port of Chania in the west of Crete in the morning." Were these all attacks from German forces?
They were. Clarified.
"were scheduled to drop the 2nd Regiment over Rethymno[...]" When? Afternoon? Evening?
Added.
"Those German units dropping near the Allied positions suffered very high casualties, both from ground fire and once they had landed". I would suggest re-wording this to "The German units dropped near the Allied positions suffered very high casualties, both from ground fire and upon landing."
I prefer the current version, but given that your other suggestions have been insightful, perhaps you could expand on in what way(s) your version would be an improvement?
I suppose "those" is better if it's referring to a specific unit(s); "the" might imply it was all of them. I thought "upon landing" just felt snappier, and without having to include the use of a pronoun.
"upon landing": I can see pros and cons to both, and so have gone with your version as the more concise.
"The Allied Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Archibald Wavell," This could potentially mislead readers into thinking the General is called "Middle East" before his actual name is mentioned immediately after. Recommend changing this to "Middle East's Allied Commander-in-Chief" or "Allied Commander-in-Chief of Middle East".
No, his title was "Commander-in-Chief Middle East". It can't be broken. Do you really think that a reader may think that there might be a person named "Middle East"? That they would be sub-literate enough to not realise that the lack of a comma between "Chief" and "Middle" rules this out? And if they did and were, that the immediate clarification of this by giving the actual name and rank of the holder of the position is not sufficient?
"Some Australians took to the hills[...]" "Took to the hills" should be replaced per MOS:IDIOM.
Rephrased.
Background
"the Ploiești oil fields in Romania would be within range of British bombers based on the island." Maybe I'm just being ignorant but what's the significant of the oil fields? For fuel?
Well, that's the main product of oil fields. I could stick a footnote in on their output and its importance to the Nazi war machine if you think it wouldn't be "unnecessary detail".
Thanks, I didn't know much about the purpose of oil fields. I probably wouldn't bother on the note but on the other hand it wouldn't harm I suppose.
I am inclined to leave it. There are so many aspects where one could give a fuller geo-political explanation, but one ends up with a cluttered article or a silly number of extensive notes.
Allies
"Equipment was scarce in the Mediterranean, especially in the backwater of Crete." This is more just my opinion, but I think replacing "especially" with "particularly" would make it sound a little more formal.
Done.
"In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops had arrived from Greece," Are these part of the 42,000? If so, maybe clarify "27,000 of the Commonwealth troops".
I think that would put the emphasis in the wrong place, but I take your point. I have tweaked elsewhere, so it now reads
When the Germans attacked, the Allies had available a total of 42,000 men on Crete: 10,000 were Greek and 32,000 Commonwealth. In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops had arrived from Greece, many lacking any equipment other than their personal weapons, or not even those; 9,000 of these were further evacuated and 18,000 remained when the battle commenced.
Any clearer?
I'm confused now as to how many Commonwealth soldiers there were at the start. Is "when the Germans attacked" and "when the battle commenced" referring to the same point in time, as the former sentence mentions there were 32,000 soldiers, but then 18,000 in the latter?
Ah. Probably because I have reversed the chronology. D'oh! How's
In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece, many lacking any equipment other than their personal weapons, or not even those; 9,000 of them were further evacuated and 18,000 remained when the battle commenced. With the pre-existing garrison of 14,000 this gave the Allies a total of 32,000 Commonwealth troops to face the German attack, supplemented by 10,000 Greeks.
"Both Australian battalions had fought in Greece" Do we know how long before Rethymno?
Clarified.
"The Australians totalled 1,270 experienced veterans, and there were several smaller attached Commonwealth units." I would change "and there" to "with".
Why? That seems less clear and less precise to me.
"The Greeks were 2,300 strong and ill-disciplined, ill-equipped and extremely short of ammunition". Change "and" to "but" to illustrate the disparity between their size and inadequacies.
Done. (But with fingers crossed for the PoV introduced. I am not sure that it is our role to illustrate such points, as opposed to stating the facts and allowing a reader to draw their own conclusions.)
Germans
"German intelligence summaries stated that the total Allied force on Crete consisted of 5,000 men," Was this deduction accurate? I thought the total Allied force amounted to many thousands more?
They did. As stated earlier. One source on the German performance in this area
The Germans, during their period of seemingly unstoppable conquest, paid relatively little attention to the art of intelligence. Such over-confidence was revealed in the language of their summaries which phrased mere suppositions with the cast-iron confidence of undeniable truths. That of 19 May, on the eve of battle, categorically stated that the British garrison on Crete was no more than 5,000 strong, with only 400 men at Heraklion, and none at Rethymno.
Others are less generous.
Paratroopers
"The design of the German parachutes". Did this apply to all German parachutes used during WWII? If so I would suggest changing to "standard German parachutes".
The source only states that this applies to the parachutes of German paratroopers (up to and including this operation). It almost certainly (OR alert) does not apply to at least some other types of German military parachutes of the period.
"were dropped in separate containers and until and unless the paratroopers reached them they were helpless". Grammatical error. I think the last part of the sentence could be a bit more formal or elaborated upon.
Elaborated on.
The grammatical error still remains: "and until and unless".
I had wondered what you considered that error to be. Broken into a separate sentence.
"German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft, and so were trained to land on all fours [...] Once out of the plane, German paratroopers were unable to control their fall or to influence where they landed." Why was it required that they leap headfirst, and what about this manoeuvre meant that they had to land on all fours? Similarly, did the inability for German paratroopers to control their fall and destination only result from the types of parachutes they used, or did this apply to any country's paratroopers?
"Why" and "what": the source does not say. "Many technical problems remained ... German parachute training called for ..." without (much) further explanation. I could guess, but that would be OR.
"control": I don't know. My sources only refer to German paratroopers.
"Paratroopers were carried by the reliable tri-motored Ju 52. Each transport could lift thirteen paratroopers, with their weapons containers carried on the planes' external bomb racks." I'm not sure about the placement of the acknowledgement of the Ju 52 by name at the end of the section only after being referred to as "the aircraft" several times throughout. Also, is the Ju considered reliable for its aforementioned carrying capacity, or some other detail?
"aircraft" is used when the type of aircraft used is unknown or irrelevant. Ju 52s are only introduced at the end, because it is only in relation to this operation that we know that they were used. It is common for non-front line aircraft to be used for training. Other aircraft may have been used for other operations. The sources don't say.
I assumed that the paragraph was only referring to details on paratroopers for that specific battle rather than the war in general, so if this is the case, to avoid confusion it might be worth adding to the introduction "During the war German paratroopers were also required[...]".
Given that the article is about a paratrooper attack during WWII, that the preceding paragraph is about the planning for a paratrooper landing during WWII I think that this would be clear to a reader from context. And I can't write "During the war"; as stated above "The source only states that this applies to the parachutes of German paratroopers (up to and including this operation)", the situation may have continued, it may not - I don't know and, given that "The Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations" I don't think it is relevant.
Initial assault
"The aircraft which dropped them were scheduled[...]" I presume by the use of the plural "were" that it was more than one aircraft?
Yes.
"In Greece the Germans were having problems with their hastily constructed airfield facilities in mainland Greece[...]" Greece is mentioned twice. Recommend keeping the first instance and changing to read "in the mainland" or some other variation.
Ah. I tweaked it for a previous reviewer and clearly didn't check thoroughly enough. Fixed
"the pre-assault softening up from the German air support" Shouldn't the correct tense be "softened"? Also it may be beneficial to use more accessible wording for those unfamiliar with military jargon.
No, "softening" is correct. Rephrased to be more accessible.
"many members of the 2/II Battalion had been dropped in the wrong location," Do we know why?
No. (I mean yes - paratrooper operations were notorious for lack of accuracy (on D-Day some Americans were dropped 40 miles off target), the totally unexpected ground fire will have seriously distracted the pilots and at another attack site the same date it turned out that interpretation of the reconnaissance photos used to plan the attack had resulted in a valley being mistaken for a hill. But that is all OR. No source specifically says.)
"Around 18:00[...]" "At around 18:00" is more gramatically correct.
Done.
"but were beaten off by the Cretan police," Sounds a bit informal. Would suggest replacing with "fended off" or "repelled" as examples.
"fended off" - a nautical term - seems even more informal, and repelled suggests an inactivity on the part of those doing the repelling which wasn't the case. I don't see a problem with "beaten off", but happy to consider synonyms other than those two.
Subsequent operations
"this was disrupted when they were mistakenly bombed by their own aircraft." The article mentions this happening twice to the Germans. Were there any casulties/deaths do we know?
None are mentioned in the sources.
"The German 2/III Battalion was unable to renew its attack on Rethymno on the 21st as it was pinned down around Perivolia by the Cretan police from the town and armed civilians." Not clear about whether these are the same aforementioned police and civilians from Rethymno or some from Perivolia. If both groups were from the same location I would re-arrange the wording to "Cretan police and armed civilians from the town."
We don't know where the armed civilians came from precisely, but it is known that at least some did not come from the town. Hence the arguably clumsy wording.
"When Ju 52s flew over, the Allies ceased fire and displayed captured panels requesting resupply; they received weapons, ammunition and equipment." What are these panels, and how did the Allies use them to communicate (in the next paragraph it mentions the use of signal panels, which are presumably the same thing)? Also, I presume the supplies came from the Ju 52's (via parachute?) as they were tricked into thinking they were Germans?
Yes, they were signal panels. The sources don't go into the specifics of how they were used to communicate nor specify what type of aircraft dropped the supplies. On the latter there is probably enough in the sources for me to specify Ju 52s, but I felt a little happier hedging as in the sentence you quote.
Surrender
"Greek casualties are unknown". Would include "The number of" at the start of the sentence.
Done.
Misc.
Instances of "machineguns" need to be changed to "machine guns".
"The Rethymno landing strip was about 8 mi (13 km)[...]" The full unit of measurement "miles" should be used for clarity; its abbreviation of three fewer letters isn't much difference.
Done.
Punctuation requirements
The following words/punctuation in bold need a comma or hyphen between them:
Commas
The month–day–year dates need commas per MOS:COMMA.
I have not used any MDY dates, they are all in DMY format.
"but airfield construction took place, radar sites were built and stores delivered."
A comma inserted after "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent".
"grouped under the 11th Air Corps (XI Fliegerkorps) which was commanded by[...]"
"after 29 of their 35 fighters based on Crete were destroyed the RAF rebased its aircraft there to Alexandria."
Rephrased.
"Faced by a superior force of Germans equipped with tanks and artillery Campbell surrendered[...]"
"supplies and communication facilities."
"Rifles, automatic weapons, mortars, ammunition, food and water were dropped"
"The transport aircraft had to fly straight, low and slowly,"
"At the same time its 1st Battalion (2/I),"
"The paratrooper drops did not occur simultaneously instead a succession of easy targets[...]" (Semi-colon after "simultaneously"; comma after "instead".)
Comma inserted after "simultaneously" (only).
"The German 2/I Battalion dug in on the hilltop having suffered 400 dead or wounded."
"At first light on 21 May the Allies[...]"
I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove them when copy editing for GoCE.)
"a radio was transferred to rubber dinghy and this paddled towards the beach. The radio, dinghy and seaplane[...]"
"The next day Wavell ordered[...]"
"On the morning of 29 May a German force[...]"
"On the morning of 20 May two reinforced[...]"
Where I have not commented it is because I have already covered the principle - serial comma, time commas, or because I do not feel that a comma is required, necessary nor aids understanding.
You are, I gather, a "commaist"; I am, you will have gathered, not. During a FAC discussion of one of my nominations earlier this year an experienced reviewer is also a commaist gently mocked themself by quoting the grammar writer Lynn Truss.
Hi Gog. Apologies for not getting back to you. I have no qualms with your most recent responses, and yes while I am a "commaist" as you say I can't do much to persuade you otherwise if you don't hold the same views (I've understood since that there is less support for serial commas than I first thought!). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikibenboy94: I have certainly been surprised since I started doing work at GoCE three years ago at how many things which I thought were accepted practice, are actually variants. And sometimes a minority one. Hyphens is an area which repeatedly trips me. And I seem to get no better at copy editing my own work.
I much appreciate your comments so far, and the article is the better for them. Do you have further suggestions, or do you feel able to either support or oppose?
@Gog the Mild: One thing I did come across initially and had to remind myself it was referring to the same ones was that the Matilda tanks are only referred to by name once (mentions: "Two Matilda II heavy tanks" ... "his two heavy tanks" ... "their two abandoned tanks" ... "The two recovered tanks"). I think at least for the second instance they should be referred to as "Matilda tanks". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I possibly overdo the 'give full name at first mention only' thing. "Matilda II" added to second mention and to the footnote. Thanks again for the review and the support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a full review; just one nitpick / question.
Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign to establish air superiority; after 29 of their 35 fighters based on Crete were destroyed the RAF rebased its aircraft there to Alexandria.
First off, this sentence is structured a bit funny (you might think the "their" in "their 35 fighters" refers to the Germans as you read along, but nope, surprise, it was the RAF retroactively). However, it seems to also raise more questions. What were the losses among non-fighter aircraft? Were there any? If not, shouldn't it just say "the remaining 6 fighters"? I'm not entirely sure that this is the place to go into deep detail about the German air campaign against Crete, but if you're going to go into it, I'd suggest rephrasing to be a bit clearer about what's going on.
Strictly the semi colon makes the phrase grammatically correct. But I take you point and have rephrased to
Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to establish air superiority. The RAF rebased its surviving aircraft to Alexandria after 29 of their 35 Crete-based fighters were destroyed.
How is it now?
Checking the history, I see that this used to be vaguer and just say "the Germans conducted a bombing campaign to establish air superiority and forced the RAF to rebase its aircraft in Alexandria." Maybe revert to that? If the details are important, though, I'd rephrase and give all of them - "Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign to establish air superiority. After RAF losses of 29 out of 35 of their fighters and (INSERT OTHER RELEVANT LOSSES HERE OR ELSE MAKE CLEAR IT WAS JUST THOSE 35 AIRCRAFT AT ALL), the British rebased their remaining aircraft to Alexandria."
I need to be careful to to not step outside the constraints of the information provided by the sources, but the rephrase may have allayed your concerns?
I think skipping the semicolon is better since separate sentences, one for the Germans and one for the RAF, is better. So it does read better, thanks. One question on your addition: " the surrounding waters?" Does this mean the outlying islands? Or does this mean that the Germans were bombing the British fleet as well? If so, maybe say that directly? But maybe this is overly nitpicky. SnowFire (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It means that they conducted a bombing campaign against the surrounding waters as well as against Crete - which by definition is mostly land. Yes, in practice this meant attacking Allied warships, submarines, transport craft and seaplanes. As I don't go into detail of what was attacked during "bombing campaign against Crete" I don't think it appropriate to do so for just that against the surrounding waters. Remember that - as stated - the objective was to "to establish air superiority"; attacking specific targets was secondary. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this for the Milhist A-Class assessment, and felt it was in good shape then. I see there has been substantive and comprehensive feedback provided by other FA reviewers, but am taking another look at this to see if I can nitpick anything else. Comments, if any to follow. Zawed (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Infobox[reply]
In the strength section of the infobox, there is no value associated with Support units. In the Allies section of the article, I believe this is intended to be covered by note 2 which only gives an absolute value for the artillery. Perhaps instead, say "Unknown number of support personnel" or "90+ support personnel"?
largely opposed to a German attack on Crete. German seems redundant here.
True. Removed.
Battle
It was 16:00 before this pre-assault air attack commenced, it was limited to fewer than 20 aircraft and it was ineffective. repeated use of "it was". Suggest something like "It was 16:00 before this pre-assault air attack commenced; limited to fewer than 20 aircraft, it was ineffective."
Tweaked along those lines.
Having been informed at 14:30 of the attacks to the west, the Allies realised this might be the prelude... is this realisation in response to the 14:30 news or the 16:00pm pre assault and is the Allies here meant to refer to the overall forces on Crete (which is the impression I get) or more specifically the garrison at Rethymno?
Clarified.
Surrender
Many men from the 2/11th Battalion struck off on their own I think "struck out" would read better?
Maybe it's just something wrong on my end of the system, but for the map in the Germans section, I'm just getting a caption, with the alt text as a link to the image I have to click on to see the image. May just be my system, though.
I have just checked it on four different devices and it displays fine on all of them, so I suspect the issue to be at your end.
I notice both Lieutenant General and Lieutenant-general are used in different points to refer to Student's rank; it might be best to standardize.
Very diplomatic. Fixed.
"German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft" - Is this because of equipment restrictions, plane design, how they were trained to do this, or for other reasons? Leaping headfirst out of a plane seems like a really bad idea, so it might be worth a brief explanation as to why this was done.
Briefly added: "The danger of fouling the static lines also required that German paratroopers lept headfirst from their aircraft, and so were trained to land on all fours ...
I notice the infobox only gives 20 May as the date, but the battle seems to have drawn out for longer; maybe use a date range in the infobox?
Is there nothing more to be said about C. californicus and C. praefiber? Which came first, who evolved into who, etc. Can they be included in the cladogram?
Dipoides, Miocene, larynx, and trachea should all be linked at the first mention. There's probably more that need to be linked, those were just the first four I noticed.
only their webbed hind feet are used for propelling while the front feet are tucked under the chest. The used for propelling part is a little clunky. Maybe change to used to swim?
First sentence of the Family life section is a bit unclear. Maybe change to The basic unit of beaver social organization is the family, which is comprised of an adult male and...
With the exception of Vice, I think the sources are all high-quality RS for what they are citing. After looking through the sources and what they are supporting, I don't see any red flags of things that are likely dated. The section about beavers in culture is also much better written and sourced; the tendency to get trivial or to cherry-pick examples there is gone. The breadth of sourcing used here is also much greater and more representative. Formatting is acceptable - a few minor inconsistencies, but nothing distracting, incomplete, or problematic. I will be doing spot checks for close paraphrasing and source-text integrity soon. Hog FarmTalk16:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
75 percent of the air in its lungs, compared to 15 percent for a human.—is that per breath, or a particular time span? Given enough time all the air will be replaced.
I'm pleased to see predators and parasites considered. In bird articles we often have an EL to vocalisations, is there anything similar for our furry friends here?
"Beaver activity can affect the temperature of the water. In northern latitudes, ice thaws earlier in beaver-inhabited waters than in those without beavers. Beavers may contribute to climate change. In Arctic areas, the floods they create can cause permafrost to thaw, releasing methane into the atmosphere." I feel like this could be 1 sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LittleJerry and thanks for the email. Three supports is the minimum required for a nomination for, possibly, it to be considered that a consensus for promotion has formed. And this has been open for less than four weeks. I would like to leave it for a little longer to see if it can attract further suggestions for improvements. I know all too well how difficult it can be to be patient while hoping and waiting for a FAC to be promoted, but all I can suggest is sticking with it and seeing what the next few days brings. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about William Hardham, a New Zealand soldier who was awarded the Victoria Cross for saving a wounded comrade during an engagement of the Boer War. Only the second New Zealander to be a recipient of the VC, he went on to serve in the First World War. Seriously wounded at Gallipoli, after recovering he was commander of a Military hospital in New Zealand and later participated in the Sinai and Palestine campaign. After the war he was involved in rugby union administration. The article underwent a GA review in July 2018 and then a Milhist A-class review in May 2019. I freshened the article up a little last year in anticipation of taking this to FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"He would eventually play 53 games for the province". What province?
Have clarified - I think I had phrased it that way originally to try and avoid using Wellington too much but it is inevitable I guess. Zawed (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the first and only such award". Do we need "first and"?
"This event took place even before the gazetting of the award." A non-specialist will have little idea what this means, so perhaps an in line explanation, especially of "gazetting".
"It was also involved in". Quite possibly just me, but referring to the Rough Riders as "it" really jars.
Changed. Earlier in the section I use they/their anyway so the changes actually make for consistency. And looking at it again, it is a little jarring. Zawed (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"On the outbreak of the First World War" State when.
The Boer War link and the South Africa section indicate it's the Second Boer War. The Boer War, as you are aware, is known by several names - suggest you choose one and AKA one of the others.
Discharged from the New Zealand Military Forces in 1901, he rejoined for another period of service in the Boer War but did not return to South Africa and instead was sent to England for the coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra.
He was [born and] educated in Wellington, the city of his birth and when his schooling was completed, he obtained work as a blacksmith.
Consider the above changes
I had constructed this section originally to avoid getting too close to the source material. I haven't gone with your suggestion (since it would involve using "born in" two sentences in a row) but have rephrased. What do you think now? Zawed (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One could become a blacksmith without a formal education, but honing the skills of the trade could take several years. Could you add a litle background?
Presumably he actually started as an apprentice but there is nothing in the sources to support this assumption. Zawed (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa:
During the Second Boer War, the New Zealand Government offered the British [Government] a mounted rifles contingent from the New Zealand Military Forces for service in the [South Africa] conflict in South Africa.
Not in this context - Commando can be used in a singular form as it can refer to a troop of men as per its usage here. Earlier in this section I refer to commandos, but in the sense of multiple troops. Zawed (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from a brief action at Ottoshoop in August, the Rough Riders spent the majority of their service in the war in the Transvaal, carrying out reconnaissance patrols and pursuing Boer commandos.
The sentence does well in telling readers about the several events that took place, but how about showing them a bit of it?
The actions were generally small scale so what I've done here is combine two paragraphs, to give Hardham's VC action as an example of skirmishing with Boer commandos. Zawed (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hardham [and] , along with over 50 other New Zealand mounted riflemen[,] serving in South Africa, [were] was sent to England to join up with the New Zealand contingent attending the coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra and participated in a parade of colonial troops in London on 1 July 1902.
As well as [In addition to] his work as a blacksmith, he also increasingly became involved in rugby administration; in 1908 he commenced a six-year term on the of the Wellington Rugby Football Union.
He still sought a role with the NZEF and eventually, in late 1917, the military authorities relented[,] and he was able to rejoin the WMR, which at the time was serving in Palestine.
Again the sources don't explicitly state this, but some of his employers were in Wellington I have expanded on the detail of the newspaper he worked for which gives some context. Zawed (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suffering from stomach cancer, Hardham died at his home in the suburb of Ngaio on 13 April 1928.
Consider adding -> "on 13 April 1928" [at the age of ?].
Dumelow, thank you for stopping by and reviewing this one, it is greatly appreciated. I have responded to your comments above and with edits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the OCLC link, the year range in the title of Hall 1949 is actually 1889–1902, not 1899–1902.
Weird, the title is definitely 1899–1902. Bizarrely, doing a search on Worldcat I found another version where the year part of the title was 1899–1908, so that two versions of the same book with incorrect titles! I have found an oclc number that links to the correct title. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in the formatting for the location: McCarthy & Howitt 1983 and Wilkie 1924 are missing "New Zealand" after Auckland.
Some would quibble about ISBN-10 vs ISBN-13 formatting, but I really don't care: they are equally verifiable.
The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography reference could do with a first published year of 1996 adding.
The cite template here is a specific one for DNZB entries so isn't the standard web cite template. I have tried adding orig-year to the DNZB template, but it doesn't show up when previewed. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference from The London Gazette is formatted inconsistently compared to the other newspaper sources.
Like the DNZB template, this reference uses one specific to the LG whereas the others use the standard newspaper cite template. This is why they are inconsistent. I have used this mixture of LG and newspaper cites in other FA articles. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
Searches don't reveal any glaring omissions, this article appears to accurately cover the source material.
The nominator is an experienced and trusted editor, so spotchecks are not necessarily needed. That said, I did check the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography references, and all checked out okay.
Further checks for copyvio or close para-phrasing revealed nothing of concern; the only significant duplication appeared in attributed quotes.
Hi Zawed, like to see a review from someone outside of MilHist -- if you think you can scare one up, great, otherwise I'll try and do so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Rose, I have reached out to a non-Milhist editor of New Zealand topics to see if they will take a look and if that doesn't work out, I will post a request on the NZ project page. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naauwpoort should be wikilinked (redirects to Noupoort)
Done although by amending the previous paragraph - I prefer to not have a link within the quote if I can avoid it. Zawed (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hardham was presented with the VC, the only such award made to a New Zealander in the Boer War, on 1 July by George, Prince of Wales, who was in South Africa on a visit." This could do with the year added for clarity. We are talking about 1901 but what is confusing is that in the previous line, The London Gazette notice is reproduced with an October 1901 date. It's confusing that this was gazetted after the medal had already been awarded and by adding the year, that confusion is avoided. Admittedly, the very next sentence clears this up but by then, some readers may already be confused.
"This event took place even before the award was officially announced in the London Gazette." My preference would be to include "The" within the wikilink and in italic font as that’s the common name for the gazette.
Fixed. That's a subtlety I don't think I've noticed before. I may need to amend a few other articles where I've probably omitted "The" from The London Gazette. Zawed (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in accordance with normal practice" – I suggest this should instead say “in departure from normal practice”
"and Hardham was discharged two months later" – would it be a good idea to wikilink to Military discharge for those of us who aren’t super-familiar with military matters?
"Soon after the Ninth Contingent's arrival in South Africa in late April" – I see that there is no article for the 9th New Zealand Contingent but is that contingent notable? If so, I’d like to see a red link.
It is subjective, but in my view the 9th Contingent isn't notable. It did little active campaigning and the war ended the month after its arrival in South Africa. Zawed (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"were sent to England to join up with the New Zealand contingent attending the coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra" – hang on, another contingent? Or does this instance of "contingent" have a different meaning to the previous one? If so, could a different term be used?
Yes, I see the potential for confusion here - the benefit of feedback from a non-Milhist person. I have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coronation Parade of Imperial troops in 1902
Is this a suitable photo to illustrate this part of the bio?
Unfortunately, the copyright tag on that photo doesn't look correct and the caption suggests it is a parade in South Africa not London. But your suggestion to illustrate the parade led me to the photo I have chosen to illustrate this section. Zawed (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"While the WMR were not involved" – one regiment and therefore, it should be “was not involved” for proper grammar (or else, you ought to talk about the “soldiers of the WMR”).
"He was involved in veterans' affairs, being a club manager at the Wellington Returned Serviceman's Association and organising Anzac Day parades." Should that be "Servicemen's", i.e. plural? Wikilink the RSA part to Royal New Zealand Returned and Services' Association?
In terms of structure, what didn’t sit quite right with me is that his marriage gets a mention only after he’s dead. Obviously, he married his wife after his repatriation back to New Zealand. Maybe the section "First World War" should have three sub-headings: his two placements and the short time in NZ in between. As a VC holder, there was of course contemporary interest in the wedding, and here's one source of such reporting. At the very least, St. Peter's Church, Wellington (Category I registered and thus notable), the wedding date, and a bit more on her background should be stated. That would give it better balance / make it less of a "mostly military" bio. Schwede6604:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the content regarding the wedding to the appropriate place chronologically, and also added some headings RE your comments on structure. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble; good work. Just one further question – is it common to show authors with their given names abbreviated to initials? For convenience, the full names are David Hall (Q62666642) and Alexander Herbert Wilkie (Q106244682). Personally, I show full names when these are known (preferably common names) but have never looked up whether there is guidance on the matter. Schwede6619:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! When citing authors, I use the names as they appear in the source itself. If they had an article on Wikipedia, I would link through to that. Not sure if the author-link field in the cite template works for Wikidata or not. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For centuries the British army was officered by gentlemen, drawn from the upper classes. The requirements of the First World War led to a more than ten-fold expansion in the officer corps and, with insufficient men of the traditional officer class available, the positions were filled with those drawn from the middle and working classes. Such men were given temporary rank only and it came to be considered that they held the status of a gentleman only while they held the King's commission; they were expected to return to their former stations after the war which led to a number of social issues. The article also covers temporary gentlemen commissioned into the British Army during the Second World War and National Service, and those who held similar positions in the Portuguese conscript army of the 1960s and 1970s.
Not alone, because what users are able to see is variable - for example that link doesn't lead to any page for me. You could use a section name if there is one; if there is absolutely no indicator of a page number or other way of identifying location within the source, you could include a quote as a last resort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added the chapter title (all citations are to the first page of that chapter). I've heard that books.google.co.uk links don't work for everyone. Should I convert them to books.google.com? - Dumelow (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
FN68: given work title is the article title, given publisher is the work title. Why cite this to a book review? Ditto FN109
I've got rid of FN68. I don't have a copy of Allport to hand but will have by the end of this week and will convert FN109 into book footnotes - Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for clarifying. I've converted it to a tempalte:citation format and included author, date etc. Hopefully I've not forgotten anything? - Dumelow (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partly, but now you've got inconsistencies between those and the source-specific templates like ODNB. The other piece is what information is included: for example in FN108 you've got an author affiliation, which doesn't appear in Bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I think I've fixed the ODNB by switching it to template:citation. Are the Gazette references OK as they are or should I convert them also? FN108 should be fixed once I have the book and convert it into a standard biblio ref - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
When I was studying I was told not to use locations for obvious publishers (Cambridge University Press etc.) but I have no real objection either way. I've added them to all for consistency - Dumelow (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cite several theses - how do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
PhD theses are usually reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised..." (t · c) buidhe14:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Gould is identified in the text as a historian - what is his background in history?
The prices in the background section are interesting but something to compare it to would be nice. I'm wary of the inflation template but it gives some idea, or perhaps a soldier's pay? Just something that gives a little context.
Agreed. I've converted all values into modern equivalents in footnotes and added some background on pay levels in the different classes and the pay of private soldiers (the basic rate of which remained the same between the 18th century and 1915, though efficiency and re-enlistment supplements were introduced in the later period) - Dumelow (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't/aren't OTCs a university thing rather than a school one?
However Macmillan came from a family of good social standing I'm sure you'll have seen "however" seized upon at FAC in the past. It is over-used on Wikipedia and I'm not sure this adds anything. Check for others.
I'm a bit out of touch with recent FACs but I agree, particularly where I'd used however at the start of sentences. I've been through and addressed this - Dumelow (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary gentlemen were demobilised relatively quickly at the war's end Relative to what?
this was rare happening only on 1,109 occasions Missing some punctuation there I think. Also, out of how many? A percentage might be helpful here.
Reworded. Percentages would be problematic as there is uncertainty on the number of temporary commissions granted (I've added a footnote on this), but I've added a comparison to the number commissioned by the traditional military college route during the war - Dumelow (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh Pollard wrote in February 1919 Tell the reader who Pollard is and what his expertise is in the matter
Many temporary officers found their financial situation worsened by demobilisation Is it worth mentioning the wider context of tense industrial relations and economic recession that followed the war?
Yes, good call. The sources are clear that the civilian wages were lower than the army's even in 1919, but I've added a bit later on about the effects of the 1920-21 recession - Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
were often barred from making use of the labour exchanges Why?
former public school boys and the sons of serving officers; with only 5% of the intake from the other ranks that seems an odd place for a semicolon, also MOS:% would have that written as "per cent" or "percent", not "%".
Thanks for your review Harry, some really good points and the article is much improved for them. I think I've addressed everything above now, but would welcome a review of my changes - Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has been open for four weeks and has attracted only the one support. Unless there is a little more interest over the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Eddie891. Good point on the %, per wp:percent it seems these should all be written out (though personally I prefer the symbol), I've changed all instances to "per cent" - Dumelow (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've been impersonating an officer for most of my military career (having been commissioned from the ranks), so I guess I felt the need to take a look at this one. Overall this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the article is well referenced and well written in my opinion (no action required)
the following terms are overlinked according to the dup link checker: Territorial Force, Household Brigade, Royal Irish Constabulary, Edwardian era, Richard Adlington,
"Many temporary officers, even those with no secondary education, expected to retain their position as gentlemen after the war": purely non actionable in this review, however, interestingly enough - or not depending upon one's perspective -- this situation is enduring, even in modern Australia. After commissioning, I found that my daughter's school fees were raised simply because I was now a "commissioned officer" rather than an NCO
"File:David Nelson VC.jpg": not sure about the date on the image description page -- seems unlikely that the image was created in 2012; suggest c. 1914-1918 or something similar
He's wearing captains insignia. He was still a lieutenant in 1916 and promoted major in March 1918 so I've put 1916-18 - Dumelow (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Men of the 20th Officer Cadet Battalion, 1917.jpg": same as above, the date on the image description page doesn't seem correct. Suggest "December 1917"
(non actionable and more of an aside) -- suspect that there is an aspect of this that remains; even within the Australian Army there remains a gap between those commissioned from the ranks and those directly recruited as officers, even though all go through exactly the same training. It isn't a particularly large gap to bridge, but the term "ORTs" (other rank tendencies), to be added pejoratively to a performance appraisal on a whim, remains the weapon of the CO who doesn't like how close the new subbie is to his subordinates.
the article seems quite heavily focused on the army; but were there not temporary gentlemen in the Navy and RAF?
Good point, there were temporary officers in the RN and RAF also. There seems to be less written about them, probably because numbers were much fewer, but I've added a couple of paragraphs (which I've split out, with the existing British Indian Army paragraph, into an "Other branches" section - Dumelow (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"psychic reassurance of a khaki tunic on their back and a Webley .455 at their hip" -- again not actionable, but there was a time when a light hip caused me distress, too. Most returning soldiers will experience this at some time, usually for a short period after returning home...
"and in 2019 49 per cent": is there a way to avoid two sets of numbers appearing after each other?
the bit about batmen is interesting, I once got marked down on a PAR for insisting on cleaning my own weapon rather than having a soldier do it for me after an activity...apparently I lacked "teamwork". Anyway, I seem to recall an anecdote about one of the first Allied officers killed during D-day (Brotheridge, I think) cleaning his own boots while his batman lay on his bed. I don't have my copy of Pegasus Bridge at the moment as I am away from home, but will see if my wife can dig it out and send it to me to pass on. Might be useful, or it might not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I remember reading that (my copy of Pegasus Bridge is at my parents house, I think). Our article says he was a temporary gentleman commissioned from the ranks. The Ox and Bucks were quite a 'smart' regiment so I'm not surprised to read that he "did not initially enjoy an easy relationship with his fellow platoon leaders who all came from a different social background to himself", though its uncited - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, J sent me the following excerpts from my 2003 Pocket Books edition (ISBN 0-7434-5068-X); my email got through to her just after she got the kids down, so she had some free time. Up to you if you wish to use this or not : AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p. 27: mentions Brotheridge was the oldest platoon commander in D Coy at 26; he had been a corporal before and attended OCTU on Howard's recommendations; his fellow platoon commanders were initially unsure of him as he "wasn't one of them"; he didn't play their games (rugby or cricket) but they warmed to him because of his athleticism
p. 35: mentions that Brotheridge had no sense of being ill at ease amongst the soldiers because of his background; he played the same sport as them (soccer/football); would chat to his batman Billy Gray in his barracks. Brotheridge would polish his own boots while his batman would chat about sport. Wally Parr recounts the strange sight of a British LT polishing his own boots while his batman is "gassing on about Manchester United and West Ham"
pp. 101 & 109: Brotheridge is mortally wounded during the assault, after throwing a grenade at a German machine gun post; dies of his wounds
Your recent changes look good to me, so I have added my support. Purely optional if you choose to use the info above about Brotheridge. Thanks for your work on this article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate, ruling from April 680 to November 683. The first person in Islamic history to benefit from hereditary succession, his reign was marred by opposition from the representatives of the old Islamic elite. His efforts to impose his authority resulted in the death of Muhammad's grandson Husayn, as well as attacks on the cities of Medina and Mecca. These disasters have earned him the reputation of evil among many Muslims. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has the scholarship on Yazid I changed after colonialism? You use lots of sources from before 1940
No, there isn't much current research on this subject going on and Lammens' Le Califat is the standard, although a little pro-Umayyad, treatment of the subject. Hawting's article in Encyclopedia of Islam (published 2002) can be compared with ours. This article is modeled upon Hawting's treatment. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am skeptical of Lammens 1921 and Lammens 1934 due to their age and the fact that Lammens was a monk. Has his work been cited recently?
His Le Calfat (i.e. 1921) is the most comprehensive account of Yazid's caliphate. Hawting in Encyclopedia of Islam refers the readers to Le Califat for further information. The 1934 one is from the first edition of Encyclopedia of Islam and is very much reliable. It could be replaced with 1921, but is more recent and reduces reliance on the 1921 one. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar feelings from Wellhausen 1901 and Wellhausen 1927
Wellhausen is arguably the Einstein of Umayyad studies. His Arab Kingdom is still used as textbook in the universities. Modern historians cite his views as an authority, although, of course, not always agree with him. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Encyclopaedia Iranica a high quality source?
Madelung is one of the foremost Islamicists of the current era, albeit a little anti-Umayyad. Although it is possible to replace that source with books, even those already present in the biblio, I decided to keep it for its easy accessibility. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Yazid was born in Syria circa 646." The note says this, though, so isn't it better to just give the range than a made up midway number?: "His year of birth is uncertain. Reports vary from 22 AH to 30 AH".
You give a lot of information in the caption of the coin images in the rest of the article, but not for the one in the infobox. Could it get dates, links, and other such info?
Seems a bit arbitrary to show a 1950s photo of Damascus? Wouldn't some old artwork be more appropriate? The 1950s are only marginally closer to the time than we are now in any case...
"On his way back to Damascus, he secured allegiance from the people of Medina. General recognition of the nomination thus forced Yazid's opponents into silence. The orientalist Julius Wellhausen doubted the story, holding that the reports of the nomination's rejection by prominent Medinese were a back-projection of the events that followed Mu'awiya's death.[29] A similar opinion is held by the historian Andrew Marsham." Where does the former belief come form then?
"instructing him to secure allegiance from Husayn ibn Ali" Any reason to spell his name out again, when you already did so earlier (and only refer to him as Husayn in the meantime)?
"His appointment was the first hereditary succession in Islamic history." Do you mean 'His appointment was the first hereditary succession of the Caliphate in Islamic history.'?
@AhmadLX: I would reserve capitalization when referring to the empire, as in "civil war in the Caliphate" as this would be a proper noun, while lowercasing in the case of the office, as in "he acceded to the caliphate". I could make these adjustments, if you agree. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The killing of Husayn caused resentment in the Hejaz, where Ibn al-Zubayr called for a shura to elect a new caliph and the people of Medina, who supported Ibn al-Zubayr, held additional grievances toward the Umayyads." I think there is too much in this sentence.
"After failing to gain the allegiance of." 'regain'?
Ibn al-Zubayr had not payed him any allegiance, so for him it should be "gain". On the other hand, you are right it should be "regain" for the Medinese people. But making it such in the lead would require splitting the sentence I think. What do you say?AhmadLX-(Wikiposta)18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see your point. I am easy. Leave it as "gain" if you wish.
"the city was plundered for three days" Was it plundered, or was it sacked?
"Plunder" can be a relatively civilised business, with valuables looted and money extorted. A sack suggests a less controlled affair, with rapine, drunken destruction, torturing of inhabitants to reveal the location of (possibly non-existant) buried valuables etc. It is something of a spectrum, but a sack is the nastier end. Eg see the Sack of Baghdad.
Yes, I know what tribal nobility is. "the tribal nobility" means the nobility of one tribe. Is that what you mean. Or are you, and the sources, referring to the nobilities of two or more tribes?
I mean by "tribal nobility" the chiefs and elders of the tribes, and sources too usually refer to it as the tribal nobility/chiefs in addition to just ashraf.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta)20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personnally I tend to use the formula "His year of birth is variously placed between 642 and 649".
"During his father's caliphate, Yazid led several campaigns against the Byzantine Empire". Perhaps a sentence or so on the reasons for the enmity between the Byzantines and the caliphate?
"annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca". Perhaps preface with a definite article?
"was recognized caliph by the Medinese people". 'as caliph'.
"In 656 Uthman had been killed by rebels in Medina." Perhaps a little background on the rebels and their motivations?
"and instructed him to defeat them if they did." Delete "him" - for grammatical consistency with the first part of the sentence.
"town of Basra, which paid homage to Yazid"; "paid allegiance to him." Suggest replacing "paid" with 'pledged'.
"signalling that the latter should enter the city. The news of this prompted Yazid to". It is unclear to me how Yazid obtained this "news".
"which Husayn refused" → ' which Husayn refused to do'?
"while his family were taken prisoner". "were" → 'was'.
"played with Husayn's head with his staff". Link "staff" to the relevant meaning.
"He showed compassion towards the captives". Seems PoV; is this the consensus of scholarly sources?
Wellhausen: treated them compassionately; Vagliere: treated them kindly; Madelung: treated them well. I went with Wellhausen. Since Al Ameer also raised this issue previously, I take it does seem to come across as POV. I've modified it to match Madelung.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta)20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"who secretly began taking allegiance in Mecca". I don't think one can "take" allegiance. I am unclear as to what al-Zubayr was doing.
"They were unpersuaded and on their return to Medina narrated tales of Yazid's lavish lifestyle and practices considered by many to be impious, including drinking wine, hunting with hounds, and his love for music." There is a lot happening here for a single sentence.
"the city was plundered for three days, whereas per the account of Awana (d. 764) only the ringleaders of the rebellion were executed." From this, should a reader assume that by the first account the city was plundered but the ringleaders were not executed?
You and I know what the Ka'ba is, but many readers won't. If this were a trivial or unimportant issue I may be content to leave it with just the Wikilink, even though I know that few readers click through Wikilinks, and feel that an FA should not rely on a non-FA explanation to be comprehensible, and it is against the MoS. But I feel it is an important point, and so would like to see a brief in line explanation of what the Ka'ba is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"He continued to rely on the governors of the provinces and local tribal chiefs (ashraf), like Mu'awiya had, instead of relatives, and retained several of Mu'awiya's officials, including Ibn Ziyad, who was Mu'awiya's governor of Basra, and Sarjun ibn Mansur, a native Syrian Christian, who had served as the head of the fiscal administration under Mu'awiya." Too long. Perhaps split after "relatives"?
"from the provinces in order to persuade and win their support". The use of "persuade" is ungrammatical. (And is it necessary? 'from the provinces in order to win their support' would work.)
Sources: Madelung (2004). Could you add the publisher location (New York) to be consistent.
Why would you think that I supposed they were? (Although there are those who would give you an argument.) I meant, could you indicate that the Samaritans were a religious group, rather than, or as well as, an ethnic or geographical one.
"forward bases they had occupied on the Byzantine coast." Is known where this coast was geographically?
"Yazid established and garrisoned the northern Syrian frontier district of Qinnasrin out of the district of Hims." This does not flow well. Maybe something like 'Yazid established a northern Syrian frontier district of Qinnasrin from what had been a part of Hims, and fortified and garrisoned it.'?
Could we be told in line at least roughly where Khurasan was?
"without gaining a permanent foothold in either place". You mention three places in the first part of the sentence.
"the authors of anti-Umayyad leanings". You need a different word to "leanings". ('chronicles'?) (Or do you mean 'authors with anti-Umayyad leanings'?)
All foreign language non-proper noun words should be in lang templates, not just italics.
"By 692 Abd al-Malik defeated Ibn al-Zubayr" → 'By 692 Abd al-Malik had defeated Ibn al-Zubayr'.
"caused widespread outcry among the Muslims". Delete "the".
"After the Battle of Karbala, Shi'a Imams from Husayn's line". Why the upper case I?
"his ban on pilgrimage to the holy sites". "pilgrimages'.
"Among the Sunnis, Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Jawzi considered cursing Yazid permitted". 1. Could we have some idea of when al-Jawsi gave this opinion? Likewise al-Ghazali, 2. 'Ibn al-Jawzi considered that cursing Yazid was permitted'.
"As such, his accession is considered by Muslims ..." The following three sentences are cited to Hawting. Is this the consensus of modern scholarship? Are there any dissenters? (You say "is", not 'was', so you are talking about the current view held "by Muslims".
"Extant Muslim histories"> I assume you mean 'Extant contemporary Muslim histories'
"as opposed to the title Commander of the Faithful". Lower case f and c.
Sources are split on this. Some use lowercase (e.g. Hawting), some uppercase (e.g. Kennedy) and some mixed (c and F/B; e.g. Donner). EI2 uses uppercase. I prefer EI2 on this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta)04:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it doesn't matter what the sources do; the MoS mandates lower case.
"to exonerate Yazid of Husayn's death" This is missing something. Eg 'to exonerate Yazid of blame for Husayn's death' or similar.
"attempted to stress the positive qualities of Yazid" → 'attempted to stress Yazid's positive qualities'.
"stress .. stressed". Perhaps "stressed" → 'emphasised', to vary the language?
"Yazid was a transmitter of hadith". Should that be 'Yazid was a transmitter of the hadith'?
"Thus the Sufyanid dynasty, named after Mu'awiya I's father Abu Sufyan, was replaced by the Marwanid dynasty." It seems worth clarifying that both these dynasties were part of the Ummayad dynasty. The accompanying image does so, but the article text does not.
"Another coin bearing the mint date 60, which is assumed to be the Hijri year, and mint location Nishapur, but without the name of Yazid, is also thought to be from Yazid's first regnal year." This sentence is a bit awkward; maybe it should be split. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a professional ten-ball pool tournament held two years ago. The championship hadn't been held since 2015, when it was won by Ko Pin-yi. Ko lost in the semi-finals of the event to Joshua Filler, who played Ko's brother Ko Ping-chung in the final. Filler, the reigning nine-ball world champion went into an early lead, but was ultimately defeated 10-7 by Ko. The event featured a $132,000 prize fund, very large for a pool event, and played as both a double-elimination and single-elimination tournament.
"with the previous championship held in 2015." It either needs a comma before "with" or (better IMO) a semi colon and changing to 'the previous championship was held in 2015.'
"The event featured 64 participants based on world pool rankings, as well as qualifiers and played as a double-elimination tournament until the 16 players remained, becoming a single-elimination tournament." 1. 'was played'. 2. Suggest splitting.
"will be played in Las Vegas until 2022 as part of a three-year deal for the event to be played in the United States". Given 'will be played in Las Vegas until 2022', 'to be played in the United States' is unnecessary.
"The event featured 64 players, with entries being selected from ranking lists for players tours, such as the Euro Tour and the WPA, with 16 qualifiers, held in events from June and July 2019." This doesn't seem to explain how the 64 participants were selected.
"as a double-elimination bracket". You what? Like this?
A bracket is an American word for the knockout structure - you might call it a tree, or similar. I'm not sure how you'd change this. Any ideas of a better wordage? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"double-elimination" or "double elimination"?
To answer your question, maybe 'The tournament was played as a double-elimination knockout structure or bracket ...'?
"After a combined eight break-and-runs" I know that there is a link, but the idea of an encyclopedia is that an article explains its subject without the need for constant referring to other articles, an understanding of which may require a referral to yet more articles ...
So, a break-and-run means the player who breaks wins the rack without letting the other player take a shot. I can reword to say that the eight racks were won by the breaking player, but a break-and-run is a specific thing, I'm not sure how you explain what it is succinctly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"after snookering himself behind the 10-ball." And for the non-initiated this would be?
So, a snooker (named as something that is used in the game of the same name) is when you can't directly hit the ball you are supposed to. Think of it like a solar eclipse. In this case, the cue ball, (the one you hit) is beyond the 10-ball, but you are trying to hit another ball. Basically it's not what you want to do. I'm not sure what other wording can be used to explain this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have a bad habit of asking rhetorical questions and/or acting the simpleton when reviewing. I knew what you meant. I was concerned that many readers wouldn't. Hmm. 'after inadvertantly leaving the ball he needed to play obscured behind the 10-ball' or similar?
"The semi-finals and final were held on June 26, the last day of the competition.! Optional: do we need to be told that the final was held on the last day of the competition?
I was getting at this was the last day of the whole event. If you remember in the format section, there was other events (such as the national BCA championship that was also going on). I've removed this though as it isn't relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"capitalizing on a scratch from Ko". Referring to Wiktionary, and looking only at definitions specifying that they apply to sport "scratch" can mean seven different things. Even restricting that to cue sports it can mean two different - and opposing - things.
"Ko played a kick shot" Could "kick shot" be explained in line?
Unaddressed.
"Ko banked the 1-ball". "banked"?
Both of these are two sides to the same coin. They both involve hitting a cushion to make the shot. The original is where you hit the cue ball into the cushion to hit the object ball, the other is where you hit the object ball into the cushion which then goes into the pocket. I'm not sure how you can. Explain these succinctly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The win was the first major championship of Ko Ping-chung's career". Do you mean that it was his first such victory? Or the first such championship that he had taken part in?
Gog the Mild Looks like it is just the two terms regarding "banking" and "kick shot" which I'm struggling to rewrite. The only way to really explain in prose what a bank (or double) is would really need the citation to state which rail was being used. I could write "Ko played the 1-ball against the cushion, and into the side pocket", but something like a double is very common language for pool. I feel we would be dumbing down the article and not improving it to add this additional words, unless you have a better wording. I have reworded the kick shot variant, let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"players competing were based on both the world pool rankings". "based" → 'selected' or similar.
Only issue is that wildcards are based on rankings, but not selected on them. That is kind of the actual difference between something being ranking-only, and ranking and wildcard. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"becoming changing to a single-elimination format" → 'then changing to a single-elimination format'.
"Double-elimination matches were played as the first to eight racks, whilst the single-elimination matches were played as the first to ten racks." Optionally add something like '(A rack being a single game, named after the balls being "racked" at the start of each game.)
This isn't an article on how things are named, so I don't see how linking to rack is helpful. We have to be very careful how we word terms like "game", "match" etc, as they have different meanings, which is why the article specifically uses the technical term. The term "game" could be used for either the whole match, or just one frame. I don't think a reader is going to look at this term and be confused over what it means with the context given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"(or "break and run")". Suggest → '(known as a "break and run")'.
A nice job there. Flow versus fullness of explanation is frequently a tricky balance. Where I am not completely happy I think that the context gives a reader enough to go on. Supporting.
Thanks Gog the Mild. It certainly is a balancing act finding terms that are suitable to be reworded, and ones that would actually make the article worse by replacing. Thanks for the in-depth review; I hope we get a little more eyes on this one. (I'll get some FAC reviews done as soon as I can). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. I am currently working on an article I hope to bring to FAC where I need to explain late-Medieval siege equipment and techniques *eyeroll* .
I'm very confused about when this was actually taking place. The lead says June 22 to 26, 2019. The infobox says July 22 to 26. Double elimination bracket says the event began July 22, Knockout rounds says the quarter-finals were on June 25. Am I missing something?
Lead says the event was originally to be held in General Santos, text says Manila - which is correct?
I've made some changes. Whilst an event was suggested for Manila, it never came through. More important was that two prior events that had dates and stuff for 2016 and 2018 were cancelled in Manila. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing inconsistencies around publishers/works - for example FN5 has a work title of "CueSports International (CSI)", but then FN10 has a publisher of "Cue Sports International". Please check throughout.
What makes sixpockets.de a high-quality reliable source? Alison Chang? Pro9?
I have culled these. Alisong Chang I was always a bit weary of, but it is generally deemed quite the expert, but it is essentially a personal blog. I have also removed sixpockets, which whilst it has it's own team, aparently it also posts guest columns without ever (to my knowledge) stating if it is editorialised at all! Pro9 I'm sure is reliable, but I can't find much on it, so I've replaced anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, one major comment I have is... In the participant summary section, can you write out who were the key participants like you usually do in your other FAs? (e.g. Who were the former champions/finalists, contenders, and top-ranked players from each tour? Any unique lower-ranked players worth noting? Also, can you summarize what the seven tours are? I assume the WPA is the main one. Are the other six also professional? Related to how the tours work, if you are for instance a top Asian player, does that mean you only play on the WPA or are you a member of both the WPA and the APBU?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would do more, if I knew more. I don't usually do this - I think I did this on maybe two other events? It's a bit WP:OR/WP:SYNTHy to an extent, because the sources don't say it, they just say that they were participating, and the other ref shows they won/final in the event before. There had only been four prior events, and the only former finalist was the defending champion who I went into depth talking about. I see the need for something to describe the tours, but most of them are the local tours (European, Asian, American etc.) with the WPA being a ranking for other world stage tournaments (like the World nine-ball championship). There seems to be little information as to which players actually qualified from which tour, or how they came up with that number. The official event info list doesn't have anything [11]. I do have a list of the players who qualified from the local competitions, but that's about it. I have signed up for Inside Mag Pool & Billiard magazine, I'm just awaiting my archives access and see if it is mentioned there, but that would be the last hope really. None of the individual governing bodies mention this at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine about not including the stuff you don't have. In part with regard to qualification, I feel like the ranking system(s) itself could use a little more of an explanation (see my comments below). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a 2019 event organised to be held at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, as part of a three-year deal for the event to be played in the United States was agreed. <<<=== This seems like too much passive voice. (agreed by who?, and "organised to be held" seems like it could be shortened)
stage the event along with the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) <<<=== Aren't the WPA also who Predator Group partnered with (like CueSports International)?
Is there a reason the tournament is not held regularly? (Is ten-ball less played than nine-ball or other variants in general?)
Pool has been in decline for years. Nine-ball is the big event, and even that has come under issues of not being run. If you aren't the Mosconi Cup, or World Cup of Pool, there might be issues with money. This event in particular has issues with money with players not getting paid for the 2015 event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
with plans to host the event for three years <<<=== Which event? This one or the Players Championship?
with 16 qualifiers, held in events from June and July 2019 <<<=== I don't think this wording ("16 qualifiers, held in events") makes sense. (unless the qualifiers are part of broader events and not isolated events on their own?)
The tournament was played as a double-elimination knockout structure until 16 players remained, when it became a single-elimination tournament. <<<=== Looking at the link to the draws, it looks like they refer to these as stages (i.e. a double-elimination stage and a single-elimination stage). The tournament cannot "become a tournament".
Also in that sentence, it would be "double-elimination format" or "double-elimination knockout format", albeit the Wikipedia article on knockout format says that would imply single-elimination (not sure if that's correct).
Clarify that the double-elimination format implies players need to win three matches to advance to the single-elimination stage. (Is that correct?)
Nope, double-elimination brackets are confusing. You have to win three or four matches. It's a weird American thing, and the reason I didn't go into details as to how these work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The event was also played ===>>> Matches were played
with each player taking turns to break in each rack ===>>> in which the players take turns to break each rack ("in each rack" seems to suggest both players break in one rack. Also, I don't know, but is "to break" correct versus "at breaking" or "at the break"?)
"in the following tours" implies a list of tours. I think a format like "World Pool Association (16)" where it's just the tour (and then the number of qualifiers in parentheses) would fit that better.
With regards to my comments last week, no worries about including information you don't have.
The current explanation seems to imply that each tour has its own ranking. Is that correct? Or do the spots go to the top-ranked players from each tour according to the overall WPA rankings?
So as far as I can tell (nothing seems to go into actually in-depth about it), the WPA has a very loose ranking, based on how people do in the world championships and select other events. I think the allocation for the WPA takes priority, but the sources don't say anything about this. I did reach out to both the WPA and CSI on this, but neither got back to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning who are the top-ranked players? Or are these players not necessarily the favourites? (I could imagine that being the case if being good at 9-ball doesn't mean you are good at 10-ball?)
Yeah, the rankings are generally for other games (such as 9-ball and 8-ball), so it's difficult to say who is the theoretical favourite, other than who was the number one ranked player by the WPA, but unless I've mentioned it in the prose, the sources themselves don't credit this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, the tournament wasn't seeded or anything?
his opening round match to Ariel Casto ===>>> his opening round match against Ariel Casto
Done 13:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Defending champion Ko Pin-yi won his opening round match to Ariel Casto [de], but lost to Alex Pagulayan 8–6 in the second round. <<<=== This is incomplete. He still qualified. The "but" seems to suggest he didn't.
American players Shane Van Boening and Billy Thorpe <<<=== specify that these are good players? or at least popular players? At the moment, it doesn't seem clear why they are highlighted instead of others.
The win was the first major championship win of Ko Ping-chung's career, having previously reached semi-finals in various events. ===>>> The win was the first major championship win of Ko Ping-chung's career, with his best previous major results having been semi-finals in various events.
In the caption: Niels Feijen reached the quarter-final of the event, before losing to 2018 WPA World Nine-ball Championship winner Joshua Filler. ===>>> Niels Feijen reached the quarter-final of the event, losing to 2018 WPA World Nine-ball Championship winner Joshua Filler.
The following results only show the final 16 players. ===>>> The following results only show the single-elimination stage comprising the final 16 players.
All matches were ===>>> All matches in this stage were
Players in bold represent winners: ===>>> Players in bold represent winners.
I noticed in general that you don't usually include the ranking points distribution, or any description of the ranking system. Is there a reason why you leave it out? I didn't even realize this was a ranking event until I found it in the WPA rankings here.
It doesn't makes sense to link the balls that aren't the 10-ball. Those links go to the disciplines, not the balls.
That's more of an issue with our glossary than the links. Eight-ball (the game), and 8-ball (the ball), are different. I have been meaning to tighten up the glossary, but I'm not quite there yet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more important comments above have to do with the sections outside of the tournament summary. The comments on the tournament summary are more minor.
Yeah, it's a bit sad that there is no more information. Even looking at [12], there's no info on where the points actually come from, nor what the next event is going to be a ranking event. It's a bit different from snooker, where the rankings are professional or bust, and are clearly defined. I don't mind adding any notes, or something to say it's a WPA ranking event in there somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the first sentence: "a professional pool tournament for the discipline of ten-ball, organised by pool governing bodies, the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) and CueSports International." ===>>> "professional pool tournament for the discipline of ten-ball organised by the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) and CueSports International, both pool governing bodies." (you don't the first comma; the second one doesn't seem right)
With regards to the rankings, you might as well specify it's a WPA ranking event somewhere, even if it's just in the format section. It would make the event seem more important.
"a 2019 event held at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada" -- This part would still make sense if "held" was omitted, just to decrease repetition
"In addition, five players were chosen as wildcard entries by the event organisers. An additional 16 players were entered from local qualifying events held in the weeks leading up to the event" -- Active voice
"Feijen's final break pocketed four balls, leading Strickland to comment on the performance by saying "wow" -- Could be reduced to just "Feijen's final break pocketed four balls, leading Strickland to comment "wow"
I haven't seen this particular citation style with bare urls before but I will assume good faith since neither of the other two reviewers raised concerns about it.
This article is about Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber. He grew up as a gifted child and later, after some possible psychological trauma, became a major serial bomber until his arrest in 1996. He is currently serving eight life sentences at ADX Florence.
File:Unabomber-sketch.png — I suspect this is PD but it needs more documentation: is Boylan a federal government employee? If it was done on a contract basis the copyright might be different.
I'm not sure of the best way to determine this, but after a skim of her auobiography and this source it seems that she works with all levels of law enforcement on a case-by-case contractual basis. The archived version of the now-dead link on the Commons page simply states that the FBI "distributed" the sketch in '87. I imagine the licensing of the image depends on the original agreement between Boylan and the FBI, but honestly image licensing is an area that I am not particularly strong in. AviationFreak💬06:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AF that it would depend on the nature of the relationship between Boylan and the FBI whether this could be counted as a work for hire. This source suggests the image is copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the sketch has been removed from the article by someone here - shouldn't it still be in the article as "fair use"? It seems rather significant. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Manifesto" section looks like it could use more aggressive summary style considering that it has its own article. "Style" subsection is too short and should be cut or merged into a different section. "Reception" and "Influences" should be cut down or simply moved to the sub-article. (t · c) buidhe07:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the "Influences" section to the manifesto's article and removed the Reception section as the manifesto's article covers reception quite well. AviationFreak💬21:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see this at FAC, but I don't think I'll be posting a full review as I find articles on nutters to be a bit heavy going. I'd like to offer a few comments:
The table of bombings is a bit confusing - I don't understand why the rows describing the occupations and injuries of victims of separate attacks have been combined.
Unmerged cells in the "Injuries" column, but I feel like the merging of cells in "State", "Location", and "Occupation" shows how Kaczynski would target specific areas and professions. AviationFreak💬03:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Kaczynski being held in a supermax prison rather than a normal high security prison? Presumably this is due to an assessment that he could make further attacks?
Looking in to this, it seems like ADX Florence is used more as a prison for high-profile inmates (OKC Bombers, Boston Marathon Bombers, Al-Qaeda higher-ups, etc.) than to provide supervision above normal max-level prisons. Because there is also a significant psychological toll placed on inmates there, I think Florence primarily serves as a place to put the "really bad guys." AviationFreak💬03:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete the self-pitying quote in the 'Incarceration' section as it doesn't add anything and risks being read as sympathetic to this murderer. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the details in the infobox, such as his height, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
Quotes should be cited in the lead even when cited later
The lead claims that "was the subject of the longest and most expensive investigation in the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation". The source supporting this detail in the text is from 1996 - does this remain true?
I can't find a more recent source stating explicitly that this holds true today, but this 2018 History.com article at least makes it clear that it was the most expensive at the time, if not since. History.com isn't terribly reliable and I can't find other sources like it, so the article could be reworded to make it clear that Kaczynski's investigation was the most expensive at the time. AviationFreak💬22:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"dedicated himself to reading about sociology and political philosophy, such as the works of Jacques Ellul. " - source?
"The task force grew to more than 150 full-time personnel, but minute analysis of recovered components of the bombs and the investigation into the lives of the victims proved of little use in identifying the suspect, who built the bombs primarily from scrap materials available almost anywhere. The victims, investigators later learned, were chosen indiscriminately from library research. " - source?
Chicago Tribune is a work title, National Public Radio, Inc. is a publisher. Check throughout for problems of this kind
FN31 was recently modified and used a different cite template than the other citations - I've fixed it, but AFAIK there aren't other issues. AviationFreak💬20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in when you include publication location and how these are formatted
Where? As far as I can tell there aren't any publication locations in the refs - Is this a requirement?
It's not a requirement to include them, but if you're going to you need to be consistent about it. Most of the book sources include locations, and most of those use a "City, State" format - but not all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All book sources have now been standardized to fit this format except the one for the manifesto itself, which wasn't ever "published" in the traditional sense as far as I can see. AviationFreak💬20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent on when you include publishers for periodicals
What makes Harvard Crimson a high-quality reliable source? Medium? John Bullough? The Tech? Wildism?
WP:RSP: "Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community." In this case, the Crimson is being used as an overarching biography of Kaczynski that is heavily supported by classmates.
I've replaced the first Crimson citation with one from the Baltimore Sun (supporting fact that Kaczynski left academia in 1969), but I feel the citation that supports his housemates' opinions on him is reliable as the Crimson source is interviewing his former housemates. AviationFreak💬18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Medium is a blog website, as noted by Hog Farm below. In this case it is an interview with Kaczynski's brother, with the supported claim being taken almost directly from David Kaczynski's response to a question.
Michaela Haas is a German reporter who has hosted German talk shows and written for major publications in German and English.
Bullough is a scientist with a PhD in lightning science, which is of course unrelated to this topic. However, the cited source is just a list of Kaczynski's academic works and is used in the article to give dates and names of certain papers. As Bullough is an academic, this is likely reliable.
He is an academic, but not apparently one with expertise in bibliographic studies? Primary sourcing would be sufficient to verify the bibliographic details - why not cite the papers directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kaczynski's dissertation does not itself state that it is his dissertation - The source in question has been replaced by an LA Times article on Kaczynski's dissertation. AviationFreak💬18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tech source has been replaced with one from the Crime Museum in D.C.
Wildism is simply a list of Kaczynski's letters here.
I believe I've done this by only using "Staff writer(s)" (or some variation) if the source explicitly states that - If this is not what you were referring to, let me know. AviationFreak💬18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN28 is missing date. Ditto FN29, check for others
Drive-by source comment from Hog Farm - Medium is a blog hosting site, so the blog author will need to have very good credentials to pass as a high-quality source. Hog FarmTalk18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you use {{sfn}} or handwritten short cites
Missing full source for Chase 2000
I can't find any sources published by Chase in 2000, nor can I find the claim in either of his other sources already cited in the article. I've removed the claim. AviationFreak💬19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in when you include accessdate
Associated Press or The Associated Press? SFGate or SFGATE? Check for consistency
FN71 is missing date
FN72 is missing additional author credits provided at the link
FN106: is there no secondary source that provides this information? ditto FN111
What makes Salon a high-quality reliable source? Vice?
The Salon source has been removed, and the claim it supported is now cited using The Chicago Tribune. I've done the same with Vice, replacing it with a source from The Guardian. AviationFreak💬19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN118 should cite the original source, and credit the university site using |via= if at all. Is this an authorized republication?
I've cited the source through JSTOR, using |via= to name JSTOR. I'm not sure what you mean by this being an authorized republication - Let me know if I've done something incorrectly here. AviationFreak💬19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN126 is missing author
FN135: is there any secondary source that would support the significance of this reference? See this RfC
Not that I can find - I've removed the claim and its source.
I didn't put too much though into this when I thinned the External Links down at Peer Review - As you can see they consist of Kaczynski's writings, but there's no real reason for this as far as I'm concerned. Please let me know what suggestions you have for this section. AviationFreak💬19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the last on the list is accessible through the first link? I would suggest privileging broad compilations over individual letters. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all but the link to the Anarchist Library compilation of his writings. This includes the manifesto, but it might be worth linking that separately. AviationFreak💬20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing to review. I made some comments on this at PR.
"against people involved with modern technology." The vast majority of the World's population is "involved with modern technology". Is there a phrasing which narrows it down? Or was the campaign effectively random? Or 'against people he believed to be involved with modern technology' or similar? Eg, is the president of a timber industry lobbying group really "involved with modern technology"?
"submitted a tip" Maybe be a little clearer about just what this involved?
"life in prison without possibility of parole." This may be a USVar issue, but to my eye that should be 'life in prison without the possibility of parole', as is used in the main article.
"a smart, but lonely individual." Either remove the comma, or add one after "lonely".
"turned over to an anonymous attorney". An actual professional lawyer?
"1 F, 5 Bs and 12 As in his 17 courses". 18 grades for 17 courses - is that correct?
"he began performing acts of sabotage against nearby developments in 1975". Do we know any details as to what form these acts took?
"held a family meeting without Ted later that year to map out the future." The future of what?
"his brother fired him for writing insulting limericks about a female supervisor he had courted briefly." His brother did the courting?
"it released smoke, which forced an emergency landing". I know what you mean, but is "forced" right? 'çaused the pilot to carry out an emergency landing' maybe?
"was brought to the campus police, who used a bomb squad to defuse it". → 'was brought to the campus police, and was defused by a bomb squad'.
"As of 2000, ... the green anarchist and eco-extremist movements came to hold Kaczynski's writing in high regard" I don't think that's what you mean, so suggest a sentence break.
"and U.S. Postal Inspection Service was formed." → 'and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service was formed.'
"using phrasing similar to the manifesto." → 'using phrasing similar to that in the manifesto.'
"Theories emerged naming Kaczynski as the Zodiac Killer." Could we have a brief in line explanation of who the Zodiac Killer was.
Link grand jury.
"The Library rejected the offer because it already had copies of the works." Optional: → 'The Library rejected the offer on the grounds that it already had copies of the works.'
"Kaczynski was parodied several times" Optional: "was" → 'has been'.
That all looks good. I expected to be commenting further on the amount of quoting, but note that this has been reduced since nomination, and so I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my support. I had made what I considered an uncontroversial copy edit to move things along. Apparently I was wrong. "who murdered five people in Northern California from 1968 to 1969". "from" cannot cover two consecutive periods, there has to be at least one other in between, as in 'from 2017 to 2021'. So, IMO, the above should read 'who murdered five people in Northern California in 1968 and 1969' or some other usage not involving "from". Gog the Mild (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have problems with either one when reading over them at a normal pace - Stopping and looking though, "in/and" seems to make more sense than "from/to." I don't see anything in the MOS about this, so what to do here? The first two steps of BRD have taken place, but I don't know if discussion would do much to resolve the issue unless it's covered in a style guide somewhere (which I can't find from a cursory search). AviationFreak💬04:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Polish pronunciation of his name: is there RS evidence that he ever used this pronunciation. If so, could it be added; if not could it be deleted. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to find any sources discussing the pronunciation of his name. Jaroslaw Kaczynski's name pronunciation has been discussed in this 2006 BBC article and is different from the pronunciation currently in the article, but afaik there's no connection to say that Ted's name should be pronounced the same way. Videos from news sources about the Unabomber (like this one) pronounce it /kəˈzɪnski/. AviationFreak💬16:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chase[31][25] and others[32][33] two sets of footnotes so close together is distracting
Ted was visited multiple times in Montana by his father Theodore, who was impressed by Ted's wilderness skills We generally refer to subjects by their surnames, and the similarity of the father's name is potentially confusing. Suggest leaving dad's name out and sticking to "Kaczynski" for junior.
fingerprints found on some of the devices did not match those found on letters attributed to Kaczynski.[a] You probably need a reference there outside, as well as inside, the footnote.
As bombing an airliner is a federal crime, Sending mail bombs *isn't*? Also, do we know how the FBI connected the plane bomb to the university bombs?
I'm not sure how this sentence got into prose - the FBI page on Kaczynski clearly states that they became aware of him after his first bombing. I would assume the plane/university connection would be made through the bombs' constructions (the aircraft bomb was still intact enough to determine the reason it didn't detonate), but this source just says the bomb was "later attributed" to Kaczynski. AviationFreak💬06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the then-president of United Airlines Wikipedia is timeless, so we don't use "then" (I'm sure there's a projectspace shortcut for this but I can't find it; it's the same reason we don't use "the late" for deceased people)
Ted's brother, David Kaczynski → "Kaczynski's brother, David" as above
Kaczynski tried to commit suicide by hanging The method, much less the link, is not a necessary detail and goes against the way various organisations recommend writing about suicide; suggest the much simpler "tried to kill himself".
FN24: History.com and the History Channel are considered "generally unreliable"
Replaced with article from The Atlantic.
FN27: Medium, is considered unreliable
This was discussed above - This particular article seems reliable to me, seeing as it is an interview with Kaczynski's brother and the interviewer is well-accredited.
FN33: "there is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch"
Removed.
FN44: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
Removed/replaced.
FN48: Spell out the publication's name in sentence case; also needs a retrieval date
Name spelled out - Per {{Cite web}} and to keep page uniformity, access-date is not required.
FN61: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com"
Removed.
FN85: I'm not sure what the reliability of Yahoo news is, but I don't think I'd use it in a featured article or a BLP for something I couldn't source to a publication whose links are more stable.
Removed.
FN97: What is The FBI National Academy Associates Inc?
Their website makes it sound like they're a group of high-ranking law enforcement officers.
FN137: VG is apparently a tabloid
Removed.
What makes Court TV a high-quality, reliable source?
Court TV has gone through a couple rebrandings and buyouts over the years - The one that published these sources (pre-2008) was a major U.S. broadcasting network that specialized in covering court cases and legal proceedings.
Are we using full names or common names of publications/publishers? And are we linking them or not? Either is acceptable but it needs to be consistent.
In the bibliography, most locations are given as "City, State" except Chase (just city) and Kaczynski 1995 (which doesn't have one)
Added state for Chase - I don't think the manifesto was ever really published by a publishing house, so I'm not sure what the location would be. AviationFreak💬06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiehl looks like a recent, thorough study of the subject but is only cited once. Is there a reason for that?
I'm slightly concerned that the article appears to have its foundations on news articles and web pieces rather than books and journals; sometimes that's the nature of the subject, but I'd like to hear why you're not making more extensive use of these sources where they're available.
Addressing both of your previous points: Most of the prose and sources in this article were here before I ever had an inkling of trying to get this to FA. I think this basis on the web rather than books and journals is largely due to the way that Wikipedia articles naturally develop when they are written by a huge number of editors making little edits, rather than a few editors making a lot of large edits. If the article were rewritten from scratch by an experienced editor or group of editors with the time and resources to use more books and journals, I'm sure it would be more literature-heavy. However, as it is, most of the sources in the article are reliable and strong enough to support their respective claims in prose. I don't see any inherent issue with using web sources as opposed to books and journals, especially when web sources are usually easier to access for most readers. Wiehl and other book/journal sources certainly go into more detail than most web sources, but this isn't terribly for important for Wikipedia when articles are supposed to summarize their subjects. AviationFreak💬06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Planning to review this by Wednesday night. On a skim through the article, I have two concerns. First of all, I think more information could be included about his later writings. While nowhere near as impactful as the manifesto they're still quite interesting, not only philosophically but also on the basis that he was able to get them published despite being in prison. Also, I think the Legacy section could be expanded. His writings have received quite a bit of attention from mainstream philosophers, which also raises interesting ethical questions. He also has a place in popular culture as a well-known example of a crazy but intelligent fanatic. For what it's worth, Unabomber Manifesto#Aftermath and legacy seems to have a useful starting point. Edit: Just saw on that article's talk page that you were purposely splitting off such content. I'm not sure I agree, but how about a compromise of including his later writings, his meaning in pop culture, and a one to two sentence note in Legacy that his writings have received attention from academics. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be relatively picky with this article because it's so widely viewed; my level of pickiness is correlated with the level of daftness in my comments, so if you're ever puzzled by a request, do question it. :)
I added a {{respell}} to the lead, which I generally feel helps readers
and concluded that living in nature was untenable; he began his bombing campaign in 1978 "untenable" is a bit vague here. Did he think that living in nature is impossible in our time due to its destruction, or did he think that he had a calling to stop just chillin' in nature and rise up against destruction? Or both? Or is he saying that living in nature is an objectionable thing to do? And the following information "he began his bombing campaign" is a... non sequitur. How about He witnessed the destruction of the wilderness surrounding his cabin, concluding that living in nature was becoming impossible and resolving to fight industrialization and its destruction of nature via terrorism; he began his bombing campaign in 1978. Longer, but I think the chain of events/reasoning is clearer.
Can we include some brief information about the location of his bombings? Otherwise the "University and Airline Bomber" doesn't seem to have much background.
I assume you're referring to the lede here, since location is covered in the "Bombings" section - Either way, I think the spelling-out of the acronym in the lede is sufficient to identify the target locations of his bombs. AviationFreak💬05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair!
Kaczynski was the subject of the longest and most expensive investigation in the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when it occurred The "when it occurred" tripped me up here. Also "became" instead of "was" might be more elegant. How about Kaczynski became the subject of what was then the longest and most expensive investigation ever undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ehhh, seems wordy still. I'll think about it.
For what it's worth, the "when it occurred" was recently appended and there probably are better ways to word that sentence than the one currently in the article. AviationFreak💬05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See if what I did is okay, the problem with "when it occurred" is that the "it" could refer to any of "subject", "investigation", "history", and "FBI".
which occurred in the Washington Post It's a bit strange for a publication to occur; doesn't seem like an active phrasing. Also should be "The Washington Post". How about which appeared in The Washington Post in September 1995?
He did not believe that he was insane. In general I think short sentences give a lot of emphasis, which is undue here. Maybe combine with the previous sentence with a semicolon?
I'm not always the best with semicolons and where to put them, but I feel like this might make the sentence unwieldy. I was also looking at using ... avoid the death penalty, even though he did not believe he was insane, but I feel like this runs into the same issue. AviationFreak💬05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of my sillier comments, but take a look at what I did and revert if you feel like it's not an improvement
Otherwise, lead looks good. I'll continue the review soon, and let me know if you're okay for me to be hands-on with the simple prose/stylistic changes—in other words, whether they've been objectionable. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded above to your comments so far and implemented some of your suggested changes - let me know if you'd make any changes or what further suggestions you have. AviationFreak💬05:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made some small changes, so please check
Comment: Exciting that we have a freely licensed picture of Kaczynski from 1968; would not expect that
I'm a bit confused about the purpose of the Kaczynski family meeting and his father's suicide in "Life in Montana". What relevance does this have?
I think noting the suicide of a subject's parent is important in a biography, and this seems like the best section to put it in. The second sentence in that paragraph provides context for the suicide. AviationFreak💬16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Table looks great.
FBI Inspector Terry D. Turchie was appointed to run the UNABOM investigation. We need to include the UNABOM etymology here, not just in the lead
which they put on display They literally moved the cabin to a museum?
Indeed - It appears it was trucked to Malmstrom Air Force Base to prevent vandalism and presumably flown to DC for inclusion in the Newseum after it had been used for evidence in the trial. The Newseum closed recently, and it appears that it now resides in an exhibit called "the FBI Experience".
Please see my comments above about the Legacy section. I think it's suitable for mild expansion.
46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, etc. are missing a retrieval date. Perhaps someone can tell me whether these are necessary for FAC.
I removed most of the retrieval dates to ensure uniformity between citations - Per the documentation on {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, |access-date= is not a required parameter for static publications unless there is no publication date in the article. AviationFreak💬05:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the author of 69 should be "staff writer(s)". I'd remove it
Archive looks messed up for me as well, but as this is a federally-maintained database search (as opposed to something like a static article), I don't think the archive will need to come into use anytime soon. Happy to remove archive link if requested.
[4]: Good
[5]: Link is dead afaics and doesn't have an archive. Remove?
The link looks fine to me - Should be a Baltimore Sun article. Are other editors having issues?
[9 a–j]: b: Quote showed little emotion for months should be emotions. j. The NYT article states His life was largely financed by his parents, who gave him $1,000 to $1,500 a year in birthday and Christmas gifts., while you say "some" financial support.
For b: I changed the quote to align with the source, but while looking at {{Sic}} I saw that MOS:QUOTE says "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment... unless the slip is textually important." This isn't a spelling error as far as I'm concerned, but I also don't think it's "textually important" - Should it be changed back?
well, TIL, feel free to change it back
For j: Changed "some" to "significant".
[11], [28], [36]: AGF
[17], [25], [33]: good
[38]: Doesn't seem to support that "he taught undergraduate courses in geometry and calculus" at Berkeley
Removed claims about teaching in specific fields.
[55]: AGF
[56], [57], [60], [61]: good
[63]: Mosser's middle name doesn't seem to be there, nor that it was North Caldwell. Maybe just check the first sentence?
Reworded & removed uncited details
[65]: A bit too much info for me to check
[69], [76], [77]: good, though I'm not sure about the present tense "believes".
Changed to "states", with minor reword to improve readability.
[78]: AGF
[86]: Is the New Yorker article incomplete? Seems to be missing some stuff, like "neo-Luddite"
The text version on the linked page appears to be significantly shorter than the image of the original full article shown above. This original full article is behind a hard paywall & the images are too low-quality to read anything but the drop caps. There is definitely more to the "full version" though, so I have to AGF that the details are there.
[88], [90]: good
[92]: Again, not sure about this one. "Swanson" isn't in the text. Could use [93] to support more of it
Reworded and added different source to support claim.
[93]: Can't find stuff about his brother wanting to protect him from the raid
Added ref to support claim.
[99], [104], [111], [115], [118]: good
[121]: AGF, can't get around the paywall
[124]: good
[132]: Doesn't seem to support "These include the 1996 television film Unabomber: The True Story, the 2011 play P.O. Box Unabomber, and Manhunt: Unabomber, the 2017 season of the television series Manhunt."
Added supporting sources
I'm incredibly sorry for the delay, AviationFreak. Off-wiki things caught up with me, and I totally forgot to at least notify you. I hope this was still helpful. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I've had a bit more off-wiki stuff to do lately as well, so I completely understand where you're coming from. Thank you for all your help! AviationFreak💬04:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... the second crewed mission to the Moon. Not as famous as its illustrious predecessor, the crew of Apollo 12 probably had more fun doing it. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images appear to be freely licensed. There is, however, layout issues with sandwiching in "Crew and key Mission Control personnel", "Lunar surface activities", and "Mission insignia" sections, and the last image breaks the references section. Overall, the article gives the impression of having too many images, and would be improved by retaining only those which substantially increase reader understanding of the topic. (t · c) buidhe20:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the infobox seems way too long. How many readers are actually going to look at all that detail? Can't you present the key info in a more concise format? (t · c) buidhe20:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've cut some of the images that seemed less necessary. Regarding the infobox, all I can say is that all of the Apollo mission articles contain that information, and 7 of the 11 crewed missions are now FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may, or may not, be persuasive re the technical detail, but does the infobox need three images. Suggest you move at least two, all three might be better, elsewhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles have a lead image, and in the case of the Apollo articles, it is generally an image that is distinctive to that mission. I've moved the other two out of the infobox, thereby shortening the same and eliminating one image from the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned that I can't find a editorial policy or even who is behind it. And while it MIGHT pass WP:RS, I have significant doubts about it meeting the high quality requirement for FA. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
works for me. next time though, can you do me a favor and tell me what it was replaced with, so I don't have to go digging for the information?
I have a concern about how much is sourced to NASA sources, or primary sources. There is a lot of relying on NASA publications as well as things that should probably be considered primary - the various data sheets and other things of similar nature. It's something that needs to be kept as little as possible because it is entirely too easy to drift into actually writing history as historians do (i.e. from the primary sources) instead of doing encyclopedia editing from secondary sources. I know primary sources are allowed, but I remain concerned about the number used in this article.
Note that I did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliablity.
Note also that I will claim this review for points in the Wikicup.
Thank you for the review. I think there's two separate issues here: the primary sources from the Apollo era, which of course are NASA-generated, the true primary sources, and much later sources, such as that by the Lunar and Planetary Institute and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, that have are supported by NASA but are secondary sources. Plainly both are used. I will, over the next few days, see where I can bring down the number of cites to the earlier sources. There's really, though, no reason to doubt the accuracy of either for factual information, and we're not reporting on any opinions. It's a bit of a cleft stick: the NASA sources, earlier or later, are going to have the technical information that if collected on a private site, might raise questions of reliability. But I'll see where I can find a happy medium.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced some. I'm not sure how much more I can do. The Apollo-era ones that are left are mostly being used for technical info, biographical detail and similar. The later ones are secondary sources, and reliable and unbiased as per above. I worry also that I'm having to replace online sources with book refs. I hope this is good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a tough balancing act. It is always hard to judge on this sort of thing ... how much to use from an agency directly vs. how much to source through third-party sources that likely get their information from the organization. But the rant about too much use of primary sources is for another time... not now (grins). Looks good, you're good to go and I'm unwatching this review. Good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second clause of the sentence The use of a hybrid trajectory allowed more flexibility in mission planning, for example allowing Apollo 12 to launch in daylight and reach the planned landing spot on schedule. seems odd. A restructuring could make it more concise and flow better.
This isn't a huge deal, but the mission insignia looks a little off when positioned to the left. I realize that if you moved it to the right, you would have a near constant stream of rightside images. Moving "File:Astronaut Alan L. Bean is about to step off the ladder of the Lunar Module.jpg" to the left may help. You don't have to act on this.
"In proving that pinpoint landings could be made, they enabled future Apollo missions to sites of scientific interest, where the astronauts would have to land close by." Would it be possible to improve the flow of this?
I know. But in American English it is far more common to refer to it by the shorthand. There is a link.
I know, but for the majority of English speakers for whom that would mean nothing without a click through ... You know, I am struggling to think of a non-clunky solution. OK, leave it. But it is possible I may come back on this, if I actually think of something workable.
Any chance of a brief in line explanation of "Flight director"?
"they had to be relatively flat without major obstructions". Maybe 'they had to be relatively flat and without major obstructions'?
"the path the LM would fly". LM in full at first mention.
"Since Apollo 12 was to attempt the first landing if Apollo 11 failed". I struggled a bit to understand what you were trying to say here. Probably just me, but consider 'attempt the first Moon landing'.
"with large numbers of media members getting in the way". Would 'with the large numbers of media members getting in the way. read better? Or, perhaps, 'with many of the large number of media members getting in the way'?
In the infobox the spacecraft launch mass is given as 101,127 pounds. In the text it states "Of this figure, the spacecraft weighed 110,044 pounds". What am I missing?
The figure in the infobox was that on reaching Earth orbit, so from the next line in the Mission Report table on page A-9. I've made a correction and verified that the landing weight is that which is stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was fired". Should that be 'The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was to be fired'?
"a Launch Escape System (LES), and Spacecraft-Lunar Module Adapter 15 (SLA–15}. The Launch Escape System contained" Why give the abbreviation LES and then not use it? Especially when you do use others in the same sentence.
LES is used near the end of the paragraph. But for consistency I've changed Launch Escape System to LES.
"These were selected from several thousand proposed names". Is it known who made the selection?
The paragraph starting "Apollo 12's ALSEP included a Lunar Surface Magnetometer" Has a whole series of names with upper case initial letters, eg "Lunar Surface Magnetometer"; "Dust Detector" etc. Why?
"and the Solar Wind Spectrometer, to measure the strength and direction of the solar wind at the Moon's surface—the Solar Wind Composition Experiment, to measure what makes up the solar wind, would be deployed and then brought back to Earth by the astronauts". Is this two separate experiments, or two aspects of the same one?
"The Apollo 12 ALSEP experiments were commanded on from Earth on November 19, 1969.". Is there a typo there? Because i am struggling to even guess what is meant. OK - I think that "commanded on" and "off" is the issue. Is there a way of rephrasing this?
It's the proper terminology, but I've switched to "activated" and "deactivated".
"This termination happened principally due to budgetary reasons". Maybe 'The principal reasons for these terminations were budgetary restrictions' or similar?
Done a little differently.
"There were completely overcast rainy skies, encountering wind speeds". You can't switch tenses like that. ("There were ... encountering".)
"the highest of any Apollo mission". Optional: "highest" → 'strongest'.
You give abbreviations for a number of items which are not mentioned again. eg "Descent Propulsion System (DPS)". Why?
NASA equipment is often referred to by the shorthand, and it is my thought that it's better to give it in case the reader encounters the abbreviation elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a core tube full of lunar material". What's a core tube?
"Conrad had landed it between two of these points". What points?
I gather from the text that Surveyor 3 was in a crater. Is that correct? If so, could it be made explicit somewhere?
" Hand Tool Carrier". Upper case initials. Really?
Yes, it's a thing. Later on it was expanded and put on wheels, first on the "rickshaw" pulled by Apollo 14's astronauts and then on the lunar rover (the MET and LRV, respectively).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"plane change maneuver". Which would be? (You just know that readers are going to be thinking "airplane".)
Link spectrum.
"nmi". In full at first mention.
"The Apollo 12 landing area on the Moon is the portion of the lunar surface" → 'The Apollo 12 landing area on the Moon is within the portion of the lunar surface'.
"a photograph of a globe of the Moon in a library, taken by engineers". Is "in a library" necessary?
Once again, I'm just giving a drive-by support for an article I believe meets the FAC criteria. But some comments to prove I read it:
"All three of the astronauts had backed up Apollo 9 earlier in 1969" makes it sound like Bean had been on the backup before selection for Apollo 12. Suggest: " The three astronauts backed up Apollo 9 earlier in 1969"
A bit surprised that my favourite book on the subject, Apollo 12 on the Ocean of Storms (2011) OCLC801098415 didn't make the references. Consider adding it to the Further reading list.
weighed 6,487,742 pounds (2,942,790 kg) at launch, an increase from Apollo 11's 6,477,875 pounds (2,938,315 kg). Of this figure, the spacecraft weighed 110,044 pounds (49,915 kg), up from 109,646 pounds (49,735 kg) on Apollo 11. — Why millions of lb/kg instead of tons/tonnes?
I won't go over this with quite such a fine comb because you've already had several thorough reviews, but I picked up a few things while reading through:
The lead looks on the short side for 5,500-word article.
With President Richard Nixon in attendance, the first U.S. president to watch a crewed space launch Does this mean Tricky Dick had watched a previous launch, or do you mean "the first time POTUS had attended"?
Flight Director Gerald Griffin, CAPCOM Gerald Carr is a sea of blue; also Electrical, Environmental and Consumables Manager (EECOM) John Aaron
Unfortunately, when Bean carried the camera "unfortunately" is editorialising
20:58 UTC (3:58 pm EST, 10:58 am HST) You use "UT" above (and below) but this, near the end of the article, is the first time you mention and link UTC and the other time zones.
I've dealt with these. HST is used because that is local time where they splashed down; EST is used (and also is for the launch) because that is local time at KSC. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...which then, after completing its 45th lunar orbit, traveled back to Earth" I would remove the 45th orbit part; it's a pretty long sentence as is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing Pete Conrad and Dick Gordon were also Navy ROTC graduates; the commissioning source is only mentioned for Bean.
Conrad was, I don't see any reference to Gordon. I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it in all cases. This is very much a thumbnail bio, and the lack of a prior spaceflight for Bean means we're somewhat digging for detail on him.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"he became a naval aviator, completing United States Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River Naval Air Station." This makes it sound like Conrad became a naval aviator by going to TPS.
Williams died before the Apollo 12 crew was assigned. I think Williams was at the time of death de facto backup LMP for Apollo 8 (which then became Apollo 9).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think listing him as "Conrad's LMP" isn't correct; I understand he would have worked under Conrad, but he would have been assigned to the mission, not the commander. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a former student of his at Patuxent River" I would change this to "a former student of his at Test Pilot School" to make it clear where he was a student. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think referring to it as "the Patuxent River school" still puts it in the territory of Navy-speak. Readers unfamiliar with Navy TPS referred to as "Pax River" may not get what school it is referring to, as it is previously referred to as "United States Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River Naval Air Station" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the job description sentence for flight directors. It's a good anecdote, but I don't think it fits, as none of the other jobs having their job description quoted. The flight director page is linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've received a number of reviewer comments asking for a description of the jobs of Flight Director and CAPCOM in these Apollo articles. The language is borrowed from Apollo 13.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"five hours in mission-specific training for every hour they could expect to spend in flight on the mission" Shouldn't this be "for every hour they expected to spend"? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"even though Armstrong had been forced to bail out of a similar vehicle in 1968, just before it crashed" I would remove this; it implies that the LLTV was no longer in use following Armstrong's crash except when Conrad wanted to use it, but I'm pretty sure it was used for all lunar landings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The cask would be put to the test on Apollo 13, and survived re-entry to sink in the Tonga Trench" I think "would be put to the test" is wordy; maybe "On Apollo 13, the cask survived re-entry and sank in the Tonga Trench" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This achieved one objective of the mission, to perform a precision landing near the Surveyor craft." This comma seems unnecessary; maybe something like "This achieved the mission objective to perform a precision landing near the Surveyor craft." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Analysis of the images might reveal colors not visible to the naked eye or detectable with ordinary color film, and information could be obtained about the composition of sites that would not soon be visited by humans." I'm assuming they did learn about the composition through these photos? This reads like it is the hope for a future experiment. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, not abnormally fast. By Apollo 14, they were doing it on a single lunar orbit, half the time of 11 and 12. Modified per suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk)
"NASA had remotely fired the service module's thrusters" Since NASA is a really big organization, I would make this more specific; maybe make this "Mission control had remotely fired..." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "File:20180320 Apollo 12 Virginia Air and Space Center-2.jpg" is a better photo of the capsule (full disclosure: I took this photo), as the current photo is pretty washed out in the top right corner. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few further comments that I have added in regard to additional changes, but it doesn't change the fact that I think this article is well done, and I support it passing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. I've tried to address the remaining issues.--!!!!
"In 1883, they invited Burnley to a pitch adjacent to the cricket field." Suggest 'In 1883, they invited Burnley F.C. to use a pitch adjacent to the cricket field.'
Done
"while terraces were also added to each end of the ground". When?
In the same year, added
"attended a friendly between Burnley and Bolton Wanderers". Suggest 'attended a friendly match between Burnley and Bolton Wanderers'. And link to Exhibition game.
Done
"Burnley is situated on the edge of the Pennines". Could we first mention the country and part of the country in which it is located?
Done
Link Middle Ages.
Done
"Before 1840, however, there was a short-lived attempt". Delete "however".
Done
"£4,000 as of 2021" → 'the equivalent of £4,000 as of 2021'.
Done
"and the Bee Hole Colliery" Delete "the".
Done
"The following month, they invited association football team Burnley, Rovers' successors who had been formed on 18 May 1882, to move from their original home at Calder Vale along with a donation of £65 (£7,000 as of 2021) toward the setup costs." Possibly a bit long - split? The "along with" wording doesn't read well.
Split and reworded
"installed uncovered terraces". Could we have an in line explanation of what a "terrace" is?
Done
"attended the friendly between". Insert 'match'; and link.
Done
"(£9,000 as of 2021)" See above. And in other similar cases.
Done
"subsequently increased their ticket prices to 6d" Is it known what they were before? Use pence instead of "d" and link it.
Unfortunately not; done
"although it retained its name by the supporters". This doesn't make sense.
Reworded
"stretching from the goal". Which one?
The eastern one, added
"and after the First World War ended". How is this relevant?
Removed
"a record for Turf Moor". Perhaps 'still the record for Turf Moor'?
Done
"but these ideas were delayed by the outbreak of the Second World War." The ideas weren't delayed. Their implementation was.
Reworded
"was built with the help from the Burnley youth players" Either delete the first "the", or "from" → 'to'.
Done
"(£2.98 million as of 2021)[a]". From MOS:PF "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis."
Done
"Both never came into operation". "Both never" → 'neither'.
Done
"The field was also raised". I think that for consistency it would be better to use 'pitch'.
Done
"Burnley defeated the Scots 3–1 on aggregate". What was the score at Burnley? Mention that there was a return leg - Two-legged tie. Link aggregate score.
Added, done, done
"A drop in home attendances combined with an enlarged debt caused a rapid decline in the team's fortunes between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, whereby Burnley were left with little money to invest on the stadium's redevelopment and safety work." The bits either side of the comma don't link up too well.
I think it's alright. Does it need the word "also" to indicate that because of the mentioned reasons Burnley were also left with little money to spent on the redevelopment and safety work (and less on players et cetera)? What do you suggest?
Thinking about it, why not make it two sentences? 'A drop in home attendances combined with an enlarged debt caused a rapid decline in the team's fortunes between the late 1970s and the early 1990s. Burnley were left with little money to invest in the stadium's redevelopment and safety work." The bits either side of the comma don't link up too well.'
Note the change of "on" to 'in'.
Agreed, done
"following the Hillsborough disaster" needs an in line explanation. Something like 'when a human crush on a football ground terrace caused 75 fatalities'.
Done
"which had to be acted upon within 12 months". Started, finished, spent, committed? "acted upon" is not very clear.
Spent, reworded
"following the 2002 ITV Digital collapse" A brief explanation of why this caused financial difficulties please.
Added
"split in six phases" → 'to be carried out in six phases' or similar.
Done
"The planning permission". Delete "The".
Done
"as part of a extension" "a" → 'an'.
Oh, sloppy. Done
"Turf Moor's Desso GrassMaster pitch"
Sorry, but I can't see it here
"both have two tiers" → 'each have two tiers'.
Done
"Would it be appropriate to link "corporate hospitality boxes" to Luxury box?
Yes, done
"other campus locations were opened". "were" → 'have been'.
Done
Most of the uses under "Other uses" seem to be hosting football games. Possibly a different section title?
Added "events" to the title
"the latter scored a penalty kick." → the latter scored from a penalty kick.'
Done
"The ground had hosted several women's charity matches". Delete "had".
Done
"The highest attendance in a league match". "in" → 'at'.
Gog, thank you very much for taking a look and for the review. I've addressed all comments and left a question under the "A drop in..." one. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"subsequently increased their ticket prices to six pence" Perhaps add an 'equivalent to ...'?
I took a look at this at peer review shortly before it came here and made some suggestions which were all acted upon. Since then, the article has received further attention from the FAC and the talk page and I'm happy to support at this point. Great work. Kosack (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copyedit as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.
Thanks for that, it looks good!
Why do we need to mention the river Brun? And that's a run-on sentence, if we keep the mention.
We've done so because it's part of the (indirect) explanation why the stadium is called "Turf Moor" (by mentioning the moors). Amended (hopefully done correctly).
Having read the article about Burnley I see why you describe them as the successors to Burnley Rovers, but since it's a different sport, and initially a different ground, the reader won't follow.
I see, removed "Rovers' successors who had been formed on 18 May 1882" as it's not vital. Hope it's clearer now.
Perhaps not necessary for the article, but where was Calder Vale? The village is near Preston, so I assume we're not referring to that?
Very little is known about Calder Vale. There is a "Calder Vale Rd" and "Calder Park South" (with quite a large grass field) in Burnley, but that's about it.
Until the dispute about the shared dressing room was mentioned I didn't understand that cricket was still being played -- presumably not on the same land that was used for football, but on an adjacent pitch? Can we say this when the invitation to Burnley to move is mentioned in the first paragraph? This would also give us an opportunity to name the ends, by explaining "Cricket Field End".
Indeed on an adjacent pitch. Expanded the sentence about the invitation.
"In 1891, Burnley Union Star disbanded": suggest something like "In 1891, another local football team, Burnley Union Star, disbanded and ...."
Done
"The Stars Stand was demolished in 1898 and replaced by a larger grandstand, which was referred to as the Stars Stand by the supporters." Perhaps "still referred to" or "continued to be referred to".
Done
"a roof was constructed to cover the terracing at the Cricket Field End, which increased the ground's capacity to around 50,000": how can constructing a roof increase capacity? Presumably the terracing was extended as well?
It was more due to the expansion of the embankment that the capacity increased. I reworded the sentence.
I'm aware that the population may have shrunk quite a bit between 1914 and 1960, but my eye was caught by the contrast between "around 50,000, almost equal to the town's male population" (this article, 1914) and "With 80,000 inhabitants, the town of Burnley became the smallest to have an English first tier champion", referring to 1960, from the article on Burnley F.C.. Can you confirm both these numbers are accurate? And I see later in the article that 21,944 is about one third of the 2020 population, implying about 66,000 is the current population; later we say that the population is now around 73,000.
I can confirm both numbers are accurate:) Although the 100k and 80k figures (approx.) are from two different books (by Simon Inglis and Tim Quelch), they're also recorded here: [16] The town's current population is indeed about 73k, according to the last (reliable) measure in 2001 [17] (Note: Excel document file). More recent Census reports imply a figure of 87k, but this is for the Borough of Burnley and not exclusively for the town. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The following year, the new chairman Bob Lord purchased 80 acres of farmland at Gawthorpe Hall; Burnley became one of the first clubs to set up a purpose-built training centre." Assuming that the training centre was actually built on this farmland, suggest "In 1955, Burnley became one of the first clubs to set up a purpose-built training centre, on 80 acres of farmland at Gawthorpe Hall purchased by their new chairman, Bob Lord."
Done
"the players' tunnel behind the goal": wouldn't this be more natural as "the players' tunnel behind one of the goals"?
Done
Is it "Longside Stand" or "Longside terrace"?
It's quite interchangeably, but I amended "Stand" into "terrace"
I had to read through carefully to understand the sequence of stands at the two sides -- I kept getting confused as to which stand was on which side. Since the infobox says "Harry Potts Way", I think if you just make it clear that the Brunshaw Road Stand is on the south side, and that the name has changed, that would help. Perhaps "so in 1885 the club built an 800-seater wooden grandstand along the south side of the ground, along Brunshaw Road (as it was then known)".
Done
The panorama caption says "Cricket Field Stand", but that stand is labelled "David Fishwick Stand" -- perhaps a short term sponsorship deal? If you can source it, it would be good to say something about this so the reader doesn't think there's an error. You might also make it "looking north from the Bob Lord Stand" to help a reader understand the orientation.
It was indeed a sponsorship deal. He had sponsored the stand since 2004, but I can't find when it was renamed. Amended the image caption.
"The club's chairman Barry Kilby owned 51 per cent of the company's shares": shares of what? Longside Properties?
"This unbroken service makes the stadium the second-longest continuously used ground in English professional football" - don't feel citing this extraordinary claim to Burnley FC itself is a good idea. In general I'm seeing quite a number of citations to Burnley FC - could you explain your approach? Are there no independent sources supporting these details?
Replaced the source. I've indeed used quite a number of citations to Burnley, because they aren't the biggest nor the most mentioned English club, so in order to give a comprehensive view I had to use those sources sometimes. I think we did a good job in using secondary sources for the very large part of the article.
I see some other claims that I don't feel are appropriately sourced to Burnley - eg that they are one of the world's biggest sellers of Bénédictine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added an extra ref.
What makes Adams a high-quality reliable source? Wiseman? Fiszman? FCHD? RSSSF? When Saturday Comes?
Duncan Adams has written multiple books about English football grounds, including one for this season. He's a member of the the 92 Club, so he has also visited all grounds which he has written about.
David Wiseman is a Burnley fan and has written multiple books about the club. Among his works are "Up the Clarets: Story of Burnley Football Club" (1973), which was regarded as the seminal book about Burnley F.C. before Simpson had his one published in 2007.
Marc Fiszman has written multiple yearbooks about (league) competitions and football and rugby clubs, from Reading F.C. to Wasps RFC.
FCHD is regarded as a very reliable source for historical data in English football and has been referenced in many featured articles (e.g. Luton Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C.).
Generally speaking, neither writing many things nor being used in other articles is a good rationale for something being a high-quality reliable source. This may be helpful in elaborating on the rationales above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Wiseman has been mentioned in this newspaper: [20]. He has written multiple books about Burnley and is a noted expert in the field. Most Burnley books have used his seminal work, "Up the Clarets: Story of Burnley Football Club" (1973), as a benchmark/source.
In the introduction of Simpson's 2007 book, it's stated that he used the works of Wiseman as one of the sources. Wiseman has also been mentioned here, here, and here. I would say he's an expert in the Burnley field. However, I replaced the source.
Hi WA8MTWAYC, re. "In the spring of 1911..." -- pls try to use wording that avoids seasonal time references; I won't hold up promotion over it though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the seventh Umayyad caliph Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik. He governed Palestine for over ten years during the reigns of his father and brother, founding Ramla, the district's capital until the Crusades. He succeeded his brother as heir apparent in 715, ruling for two years, during which the mass territorial expansion of the Caliphate under his predecessor came to a virtual halt due to increased resistance along the frontiers. It was under Sulayman that the Arabs made their most concerted effort to capture Constantinople, which ended in disaster. Before he died, he appointed his cousin Umar II as his successor, an unconventional choice over his brothers or sons. Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Many had been handpicked by al-Hajjaj and had led the war efforts which brought the Caliphate to its greatest territorial extent, including the conqueror of Transoxiana (Central Asia), Qutayba ibn Muslim, who was killed by his own troops in an abortive revolt at the beginning of Sulayman's reign, and the conqueror of Sind (the western Indian subcontinent), Muhammad ibn Qasim, who was executed." possibly an over-long sentence?
"culminating in the sieges of Constantinople of 717 and 718, which ended in Arab defeats." "sieges"; "defeats". I understood it to be a single siege and a singlr defeat.
From my understanding of the sources used in this article there were two successive sieges (part of the same general effort, of course). I will look into this further. On this point, and the related one below regarding more details about the siege during Sulayman's reign, I also defer to Cplakidas, who may have some useful information. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caption: the Ramla photograph - as the caption is a sentence, should it not end in a full stop?
"had previously supervised Abd al-Malik's construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem<" I think you mean 'had previously supervised the construction of Abd al-Malik's Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem' or similar.
who held him in "the highest regard". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
Assuming that is Arabic, this one: ṭāʿūn al-Ashrāf.
"He also cultivated ties to the religious opponents of al-Hajjaj in Iraq, was financially generous toward the Alids (the closest surviving kinsmen of the Islamic prophet Muhammad), and installed as governor of Medina Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Ansari, a member of the city's pious circles, despite his family's role in the fatal rebellion against the early clansman and patron of the Umayyads, Caliph Uthman (r. 644–656), revenge for whom had served as an ideological rallying point and foundational event for the Umayyad dynasty." I think that this is a little much for a single sentence.
"future pretender to the caliphate". Either Caliphate or caliphate should be used throughout.
In this particular case, the office of the caliphate is being referred to, as opposed to the entity/empire. I have capitalized "Caliphate" when referring to the entity, should the office of the caliphate also be capitalized? Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see your point. I had missed that. You are correct.
Possibly a little more detail on the Siege of Constantinople? At least up to Sulayman's death?
Thank you very much for your review and the many suggested improvements. Most of the points you have raised have been addressed now, with the exception of a few, namely the information about the siege(s) of Constantinople and the two points about the distance conversion and language templates, where I would like further advice. I hope to have those last few addressed asap. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Distance tweaked in the article; lang template demonstrated above. That just leaves the siege(s): 1. Are you happy to include a little more detail? 2. Lets both dig into our sources to see to what extent it is meaningful to split the events into two sieges and whether modern RSs do. As you say, Constantine will probably have a magisterial opinion on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweak and the tip. As for the siege(s), definitely happy to include more detail, especially as this was a monumental event. I'll look into the sources I have today and am looking forward to what you could find on your end. I also see that Constantine will be leaving comments below, and am expecting his thoughts on this as well ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources I have mention very little about the siege, but none appear to call it two sieges, it just took place over two summers. Eisener, Blankinship have it as one siege, Powers does not mention it in his annotations of al-Tabari. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Gog, the text has been tweaked by Constantine. I will be addressing the points he raised below, but otherwise let me know if there is anything else that should be done. Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that you need a little more detail on the siege.
"Already from early 716, the Arab commander Umar ibn Hubayra al-Fazari had launched a naval campaign against Constantinople." What happened to the naval campaign.
"Sulayman's efforts ultimately failed as the Byzantines repulsed the Umayyad attacks in the early summer of 717 and the summer of 718." This seems a little confused to me. Maybe something like. 'The Byzantines repulsed the Umayyad attacks in the early summer of 717, but Maslama continued to blockade Constantinople's landward approaches. [sentence on naval activity] Maslama renewed the the Umayyad assault in the summer of 717 but was again defeated. He abandoned the siege and withdrew through Anatolia, losing most of his army en route.'
I have expanded the section, mostly by copying from the main article about the siege, with some revisions and minor additions, and with a mind toward your proposed structuring of the passage. From my understanding, Maslama's army retreated relatively intact to Syria after the casualties endured during the siege, but the relief army sent to aid him was routed and driven out of Anatolia. Will request Constantine to do a source check for the books I could not access or read. There will be more fine-tuning, but let me know if, content-wise, this issue has now been addressed. I will also be adding one summary sentence about the repercussions of the expedition's failure at the end of the section. I will update you. Al Ameer (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am content with everything except for the minor suggestion:
"The Umayyads' first blockade of the city under Mu'awiya I had failed." → 'The Umayyads' first blockade of the city under Mu'awiya I in 674 to 678 had failed.'
Thanks Gog. I intentionally omitted the date since there seems to be credible disputes by historians to the dating of the siege or whether it was siege at all. What is agreed is that the raids and/or naval blockade of the city occurred under Mu'awiya I. Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If possible would suggest improving File:The_Caliphate_in_945_(centred_on_the_southern_Caspian_Sea).jpg - it's not clear what is green vs lime green. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I lack the know-how to do this, despite it seeming simple enough. How about I crop out the lime green portion at the bottom left corner of the map? Alternatively, I could replace it altogether with this detailed map of the region in question: File:Northern Iran and its surroundings during the Iranian intermezzo.svg. The main benefit of the current map is that it shows the conquest of Tabaristan in the context of the conquests undertaken by Sulayman's predecessors, though this may not be terribly important. Thoughts? —Al Ameer (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the transliterated Arabic terms, you should use {{transl|ar|}}, e.g. {{transl|ar|[[shurta|shurṭa]]}}, as this helps automatic parsers of the Wikicode determine what the terms are.
I am not sure that "security forces" is the proper translation of shurta; to a modern reader, this implies entities like the FBI or armed police. Perhaps "elite guard"?
Yes, shurta is a tricky one, and a term that seems to have evolved a number of times even just in the early Islamic period. I changed it to elite guard as suggested, since this seems like the appropriate use for this case. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more effective resistance from indigenous forces add where this happened; as a small conqueror class, the Arabs faced 'indigenous forces' everywhere. What you mean is that they faced increased resistance on their frontiers.
IIRC, the conquest of Tabaristan and Jurjan was mostly nominal and definitely ephemeral; not only were many local princes like Farrukhan the Great left effectively undisturbed, but the conquest had to be repeated under the Abbasids. This needs to be added.
On the failure of the siege of Constantinople, I would suggest adding the destruction of the two fleets sent against the city; it was the failure of the naval component that decided the outcome more than anything else. Some context might also be advisable here, after The Caliph's principal military focus was the war with Byzantium, to the effect that Sulayman's campaign was the culmination of two decades of encroachment into Byzantine territories, and the second major attempt to seize Constantinople. It should be easy to mine the article on the siege for whatever details you need (ping me if you need to verify sources).
I owe you a debt here, as I indeed went ahead and copied much of the new material from the article, which you mainly authored. I do in fact need you to please verify at least Lilie and Guilland for I am illiterate in German and French ;) Also, if you do not mind, please see Nikki's query below about Lilie being a high-quality RS, as you may be able to offer a better response than me. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made some additions & copyedits here too, chiefly for chronology/context, but also added a bit on the impact and aftermath, since this event was one of the most significant in world history and a turning-point both for Byzantium and the Caliphate. Feel free to adapt my additions. I also checked Guilland, and it does correspond with the article text. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading a brief exposition about the emergence of the figure of Mahdi in connection with Sulayman in Patricia Crone's God's Rule - Government and Islam, that would fit in really well here. I probably can send you the relevant pages, if required.
That's it after a first pass. Looks like the usual thorough job one has come to expect of Al Ameer son. Constantine ✍ 15:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
PS on the siege/sieges issue, I suspect the sources used considered the two different 'active phases' of the siege as different events; they were not. Maslama and his troops wintered in Byzantine soil, in Europe, but they never abandoned the siege, at least not from the landward side. That's why the quick neutralization of the Umayyad fleets was critical. Constantine ✍ 15:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
as his age of death in September 717 is cited as 39, 43, or 45 I guess this means Islamic years? They are not equivalent to our solar years, so this should be pointed out. I will go through the article once more when I have a bit more time just in case I missed something, but otherwise I am very happy with its current state. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across this so thought to add it as a footnote. The 39, 43 or 45 are not calendar years though. They are the various ages of death cited for Sulayman by the sources, according to Bosworth. Would it be better if I just did the math and subtract those various ages from 717 to get the approximate years of birth instead? Al Ameer (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference still applies, since the lunar Islamic year is ten days shorter than the solar Gregorian one. If Bosworth directly references the medieval sources, then the ages of 39, 43, or 45 Islamic years correspond to 38, 41, and 43 solar (our) years. Constantine ✍ 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep it, just add "is cited as 39, 43, or 45 (Islamic) years" or smth similar, unless you can check the original sources and Bosworth has already done the conversions. Constantine ✍ 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another read-through and made some minor tweaks. I can't find anything missing or to complain about, so I am happy to support at this point. Once again, well done. Constantine ✍ 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The note mentions the sons of Sulayman listed by al-Ya'qubi. Muhammad is not mentioned by al-Ya'qubi, but is mentioned as the eldest son to have survived Sulayman, according to an annotation by David Powers citing al-Dinawari in the edited History of al-Tabari. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Their first attempt to capture the city during Mu'awiya I's reign had failed. " - source?
Apparently, Variorum. I removed “Reprints”. I cannot find anything other than it was published in 1982 by Variorum. I guess the particular link used here was for a reprint (though an original year does not seem to be indicated, so I am assuming it was 1982). Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haldon: edition statement should be separate from title
Done. Also a bit confusing to me upon inspection. The title mentions it is the “Revised Edition”, but nothing indicates it was published in a different year than the original year, 1990. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to Constantine on this one. I copied information cited to the source from the main article about the Siege of Constantinople (717–718). I do not see why it would not fit the bill. On a related note, I have also requested Constantine verify the material sourced to Lilie and Guilland (see above)—want to make sure all content is still true to the sources after the modifications I made to the copied text. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just added this, but at the very bottom of the online article is information about the citation of the article in the print version. Is this ok, or should it be formatted differently? Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic article. Very well-written and informative. Here are some thing that struck me while reading it:
Sulayman resented al-Hajjaj's influence over his brother. Is it known why he resented al-Hajjaj?
Great question. This is unfortunately unclear. Hawting (2000) discusses it on page 74. He mentions the mutual hostility between them stemming from al-Hajjaj's desire for al-Walid's son to accede instead of Sulayman, but "whether this was its cause or a symptom is not clear". Before that, Hawting notes that Yazid ibn al-Muhallab escaped prison and took refuge with Sulayman, "taking advantage of the antagonism that existed between al-Hajjaj and the heir apparent [Sulayman]", implying it was already established from early on. Wellhausen notes the hostility existed while Sulayman was still heir apparent. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Among them were the conqueror of Transoxiana (Central Asia), Qutayba ibn Muslim, who was killed by his own troops in an abortive revolt at the start of Sulayman's reign So Qutayba tried to stage a revolt because he got fired?
He was a loyalist of al-Hajjaj and supported Sulayman's replacement as heir with al-Walid's son. Following Sulayman's accession, he anticipated hostile action from the new caliph, despite Sulayman's confirmation of him in his post, and revolted. I will tweak the lead since it reads as if Sulayman dismissed him, when it was not the case. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At an unknown date, Abd al-Malik appointed Sulayman governor of Jund Filastin (the military district of Palestine) According to Nur Masalha, Sulayman became governor in 705. That may be wrong though.
I am leery of this, it may be a presumption by Masalha. Sulayman was appointed during Abd al-Malik's reign and appears to have been well-established there before his brother's accession to the caliphate. We know there were two other governors of Palestine under Abd al-Malik: his uncle Yahya ibn al-Hakam could not have been governor after 694, as he was reassigned to Medina and afterward led campaigns against the Byzantines until his death around 699 or 700. Although governors of Hims, Qinnasrin and the Jazira were known to lead army campaigns against the Byzantines, this was not apparently a purview of a governor of Palestine. Then there is Abd al-Malik's brother Aban ibn Marwan. It is not clear if he preceded his uncle or succeeded him, though the sources mention that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf started his career in Syria as part of Aban's shurta in Palestine, which would have been in the latter half of the 680s. It seems likely Sulayman was appointed after Yahya. None of the sources offer the years of appointment, so I am staying away from it. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About Ramla, Nur Masalha writes: "According to the conventional wisdom, the name Ramla is derived from the Arabic word raml, meaning sand (Palmer 1881: 217). But it is more likely that the new Arab capital was named by Suleiman ibn ‘Abd al‑Malik not for its sand but in memory of Ramla, a remarkable woman who was the daughter of Caliph Mu’awiyya ibn Abu Sufyan, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. Ramla’s reputation among the Umayyad ruling elite was enhanced by the fact that she also married to a son of Uthman, the third Caliph of Islam (Roded 1994: 57). The likelihood of a major city being named in memory of an important Umayyad woman in the history of the ruling dynasty could easily have been overlooked by the post‑Umayyad almost exclusively male (Abbasid‑leaning) Muslim historians of the Middle Ages."
Interesting, but again I am wary of this, as it seems entirely presumptuous on Masalha's part. Masalha may be a high-quality, academic source, but this appears to be way out of his area of expertise. Does make me want to start an article on Ramla bint Mu'awiya, though. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A protege of al-Hajjaj, Qutayba ibn Muslim, whose relations with Sulayman had been antagonistic, was confirmed in his post by the Caliph, but remained wary that his dismissal was pending. In the lead it says he was fired?
The latter was assassinated on Sulayman's orders, and his head was delivered to the Caliph by Habib ibn Abi Ubayd al-Fihri in 715 or 716. That wasn't very nice! Is there some explanation as to why Sulayman had Abd al-Aziz assassinated?
Not nice at all. The source used does not elaborate. Upon further research, it appears there are a few different narratives. In EI2's entry on Abd al-Aziz b. Nusayr, it just says "He was assassinated in Seville, where he had fixed his residence, by a certain Ziyad b. Udhra al-Balawi, at the beginning of Radjab 97/March 718, and was succeeded by his maternal cousin Ayyub b. Habib al-Lakhmi." Tabari (used in this article) only says "In this year [715-716] Abd al-Aziz b. Musa b. Nusayr was killed in al-Andalus and Habib b. Abi Ubayd al-Fihri brought his head to Sulayman." Hitti tells of a story that Abd al-Aziz was murdered after Sulayman caught wind of rumors he became a Christian under his wife's influence. Then there's the History of Ibn al-Qutiya (ed. David James) where Sulayman orders Musa imprisoned after the latter's arrival in Syria after some tensions between him and the heir apparent (Musa had been on his way to visit his "benefactor" al-Walid, but arrived after Sulayman's accession) and orders "five of the leading Arabs of al-Andalus", among whom were Ziyad and Habib, to assassinate Abd al-Aziz. Nothing is mentioned of the victim's head being delivered to Sulayman or why exactly the deed was ordered; one may presume it was related to the caliph's tension with Musa. Need to sort all of this out. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more. The EI2 entry on Musa notes the stories about his later life are filled with legend and David James, the translator and editor of a 10th-century Andalusian manuscript I just used to expand this section, also makes note of legendary elements in the narrative about Musa's imprisonment. Perhaps the multiple narratives about his and his son's fates ought to be discussed in further detail in the articles about Musa and Abd al-Aziz. Thoughts? Al Ameer (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Yazid acted with a staunch preference for the Yaman, there is no indication that Sulayman favored one faction over the other." Other historians' views on the matter are presented as views, but Wellhausen's as fact.
This would require changing the content of the template or replacing the templates altogether. Is it necessary? And if so, @Cplakidas: would it make sense for me to change "E. J. Brill" to just "Brill" in all the EI2 templates? Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can change Brill in other sources to E. J. Brill.
That Walid died on 23 February is not in Tab (it just says late February). EI2 article on Sulayman says Walid died on 24 February.
"In 701, Sulayman led the Hajj pilgrimage caravan to Mecca." According to the cited source, "he led hajj", which by default means he led the hajj rituals.
The section Assessment sounds like minutes of a meeting. For modern historians, you could use "notes/has noted", "agrees/has agreed" etc instead of noted/concurred/agreed.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Yazid used his tribal connections with the district's large Yamani Azdi population to gain Sulayman's protection." You might need to change the page number of Crone 1980 citation here.
"The funeral for another of his sons, Abd al-Rahman, was held in Ascalon." This is irrelevant and completely trivial.
Removed. May add that through another of his sons, Abd al-Wahid, he had descendants recorded by the sources in Islamic Spain with the nisba "al-Sulaymani". Al Ameer (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness-wise quite good, other aspects well. Prose vetted by others. I am supporting now. If there isn't overlap of Brill/E. J. Brill using templates, all Brills should be changed to EJs. If overlap exists, then no change needed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AhmadLX and Al Ameer son:, on Brill, it is a matter of chronology: after a certain point (c. 1998, IIRC), E.J. Brill became simply Brill (I don't know the reason). But the reference is still correct and appropriate, we cannot retroactively change the publisher merely for consistency's sake. Constantine ✍ 19:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, J. S. Bach's Cantata No. I, which - as you probably know - means nothing chronological, but that it was selected to be No. 1 in the first attempt to print all of his works 100 years after his death. It is a chorale cantata on a beloved hymn. Bach planned a complete yearly cycle of such cantatas for his second year in the Leipzig office of Thomaskantor, but this one, for Annunciation (to Mary that she'd bear a child, so 9 months before Christmas, 25 March) became the last one, possibly because the librettist died. Annunciation was the only occasion during the long period of Lent for which festive cantata music was allowed.
Based on comments below, we have split the details of the recordings section to a separate article, as before for BWV 4. Please be patient with that article to grow, and the section here to be just a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with naming conventions for Bach's work. In my understanding, "BWV" is an organization/compendium of Bach's music? In that case, shouldn't the article title just be Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern and move the hymn it's based on to Wie ... Morgenstern (hymn), since I doubt there is another piece to confuse it with?
The cantatas are uniformly named since a 2010 discussion. The hymn came first, the cantata was derived. --GA
Sounds good!
I'm thinking about the lead, which was hard for me to fully understand. As an FA I'd like it to be really accessible, but I also understand that this article is one that an excited newbie to Bach chorales (hint, me!!) would be unlikely to visit. Hopefully others can weigh in, but in my mind it should give more context or be organized slightly differently.
You mean "Bach chorale cantatas". There are practically no chorale tunes by Bach, but hundreds of four-part settings of the tunes of others, which might be called Bach chorales. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining! Well... as you can plainly see, I'm unfamiliar with all this, but hopefully that will help us make a widely understandable article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Bach composed it in his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, where the Marian feast was the only occasion during Lent when festive music was permitted. I think this sentence would be more appropriate for opening the third paragraph.
I think the extra weight of a cantata performance after weeks of "fasting" should come sooner. --GA
Sure, but I think we should give some more context for our non-Christian readers. I'll think about this.
Is the Marian feast the same as the feast of the Annunciation? In my understanding there are multiple Marian feasts
It's to avoid repetition, and to explain to those who still don't know that it IS a Marian feast. We could say this Marian feast, if it helps. --GA
I think "this Marian feast" would be clearer, but I'd be fine with just "the feast".
I think the wikilink to theme should be removed because it goes to something literary, not musical
At this point, it is the theme/topic in a narrative sense, not a musical theme. --GA
Oh duh!! Can we just say "The hymn suits..."
three vocal soloists maybe three solo vocalists ?
convince me ;) - we also have the two violin soloists, - how would you call those then? --GA
A Google ngram shows the two choices have nearly equal prevalence, but I'd prefer the latter for parallelism with two solo violins later in the sentence.
I didn't know that connotation! Okay, keep the original
continuo I've heard of "basso continuo" but somehow never heard it shortened to continuo. Would spelling it out in full be fine?
We don't do that in the other cantata articles. Th uninitiated might confuse it with double bass. We could use b.c. but I'd find that less clear. --GA
The double bass...? I'll again have to think about the intended audience of this article. It's a prospective FA, so I'd like the lead to be pretty accessible. I'll go over it again after reading the full article.
retaining the hymn's first and last stanzas unchanged I think we should make clear that the usual procedures for Bach's second cycle specifically included retaining the first and last stanzas unchanged. As it reads right now, it sounds like the hymn was paraphrased for each cantata, but not necessarily in this specific way.
We do that in the body. I wonder if the concept of a Bach chorale cantata (linked, and this thing explained in the lead) should be repeated in individual cantata leads (40!), - boring for those who know that, and want to know about this specific piece.
Sure, but the sentence as it stands is a bit vague on this and leaves the reader (er, me at least) a bit puzzled. How about As usual for Bach's second cantata cycle, the hymn was paraphrased by a contemporary poet retaining the hymn's first and last stanzas unchanged, but transforming the themes of the inner stanzas to a sequence of alternating recitatives and arias. Alternatively, as you say it may not be important to repeat it on each article
I'm not sure why I quoted so much. The only difference is the removal of the comma after "poet", which grammatically means the entire section portion is usual for the cycle (but is still readable).
Based on Philipp Nicolai's hymn "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" (1599) I think it might help readers if we do Based on Philipp Nicholai's 1599 hymn of the same name and not wikilink hymn; I don't think this lead is understandable to those who don't know what a hymn is
in a spirit of longing expectation of an arrival "in a spirit of" has a lot of imprecise meanings to me. Could we say "evoking the feeling of longing expectation of an arrival" or "representing the longing expectation of an arrival".
English is not my first language, I am thankful for guidance in such matters. Spirit still seems to evoke more the "representing", but I may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be more clear for the uninformed that this arrival is the feast. (Right?) So maybe "representing the longing expectation of an arrival—the feast."
Oops, I didn't understand that either. I think it's very important for context
Last thing for now: crowns the closing chorale. What do you mean by "crowns"?
Well, perhaps a too literal translation from German, short for what the source has: "In the splendid final chorale, however, the horns are to the fore. Whereas the other instruments move together with the vocal lines, the second horn acts independently and, with its signal-like motifs, lends an air of baroque festive splendour to the concluding strophe". Usually at this point, a closing choral is simple, four vocal parts and the instruments playing with them. This is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Thomaskantor italicize? From what I understand, the Thomaskantor is the director of the Thomanerchor group in particular? I would appreciate if this was clarified
It isn't. Thomaskantor implies all these duties, at least during Bach's time. I am not sure about italics, - we wouldn't have Generalmusikdirektor italic, no, or in general German titles which have an article (or redirect). --GA
Suggestion: In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He was employed by the town of Leipzig to this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training and education of boys singing in the Thomanerchor. The second sentence duplicates some information from the first, so how about In 1723, Bach was appointed as the Thomaskantor in Leipzig, making him responsible for the music of four Leipzig churches and for the training and education of those in the Thomanerchor, a boys' choir group.
Not convinced yet. The Thomanerchor is one of best-known choirs in the world, - I don't think we need to explain. We wouldn't for The Beatles, I guess. --GA
I would explain for The Beatles too. Sadly, I've never heard of the Thomanerchor before.
I did! It's crazy to me that such an old choir is still singing together. Listened to a 2000 recording of theirs of "Weihnachtsoratorium (Kantate IV)", though I'm not sure where that cantata (?) lies in Bach's life. Maybe we can discuss more on your talk.
for these occasions I think we should move the preceding comma and use "for liturgical events" for clarity
"event" sounds strange for a performance during a church service ;) - changed, and "liturgical" repeated the second time. --GA
text and tune Is tune the formal word to use here? What does it mean
Yes, see link. A hymn tune is a certain melody, to which sometimes several songs are sung. Old 100th, for example. This hymn's tune is also used for other hymns. --GA
25 March, nine months before Christmas Is the nine months important?
Yes, explaining why celebrated then, duration of normal pregnancy. It could be removed if you feel strongly about it. --GA
I didn't make that connection... could this be explained?
While the name of the librettist I think "identity" is more appropriate here
taken --GA
his death in January 1725 would explain that Bach lost a competent collaborator and inspiration This feels like a non sequitur or maybe just unrelated. Do you mean "his death in January 1725 would explain the end of Bach's cycle?"
yes and no, - he could have proceeded with someone else, but seems to have wanted this particular one, - open to suggestions --GA
How about his death in January 1725—for Bach, the loss of a competent collaborator—may explain the end of the second cycle.
The composer returned to other texts I think we can just say "Bach" instead of "The composer"
... but we just said Bach the previous half-sentence --GA
I'm not hard pressed about this one, but I just like the sound of "Bach" better than "The composer". To be more figurative about this change, why describe him in such banal terms as "the composer"?
meant so much to him For formal tone, "was so important to him"
taken, even if - to me - it sounds more commonplace, - my translator also also offers "significant" --GA
and in later years added Can we just say "and later added" ?
I think it might be interesting that it wasn't just writing missing ones the following year but a process over several years, - one here, one there, up to 1735. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find that fascinating. How about and sporadically, over the next ten years, added ?
About the Thomanerchor: Looking at Erschallet,_ihr_Lieder,_erklinget,_ihr_Saiten!_BWV_172, one of your earlier FAs, the Thomanerchor isn't mentioned. Is that sentence necessary, since we don't talk about the boys' group at all?
That was my first FA, and a long time ago, - perhaps better compare to BWV 125, the most recent, or even BWV 56 which didn't make FA but I remember good discussions. We talked about the group in the background section, and it's mentioned in recordings (without italics, no need for choirs to be italic, even if foreign language), and I like to hint at the tradition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A festive scoring like this, including brass It's unclear why the instrumentation is inherently festive; is it because it includes brass?
"normal" was just strings and oboes, and anything more was "festive" --GA
I changed the table to use {{music}}, let me know if that's okay
ok --GA
The sparkle of the morning star is illustrated Putting quotes around "sparkle of the morning star" would help readers understand what you mean
not sure I understand, and it's not me but a source author who means something ;) --GA
Is there any more information about movements 2 through 6?
probably, give me some time, please. - history: Mincham has much detail, but was not accepted as reliable by some, and Gardiner was available online only by Bach Cantatas Website which was regarded as illegal copying. I'll check them out. --GA
Manuscripts & publication
copies of the vocal and instrumental parts are extant, and held by the Bach Archive in Leipzig Can we just say copies of the vocal and instrumental parts are held by the Bach Archive in Leipzig ?
I added a "but" after the preceding "lost", thinking it's clearer --GA
This set of performance parts is marked as original source at the Bach Digital 1 website, Is this "marking" bit necessary? I think it's a bit confusing
@Gog the Mild: A reluctant oppose until the discography thing is resolved, at which point I'd need to review once more. Seems to be a sourcing problem? I don't really want to wade into this... :( Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it over the weekend - but first the hymn tune requested by Mirokado, and I believe a short summary here is what will remain, with a separate article about the details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of the cantata is given as 25 minutes Given by whom? Bach himself?
no, the source :) - this is a standard wording, of course the duration varies due to conductor mood, but we take them all from Dürr, so it gives an idea --GA
To me this sentence implies Bach said so. How about "One author gives the duration of the cantata as 25 minutes" or "Dürr gives ... minutes"
You seem to be the only one to think so. In all FAs about Bach cantatas, we don't give that much attention to who said it, and - as explained - it's only relative anyway. - If I had meant that Bach saids so, I would have said so, in active voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I'm not thoroughly convinced but the other FA I checked had it as you said. I see that Dürr is a really helpful source in these articles, heh! Ovinus (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
firstly, its text ... well-crafted and mature This sentence scares me; I can't tell whether it's grammatically sound. Perhaps it could be split up?
I thought by saying it will be three, and then have firstly to finally, it's structured enough. I'm afraid that if we split it , we may loose where Leisinger's reasoning ends. Or what would you suggest?
Take a look at what I did? I separated the three reasons with semicolons.
It's standard for higher quality articles on Bach's cantatas to have a section for each movement. There's not much to say about a short recitative, about also no natural combination to the previous and following movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is best for one article may not work for another. Maybe it is appropriate in other articles to have separate sections for each movement, but this article would be better served by a unified approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a series, and a unified approach concerns them all. The sections will grow (because I found a new ref), just the recitative will always remain short. --GA
In the table of recordings, the OCLC links do not consistently support all of the details in the table - for example, the use of period instruments. In other cases the information provided at the link actively contradicts what is in the table - for example the second entry lists a label of Erato, but the link indicates World Record Club and doesn't mention Erato at all
I was a bit in a rush, - several were reissued. I'll look again. All recordings are sourced to the Bach Cantatas Website, but now we have a critic who doesn't accept that as a reliable source. --GA
In older Bach cantata FAs (172, 4), the position was held by scores, sources for the music. In the meantime, we have Bach Digital, where you can see facsimiles of what was handwritten at Bach's time, - that's not any web source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that what is actually being cited to these sources though is supported not by the scores but by the information on the site itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tricky question. I believe that it's more helpful to an English-speaking audience than the German original. I found it in Thomaskantor where it must have been for years. --GA
Jones: why include page number in both short and full cite?
I'd like to link to the section about the cantata, and mention those pages in the full cite, but there are other more general facts referenced to other pages. Help? --GA
Sorry I confused Jones' own book with the translation of Dürr. I now cited two pages, giving the beginning of the chapter as initial link, and using para chapter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Zahn including publication location when it was not mentioned for the other sources?
I wouldn't like to remove something which someone else added, and may be useful for some readers. How would I find locations for books that I know by Google? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Terry: link provided doesn't match bibliographic details listed
same, and I am not sure I understand the question. --GA
If you click the link provided for Terry, it doesn't go to a work by Terry, it goes to the book by Wolff - in other words, the link is a different work than what is actually being cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One reviewer asked for sources to the discography, the next for more detail on the hymn, and first also for reception. I am willing to oblige. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting after recent edits:
Would suggest value statements like "morning star is a good image for the heavenly light" would benefit from in-text attribution
Does the parenthesis end where the quote ends? If so, can it be added? There are a few other spots that would benefit from attribution because they are either value statements or interpretation - for example the "It is unclear..." line in the previous section. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting the latter part of this point: interpretive statements like the "It is unclear" line would benefit from in-text attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN9: is this fact not available in secondary sources?
It is a secondary source, no? - I hope that ref numbers are still the same, I see it for more chorale text than biblical in the chorale cantata cycle, which is almost self-evident. --GA
I see that Aza24 asked for an explanation of the significance of the time period - I'm not seeing that this sourcing was requested, have I missed it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either include locations for all books, or don't - this should be consistent. If they are to be included please check that they are accurate - Columbia University Press is not in Columbia
FN34 is too broad a page range. Also how are you deciding whether page numbers appear in short vs long citations?
I added now the precise link to p. 91 (FN34) and p. 94 (FN35), but think the range of the chapter is good to know for someone who wants more background. --GA
I try to give the page in the short citation, but rather than giving no page in the full citation, I try to indicate where the relevant chapter begins, like for Dürr/Jones the beginning (to end) of the chapter covering the cantata, although other facts may come from elsewhere in the book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN40 is missing page(s)
added, my bad --GA
University of Hamburg is a publisher, not a work, and shouldn't be italicized. Check for other problems of this kind.
As per WP:ELCITE citation template shouldn't be used in External links, and how are you deciding which links to include here?
Some links there are former refs, and one was restored to ref, per Mirokado. Why does it matter, just for curiosity? It looks the same to the reader. --GA
"subscription required" should be indicated separately, not within the work title parameter, although the link appears to be accessible without subscription anyway?
removed - it works now. After I had looked at several reviews from the site, I was requested to subscribe, but not again recently. --GA
Check alphabetization of Periodicals
good catch --GA
Kenney is an editor, not an author - check for others
Kenney changed --GA
Why include |via= for Qucosa but not other sources?
You'd have to ask Francis Schonken. I removed it. --GA
There are no citations to Terry or Harnoncourt
Terry is now in the hymn, Harnoncourt in discography, - thank you for noticing --GA
Hofmann is listed under Online sources, but has no online link - should not be in this section
I can't believe that the quotation by the Bach Cantatas Website of the liner notes is against the will of the publishers, - they could have requested removal a decade ago. Francis Schonken believes otherwise, and my appetite to argue with him is zero. I believe further that a link would help our readers to verify, but. Moving for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that you've moved it, but I'm not sure liner notes are well placed in a Book category either. What about splitting Print/Online rather than Books/Periodicals/Online? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN43: the list at the source doesn't appear to be in a particular order
in what order would you think? --GA
The citation is supporting the claim that this work "appeared as No. 4", suggesting fourth-most favourite or the like. Since it seems that the list is not in ranked order, I would suggest reframing to just say it was one of the fifteen on all three lists. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Hamburg source appears to be a republication - if this is an authorized republication, the citation should include details of the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For easier recognisability, I'll name the sources: 1) Mincham, 2) Dahn, 3) Bach Cantatas Website, 4) Dellal. All four have in common that they cover details in an accessible way, and that they are used selectively in the article.
Mincham - the website was introduced to project Classical music in 2010, and pros and cons discussed (can be found in the project archives, nutshell: use with care). My pros: he has many music examples to offer (more than Dürr/Jones), and right next to explanations, which I find may be easier to access, especially for lay readers, than turning to a score, possibly handwritten in old clefs. He has been frowned upon by Brian Boulton who knew him personally, found him nice but no authority, but was used heavily as a source for articles by others, see BWV 28 (mostly by Nikkimaria).
Dahn - the website is focused on the chorale settings by Bach, offers the precise four-part setting, with background information about a hymn's history, but is used exclusively to easily show the music. This could be under external links, but would there be harder to connect to the movement in question.
Bach Cantata Website - the page from that website was the key source for our article when it was begun in 2005, and still in 2009. It just is the best source I'd know about details of recordings, such as who played the oboes in a certain recording. It would be silly to leave readers suddenly without that. Again, it could go to external links, but then the connection to the recordings - the only place where it is referred to - would be harder to make. - As the site has been under fire, all recordings also come with an entry on WorldCat, and I can look for reviews in addition.
Dellal - Pamela Dellal translated all of Bach's works with text, and - may Jones forgive me - often does it better than in the Dürr/Jones. She is referenced only for her quoted translations, which add to understanding the content.
Looking at other Bach cantata FAs: Dahn was not used because he was not yet know, Mincham was used less from 2015 when Brian had commented:
WP:SELFPUB source; seems to pass the policy requirement "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[1] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[2]"
It is stated in the BWV 1#Movements section: "... the musicologist Julian Mincham ..." (emphasis added) – I could however not find a source yet confirming that Mincham is actually a musicologist (heading a music department is not the same as being a musicologist)
reliable source in the context, with the caveat that Mincham shouldn't be called a "musicologist" unless reliable sources demonstrate that this is correct.
Dahn's bach-chorales website:
WP:SELFPUB source which seems to pass the policy requirement quoted in the first bullet of #1 above.
Weakest point of this source is, imho, that it relies on bach-cantatas (see #3 below) for understanding the German-language sources on which it relies (the problem being rather in poor understanding of German leading to misunderstandings/misrepresentations than in the underlying German-language sources themselves). This problem appears however limited to German sources about the origin of hymns (hymn texts and chorale melodies) when there are no up-to-date English-language sources about these hymns.
reliable source in the context, with the caveat that, generally, information about the history of the hymns modelling for Bach's compositions should always be double-checked (occasionally a German-language source about the history of such hymn is misrepresented)
Bach-cantatas website by Oron, Braatz, and others:
That the source is quoted elsewhere, in more reliable sources, is independent of the assessment of this source (and the assessment of the sources quoting bach-chorales.com)
not a reliable source
Dellal's translations at emmanuelmusic.org:
Emmanuel Music seems to tick all boxes of a reliable source (at least I can't see a single of such boxes that wouldn't be ticked).
Dellal's translations have the advantage of being in up-to-date English, compared to more stolid translations that can be found elsewhere.
^Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:
The University of California, Berkeley library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."
@Ealdgyth: I have recently helped upload the brand new image for the infobox of BWV 1. I agree with User:Gerda Arendt and User:Nikkimaria that the Bach Cantatas website is a reliable source, particularly for discussions of recordings. It is listed in the encyclopedic book on the Cantatas of J S Bach by Alfred Dürr and Richard D. P. Jones. For English translations, some care is sometimes needed with metrical vs literal translations. The English libretto by Mervanwy Roberts in the Breitkopf & Härtel edition might not be ideal—it seems stilted. The literal translations of the edition of John Eliot Gardiner/Christoph Wolff can often be used as the basis of a home-brewed literal translation. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find I'm convinced by #2 and #4. We need to remember that the FA standard is "high quality" and while #1 and #3 may meet the WP:RS standard, I'm still not seeing that they meet the FA criteria of high quality. Note that I don't take account of what may have happened at other articles or in the past or at other FACs... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can live without #1. But, as explained, #3 was The Source for this article from 2005, and is used as a backup only, supported also by other sources. Removing it entirely seems like separating a child from its mother, denying that she was the mother, although the relationship was visible to the world for 15+ years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, building on your analogy: maybe time this article grew up, start a life in its own right (... as a FA) & stopped living under its parent's tutelage? Anyway, don't think an article promoted to FA in 2021 should still use Bach Cantatas Website as if it were a reliable source. Sorry. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I grow up, I don't deny who my mother was, and don't eradicate her memory. I am thankful to the editors before me who built the recordings section based on BCW, and have no intention to hide that. Rather no FA. - I will work on your "citation required", but probably not today. A remark here that you think they need a citation would look better to out readers than tags in the article, imho. Today, I want to improve Arik Brauer further. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Rather no FA" – is that official? I really think it better to make the decision about BCW without further delay, in order not to create false expectations... --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking to Ealdgyth about BCW, and would appreciate if you would not change the article until we reach a conclusion. We have time, Ealdgyth has to schedule TFA February, and I have to improve "my" article, and there's no danger with BCW in the article as it was from the beginning. Kindly self-revert for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but there is no exception for "mother source" in the criteria. You're welcome to convince me that the two sources meet the "high quality" reliable source and thus the FA criteria, but I can't see how these sources right now satisfy the requirement. And personal feelings of "honoring a mother" quite honestly have no place in editing wikipedia. That's not how we source things. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the discography has now been spun off to Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 discography. The problems relating to the Bach Cantatas Website source have been re-introduced there. That being another problem altogether, I do think that the current "Recordings" section of the BWV 1 article is rather shortish (apart from a still unresolved sourcing issue), anyway too short for a FA (one-paragraph main sections are a bit of a layout issue too): this could be addressed by expanding the recordings section a bit, or by a more integrated "Reception" section. I'd leave it to the FAC initiator to address the issue ASAP, with whatever means they think appropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see a general explanation (as of when the split was made) at the top? The new article will be developed, and then this summary will be adjusted. Today, I need to work first on the article of a Recent death biography which can not wait. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Almost all editors today have been making helpful edits to the new discography article. At the same time, tags have been added to the discography article. Too many tags indicates poor quality; so a poor quality article cannot be merged into a WP:GA. Theoretically the same problem applies to BWV 4 amd its separate discography. Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little new to the FA side of things, so take this all with a grain of salt.
also with a designation for a Marian feast which made it acceptable also for Catholic performers and musicologists The second "also" may be unecessary.
Hello Gerda. I hope to read through the article over the next few days.
Thomaskantor: italicised in the lead, not in two later sections. I think without italics is better, since italics are being used for work titles and this is a position. (The linked article has the same problem, with the title and some occurrences without italics, but italics for the bold occurrence in the lead).
§Hymn: Can you say a bit more about the original tune for Nicolai's chorale than just the Zahn number? For example, the composer, or say it is traditional or composer unknown or whatever.
I'll see. Traditionally, it was believed that Nicolai wrote both text and tune, but now Zahn says the tune is older, I'll check, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "was to be" would be a better idiom than "turned out to be".
taken, changed --GA
There is a little confusion between "the last chorale cantata of Bach's second cantata cycle" and "over the following decade added a few chorale cantatas for some missing occasions".
It is tough. We need to distinguish "second cycle" (per date, mid 1724 to mid 1725) and "chorale cantata cycle" (exclusively chorale cantatas, the early BWV 4, and several later, the last 1735). Where is that not clear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "here be Dragons!" How about "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern was to be the last newly composed chorale cantata of Bach's second cantata cycle.", taking the phrase from the linked article. That explains in what way it was "last". --Mirokado (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, changed. The Easter cantata was the only exception - the only older composition performed that year. Unbelievable creativity, all these Sundays, + some saint's days and 3 each for Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
would it be better to say "solo violins" for the first two mentioned?
tried, pleas check --GA
That is better, easy for a reader unfamiliar with some of the musical terms to understand. --M
the second pair of violins is described as "obbligato". What about the other instruments? (obbligato says the opposite is ad libitum, what is the distinction if neither are specified?)
§Movements §4: "Ein irdscher Glanz, ein leiblich Licht rührt meine Seele nicht" (An earthly flash, a corporeal light does not stir my soul): I have my doubts that "flash" is a good translation for "Glanz", which at least in modern usage indicates a continuous light of some sort rather than something which is inherently transient like a "flash".
You are right. Only: we take translations from the sources. I'd like to check how Jones translated, but have no access to the page 667), - anybody? If I find another, I can change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An earthly flash, a corporeal light does not stir my soul; (emmanuelmusic): flash is just wrong, corporeal is a bit clumsy
A temporal luster, a carnal sheen, do not stir my soul; (lyricstranslate): sheen and lustre are both quite good for Glanz, temporal is wrong for earthly and carnal has inappropriate connotations. Also found via Bach Cantatas with a different copyright.
No earthly gloss, no fleshly light / Could ever stir my soul; (Ambrose): I agree, pretty good, particularly the meter, and a good English idiom which conveys the meaning even if not a word-for-word translation
In this case, Google translate does rather well,
An earthly shine, a bodily light does not move my soul (Google translate): Accurate, unpretentious
Also:
A glitter from the earth, a light from the body does not move my soul; (Francis Browne (probably him), via Bach Cantatas): glitter is interesting, otherwise rather too many words
Should we continue to use emmanuelmusic? No, we cannot use obviously incorrect material for our main content just because someone has published it somewhere, however "reliable" or "high quality" other things they have published may be.
Can we use Ambrose? I think so, at least for a translation:
His translations were published (BWV 1 here) on the University of Vermont website in 1997–1998, long before they appeared as XLibris books (self-published)
We are not relying on any expertise in BWV 1 here, just a translation which anyone can check for themselves
There is clearly no one "right" translation for these lines. I think I might prefer "fleshly glow" to "fleshly light" since glowworms glow, people glow with health and "gloss" and "glow" go nicely together, but Ambrose's translation is fine. --Mirokado (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, and I hope to get to them in detail later tomorrow. (In the morning, I'll have a chance to listen to BWV 3 in a cantata service!) I agree with Thomaskantor better not italic, - the problem seems to be that {{lang}} formerly didn't set italics, and now does, and not all instances have been found and changed. This may be one of them. More on the hymn is a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado, update: I fixed Thomaskantor in both articles, and replied above. Before looking at the hymn history, I plan to expand the music, split the recordings section and expand an article of someone who died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"at the Bach Digital website": we normally italicise website (work) names, I suggest doing that here too, also for the mentions elsewhere including short notes and §Cited sources. --Mirokado (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... initiated by ..., and ... a century after Bach's death." With a long list each of whose entries are also long, it would be better to have the list last in the sentence, so the reader can tell where it ends without having to parse the start of a phrase qualifying the subject of the list in some way. Thus I suggest rearranging the sentence: "... initiated a century after Bach's death by ..., and ...". --Mirokado (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tried, please check --GA
Super, thanks. --M
"The chorale cantata was a good work for the programmatic, with a chorale text not relying on "disreputable German church texts" ("verruchte deutsche Kirchen-Texten") as Carl Friedrich Zelter had phrased it, also with a designation for a Marian feast which made it acceptable for Catholic performers and musicologists, and finally as a particularly well-crafted and mature composition.[ref]": several problems here:
The opinion should not be in Wikipedia's voice, so inline attribution to the ref author is needed
"programmatic" is problematic here, not a correct idiom
you've already removed one "also", I think we can lose the remaining one too
something like: "According to musicologist Ulrich Leisinger, the chorale cantata was a good choice to open the program, with a chorale text not relying on "disreputable German church texts" ("verruchte deutsche Kirchen-Texten") as Carl Friedrich Zelter had phrased it, with a designation for a Marian feast which made it acceptable for Catholic performers and musicologists, and finally as a particularly well-crafted and mature composition.[ref]" --Mirokado (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The short notes for Wolff 2002 sometimes have hyperlinked page numbers, sometimes not. I suggest you link a single page or first page for a page range for each note. There is no need to link the last page in the range too. --Mirokado (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read through the updated Reception section and copyedited a bit. Once the two open points above are addressed I will be happy to support, assuming there are no further substantial changes. --Mirokado (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the reception-related material seems underdeveloped. Meaning, the history/context material is fairly well developed (compared to some other compositions by Bach, relatively much is known about the origin of this work); also the description of the work is fairly well-developed in the article; relatively little is, on the other hand, given about how the piece was received in the 170 years since its first publication. That seems, over-all, an unbalance of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something specific in mind, for this cantata? Or perhaps at least link with a summary to the section about reception of the chorale cantatas in general? - We do have FAs on compositions without Reception, but "with" would be preferable. Feel free to add. I plan to say more about the melody of the hymn tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you misunderstood:
I've applied some updates etc to the article (no big stuff, this isn't my FAC)
My remark #1 above is rather the big stuff which I won't be doing: if I would, you might not recognise the bottom third of the article when I'm done. We've been there in previous FA's, so I won't be going that path.
For clarity, there's no time limit, take all the time you need.
Not interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or ... DOESNTEXIST) type of reasoning: for THIS cantata (BWV 1) there's 170 years of reception history that isn't covered adequately in the article (especially since the short discography overview was removed).
trying to be a bit more specific:
there's some reception history between the publication of the cantata (1851) and the end of the 19th century. I'd like to see some summary of it in the article;
there's some reception history in the first half of the 20th century. I'd like to see some summary of it in the article;
reception history in the second half of the 20th century should be expanded
reception history in the first decades of the 21st century should be expanded
I'll come back every now and then to see whether this is evolving in some direction. If you have questions (that is, apart from asking me to do the legwork), I'd be happy to oblige. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my #3 above, in view of the #Coordinator note of 15:09, 9 February 2021 below: there appears to be some sort of (soft?) time limit. @Gerda Arendt: could you provide a time prognosis as to how much longer it would take you to get this sorted? Add one or two days more for me to come back and check, and then try to get the coordinator's approval for the delay. Until then, with the current rather limited "reception" content in this article, I can't support this to become FA yet. Finally, some ideas where you might find stepstones on this:
Thank you for posting the list of potential sources (certainly helpful for me and a good example of how we should work together). --Mirokado (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the stepping stones. I used #2 and will look further tomorrow. In #1, the first movement of the cantata is mentioned in comparison to Kuhnau, but I see nothing more substantial which would deserve coverage here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19th-century reception, and reception from the second half of the 20th century seem more or less covered; reception in the first half of the 20th century is not covered adequately yet:
The third paragraph of the "Reception" section is currently one (unsourced) sentence – that sentence needs a reference
Content on reception in the first half of the 20th century can further be expanded with material found in the last two links listed above (likely for expansion of the 3rd paragraph of the "Reception" section) and in the 4th link listed above (likely rather for "Manuscripts and publication" subsection)
Gerda, I'm finished editing the BWV 1 article for now (meaning: likely won't be editing it again before conclusion of this FAC procedure one way or another – so no fear you might get in an edit conflict with me when applying further suggestions made in this FAC to mainspace); in my last edit I inserted some hidden comments where the suggestions made by me above may be inserted. If you can cover that more or less adequately, I'd rather support a successful outcome of this FAC. If you have trouble giving a reference for the No. 1 listing in the BWV of 1950, I'd be happy to provide that – that is, if and when the first-half-of-20th-century reception of this cantata has been elaborated satisfactorily in mainspace, otherwise, after the FAC conclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the above, including the oddity. I took the Voigt and Schweitzer on board. I am unsure how to mention that only one performance of BWV 1 was listed 1904-07 compared to many of the Passions without getting too wordy about that one line. Terry, I think, is better in the hymn article. Mentioning the Poole, I wonder if we should mention trivia from 2018 also, [25]? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2018 selection as one of Bach's 33 best church cantatas by three leading experts (Maul, Wollny, Gardiner). (as a side-note: I have been red-linking Peter Wollny in many articles by now – I hope someone will some time get around initiating that article). Below I see you're planning on extending the editions a bit probably later today – after that, I'll try to do my last checks on the entire article within 24H (after a cursory glance I think a few small improvements to phrasing etc would be in order, nothing big). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reacting to somehing you wrote in a comment in the article) Gerda Arendt, re. "should we talk about the just one performance?": there are two, one in Bethlehem, PA and one in Leipzig. If it were just the one in Leipzig, then I'd say nothing special – adding the American one seems a bit less ordinary for the era we're talking about here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I like your wording for Leisinger's three reasons, - I thought it was undue weight to go into such detail but appreciate it. However, "following Zelter's appreciation" is not clear to me. I am used to appreciation as rather positive, and his is more a verdict, no? Also, did others "follow" his statement, or did he just summarize what was around anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zelter, who died in 1832, is, afaik, not "mid 19th-century", so the mid 19th-century views followed (after) Zelter's assessment. I changed "appreciation" to "assessment" per your remark. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that it is a good find, I doubt that it should go to this particular work, rather perhaps to Zelter's article - a section that could be linked to, including from here? - or a broader perspective of the 19th century on the 18th. So take your time reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I'm currently rejigging the sources list: the old distinctions (e.g. Print vs. Online sources) made no sense: how is a reader, checking sources, supposed to know that the full reference for "Gardiner 2013" is to be found in another of these sub-lists than the full reference for "Gardiner 2006"? That's all very well if you have an on-line application with an operational pointing device, but doesn't work, e.g., for printed versions of the article. "Bach Digital 3216 2020" (my emphasis) was even worse as no full citation even mentioned the "3216" number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I have no idea what you mean by old distinctions when it's new distinction made to please Nikkimaria. Can we please agree on making suggestions here but not rejigging but discussing first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that is of no concern. Please discuss it with Nikkimaria. I understand that you make a list by title, and one by author, correct? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, seeing your comments in the #Source review section above it is my humble opinion that your contributions to this FAC have ceased to be helpful a long time ago. However, in the off-chance I'm wrong about that, could you please explain "might as well use a single list with no separation"? I think I'm not getting what you mean. What difference would that make (as in: practically) – or what do you actually propose? And why would that be a better arrangement than the current one? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether that is Nikkimaria's intention, and even less why that would be a good idea in Nikkimaria's or your mind. For me, I'd oppose it: when starting to look for something in the sources section, one can see past the three "by title" entries immediately, locating the start of the "by author" list without much ado. In what you propose it would be harder to find the three "by title" ones so deep below the start of the section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I can imagine a reader searching for a specific author, I see nobody searching for a specific title. From the article, there are links which make searching unneccessary. I'm just asking, - either way is fine for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is for a printed copy with a reader who doesn't know what list a source would be in, then simply present a single list sorted alphabetically by what is displayed in the References list. This is a common convention that allows one to quickly match up short to long citations, even without links if necessary. The by title/by author distinction is, as Gerda notes, not an intuitive approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... is, as Gerda notes, not an intuitive approach" – Gerda said no such thing: she had no issues with the arrangement I implemented. So, Nikkimaria, your ifs and buts seem of no consequence, as you don't even seem able to explain what you personally prefer, and why. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should not have this discussion in three places, can we please have it here?
The current lead image is in the article since 17 February 2015 : a page from a solo violin part. (It was replaced by the same page in higher quality this year.) I think the violin part, representing the morning star from the title, is a good illustration. You offered an additional image, of the continuo part with bass figures partly by Bach, and I think that has a good position where it is now: in the Music section, where the specialists will look. Bach's contribution to that page was minimal, and is hardly detectable without explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Reception" section has expanded till it is currently around the same size as the other two main sections. This comment is about the lead section of the article: the other two main sections are each summarized into a sizeable paragraph of the intro. The "Reception" section is summarized in a single sentence. The summary of "Reception" topics should be expanded in the intro, until it is roughly covered with the same weight as the other two main sections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hymn" subsection of "Background" section contains "... bridegroom, which refers to Psalm 45, described as a bridal song ...": not only Psalm 45, but Song of Songs evidently too, see Vopelius#p. 814 ([26] – "... Hohen Lied Salomonis" = Song of Songs), but I can't imagine that Vopelius would have been the only one to have remarked that. So "Song of Songs" should be mentioned along Psalm 45, with a decent reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted, except that the added reference isn't fully formatted yet (which I leave to you). Don't think my suggestion was all that difficult to implement. Whether or not this belongs in the hymn article is not something to discuss here, but sure, seems like a shortcoming if it weren't mentioned there yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead of "Music" section: I translated the title page of the manuscript. That title page was not written by Bach, nor by any of his usual scribes (nobody knows who wrote it, and it may well have been written after Bach's death). When I saved that translation, I recall writing something in the edit summary whether this (German) transcript of this manuscript title is needed? I am still asking myself this question... Unless there's a good rationale for keeping it (please state such rationale then), I'd remove it (that is: including my translation). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it's interesting to see in which way (order, language, ...) such a page was composed, I'm not married to it. Perhaps you might find a place for it in reception. An image of said page would be better than trying to imitate the layout, but thank you for trying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Handled. I thought I gave a rather straightforward suggestion, which was also easy enough to execute. I didn't ask for a commentary that was neither here nor there as far as replying to the suggestion goes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead paragraph of "Movements" section: "The scoring provides a rich orchestration" – this sounds awkward: Bach provided the orchestration (the "scoring" does not really provide an orchestration of whatever sort). Please rephrase, e.g. by replacing "The scoring provides" by "Bach provided" (but that is likely not the only possible rephrasing). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same paragraph contains "..., BWV 65, written for Epiphany" – would make that "... , BWV 65, written for Epiphany 1724" (so that it is clear that this is an earlier cantata – like it is clear in the next sentence that the Christmas Oratorio is a later work). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Movement) 4 section: "Melisma embellishment emphasises ..." – the adjectival use of "Melisma" doesn't work very well (sounds pretty awkward), replace by either "A melisma emphasises ..." or "Melismas emphasise ..." (whatever is intended). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General: the prose is partly American English (fervour, emphasises) and partly British english (characterizes): please choose one variety, and update the rest to that variety of English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teldec series (middle paragraph of "Recordings" subsection): in the series, Bach's church cantatas were issued/recorded in BWV order (=BGA order), thus this was evidently the first cantata on the first record of the series: please mention "BWV order" (and/or "BGA order") for this series. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is so, but none of the sources used says so, and the sentence is already long. I don't think it changes much in meaning. The detail could go to the discography article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: thanks. I run through my above 11 comments, just stating whether I consider them handled sufficiently:
OK – at least for me: I can, however, not speak for others who have commented on that.
Not OK. If FA promotion means this is not open for discussion after promotion (some might see FA promotion as a "valid" argument to disallow further consensus seeking ...) then no, the article should not be FA promoted at this point.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Not OK. Doesn't seem too hard to find a source confirming the fact, nor does it seem particularly demanding to split up a long sentence, so all "explanation" notwithstanding this is a plain failure to respond adequately to the suggestion.
Apart from these suggestions, there is a new one (resulting from what happened after I drafted my above list):
Layout problems in the "Movements" subsection. As I had to explain elsewhere not so long ago, WP:SANDWICHING describes the situation where there is an image on the left, some text in the middle, and an image on the right. A similar situation can occur with some poetry (in a foreign language) on the left, the translation of that verse in the middle, and an image on the right. If the poetry has long sentences, which one doesn't want to spill over to the next line (especially as the translation might spill over other lines, or no lines, or vice versa) this results in bad layout, unless when one views the layout on a sufficiently wide screen. The situation is now occurring, and imho unacceptable.
I find it difficult to scroll up and down to find what which bullet means, and wouldn't know where to reply to #12, so do it here: I moved the image below the poetry and hope that will fix it. #2 I don't share your concern that being FA would deter further development (from the FA template: "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."), hopefully by discussion. #11 I think it's undue weight but will look for a ref and a wording, for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. #12: I'd still put {{nowrap}}s around the longest lines (i.e. the longest German line, and the longest translation line) in the poetry (like this), so that poetry lines don't wrap unevenly (so that original and translation would no longer be aligned) on smaller screens. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the "Hamburg 2021" Further reading item to an AV media notes cite template (mentioning author etc), but have now commented out the "url" and "via" parameter values as a precaution: this document is clearly copyrighted to Hänssler Classic (2010), see last page of the document, and I am now uncertain whether the re-publication on Hamburg University's ftp server is legitimate copyright-wise. It might be, but it might as well be on a private part of this university's website without copyright clearance. I looked around on the website but could not find an indication this is part of "official" pages of the website, for which Hamburg University would accept copyright responsibility. I'd rather like to be proven wrong, but as long as the situation is unclear, I assume it is best not to link. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about music to comment in detail on the music, but perhaps a little on what the "Morning Star" actually is. The term is always applied to Venus, by far the brightest object in the morning sky after the Sun and Moon, als auffallend hell leuchtender Stern erscheinen der Planet Venus am östlichen Himmel vor Sonnenaufgang, and surely the point of the title is an analogy between the appearance of he brilliant heavenly object with the birth of Jesus? The same point is made explicit in Revelation 22:16, where the King James version has "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star" Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I agree, but think it's more a topic of the hymn than the cantata, and the hymn is my topic today. Please look there later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Compared to the first cycle, the music has less emphasis on biblical texts, but more on the use of chorale text and melody.[6]" Can this be better explained?
I'll try here: at Bach's time, the sequence of readings from the Bible was the same every year. In his first year, Bach wrote cantatas close to those readings. In his second year - the one this cantata is from - he gave himself the rule to base the cantata on a hymn (chorale, church song), typically (but not here) the one assigned to the occasion, see Church cantata#Annunciation (25 March), Church cantata#Second Sunday after Epiphany (Epiphany II). These hymns were sometimes not really related to the readings, that's text, and he'd use the melody in the opening and the closing movement, that's melody, while some from the first year had a hymn only at the end, and some not even that. How would you say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The cantata and other Bach chorale cantatas were the only works that the city of Leipzig was interested in," It sounds a bit odd to describe a city as interested in something.
The city was his employer, and paying for the archive. It's really amazing how little of his vast output was held in Leipzig, and how much is probably lost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see hidden notes discussing what should be inserted. Are these matters resolved?
Looking promising thus far. I have an empty weekend ahead so I have no excuse to not look at this tomorrow or the day after. Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
some initial comments
There are a lot of dup links btw
I "killed" some, but think that a duplication in lead, History and Music should be permitted, - we can't expect every reader of the Music section to have read the History. --GA
a contemporary poet—I assume (?) this poet is unknown, can we specify that? E.g. "Unknown/unrecorded/anonymous contemporary poet..."—otherwise it looks like we just forgot the name there. ditto for this when the librettist is first mentioned in the body text
Well, as explained, perhaps we know him. The wording dates to a time when we had no idea. --GA
I see what you're saying, but I'm not really sure how valid it is. With this logic we may as well never put anyone as "unknown" or "anonymous" because we could have known them. Aza24 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Aza that the caption of the image in the infobox is a bit uninformative. I'll let you two settle this (and other points of this section) before continuing with my final check of the entire article (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
accents the first aria—the meaning of "accents" is unclear to me here, surely there are less ambiguous words—are you saying, like, "Begins"?
I tried "corresponds" now. Not "begins", - throughout the aria, only this instrument and the bass group play, - perhaps not known to readers unfamiliar with Bach's work that he "coloured" or "flavoured" a movement by reducing the "orchestra" to specific sounds. The German word would be Klangfarbe, lit. sound colour. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, if I'm understand you right, the correct world is "doubles" as in "doubles the first voice"
Sorry, I was not clear. The oboe has its own music, it's just that the strings are silent. (The horn doubles the soprano in the first movement, but that's different.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if "begun a century after his death" can be linked to the Bach revival but eh maybe not
You include translations for all the terms thus far except Thomanerchor?
Thomaskantor is not translated but explained - because it's misleading, it was not just one church covered by the position. Once that is explained, I felt that translating Chor to choir wasn't really needed. --GA
It's all the source gives. If you google you get all crap about that Jesus died and was conceived that day, with no reliable source. Can we please leave it simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
would explain the end of the chorale cantatas in the second cycle, because Bach lost a competent collaborator and source of inspiration.—what about the end of the chorale cantatas? Or are you saying that the piece ended at the chorale cantatas because of this?
I'm sorry that it is so confusing, and we need to do something if it still is. We must distinguish the chorale cantatas of the second cycle which was meant to be a cycle of chorale cantatas exclusively (1724 to exactly this one, 1725) from all his chorale cantatas (1707 to 1735). --GA
No, that explanation is even wrong for this case. For Bach, secco means "the continuo group [alone] plays" vs. accompagnato, "additional instruments play". --GA
ornament means a very specific embellishment, not this: that an instrument plays something at all not at all, I've just looked at the score for the 6th movement, are saying that the horn part really doesn't fall under the definition on the ornament Wikipedia page of In music, ornaments or embellishments are musical flourishes—typically, added notes—that are not essential to carry the overall line of the melody (or harmony), but serve instead to decorate or "ornament" that line (or harmony), provide added interest and variety, and give the performer the opportunity to add expressiveness to a song or piece. Many ornaments are performed as "fast notes" around a central, main note.? Aza24 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We would have to use a different word then, not a link to ornamentation. Very few cantatas have the feature that the chorale is not just four-parts. Suggestions? "enriched" sounds like food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, Aza? - Francis, do you have a suggestion for how to say (s. further up) that we had no idea who the author was until rather recently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: despite my announcement here I'm confronted with edit conflicts. Maybe I should just give up. Oppose promotion to FA. The prose of the article is awkward in about every other paragraph, which seems beyond repair (at least, under the time constraint of a FAC procedure); the manuscript score containing the composer's handwriting is more suitable as lead image than one exclusively by a copyist; etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly say so in your own section, otherwise superficial reading might suggest that Aza opposed. For the image: if that continuo part was written exclusively by Bach, I'd agree, but as his fingering is too small to be detectable in that size, and therefore needs explanation, I prefer the image of the violin part there. Your swap was a bold edit which we please discuss on the talk or somewhere here, - again, please not in Aza's section. Feel free to move this reply with your comment. We had that one edit conflict: the swap of a lead image which was in place for years seemed to justify an immediate revert as such, per WP:BRD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the captions I wrote or rewrote for both performance part images are determined by where each of these images is placed in the article, in view of the "link on first occurrence" principle, in view of not having a name of a secondary figure like J. A. Kuhnau in the lead image caption, etc. That's also why this topic is in this section, it followed on Aza's remark about the lead image caption. The problem remains for the solo violin I image: as a lead image its caption either has to go in a lot of detail (making it excessively long with details not explained in the body of the article) or it would be too short to be sufficiently informative (the repositioned solo violin I image caption fails on both points: too long, and still insufficiently informative when it precedes the body of the article). That's why I proposed the alternative lead image in this section: it makes a relatively short fully informative lead image caption possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I am sorry that I pressed the rollback button instead of thank you, and reverted myself immediately. I like the translation next to the original, among others, thank you! - Just the image, I don't accept, as explained above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original manuscripts of the chorale cantatas remained in the possession of the St. Thomas School, but were later conserved in the Leipzig Bach Archive.[1] Like for most cantatas of this cycle, Bach's original score did not survive.—these lines seem to contradict each other? Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to contradict each other, but before it said "parts" and that's what the manuscripts are: parts. Perhaps you can offer a wording that is less misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just changing "Bach's original score did not survive..." to "Bach's original full score did not survive" would do the trick?
Part of the issue is that, these lines are confusing to the point where, I'm not sure I understand the situation enough to comment on it. I can get at least 4 things from it 1) the original parts survive but the original full score doesn't. 2) the original full score survives but the original parts do not. 3) neither survives. 4) one or the other did survive and was "conserved in the Leipzig Bach Archive", but now is gone...? The distinction between original full score & original parts needs to be a lot clearer. Saying something like "The original manuscripts of the chorale cantatas remained in the possession" is ambiguous and could easily refer to either, regardless of the mentioning of "parts" earlier. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now wondering if the reason there's no ref is because you translated it yourself? That should be fine because of WP:NONENG, but I thought I'd double check Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand the question. Bach-Jahrbuch is literally "Bach yearbook", Jahr is year and Buch is book, for whoever writes that. The publishers call it Bach Annals. Does that help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops communication error on my part, I mean a ref for the english translation from the journal (e.g. "A precious work...")—but I assume you did it yourself so never mind this Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception confuses me a little, most of it is fine, but there is some before Publication (the transmission of the work for example) that doesn't really have anything to do with "Reception". IDK what the best approach would be here, rename the section (legacy?) or maybe split this information into a provenance/transmission section? Change the name to history? Aza24 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, I would think reception is what scholars, audience members, fellow musicians "think of" the work, not where it's been kept. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we know about what scholars, audience members and fellow musicians thought of the work for the period between 1725 (première performance) and 1847 (Winterfeld's commentary)1845 (Mosewius's listing of the cantata)(*)? Afaics, for that period of over a century, all we know is the care they took (or didn't take) in conserving its manuscripts, and the value these manuscripts had in the eyes of those who knew about them. Indeed, manuscripts that today are considered invaluable were in that period traded for nominal amounts, expressing that at least for a part of that period "scholars, audience members, fellow musicians" didn't think very highly of the work, even leading to the loss of the original score. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC); (*) found Mosewius's 1845 listing (without commentary) of the cantata here (last entry in the left column), and updated my comment above accordingly – afaik that was the first time the cantata was mentioned anywhere in print. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though I don't know if it's worth inclusion because of its absence of commentary. I also don't know that we could assume it's the earliest mention without a source saying it is, but perhaps Gerda will think otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this for a while—way too long—and decided that I am ready to support for promotion. I think the prose is good and adding any further information will compromise the article's summary style. I'm also confident in high quality sourcing (especially in light of the most thorough sourcing review above). Aza24 (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than three weeks and has so far received one oppose and no support. Assuming that the issues concerned have been addressed I suggest canvassing the reviewers to date to see what their current views are. Regardless, unless it attracts some support over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issues have not been addressed. One reviewer was not pleased with the source this article was originally built upon, so others had to be found, same reviewer wants a section about reception (and I had no time to even begin), and another reviewer wants more about the underlying hymn, which made me look there and see that it first has to be developed, which I began. Aza24 and Wehwalt promised to look. Perhaps wait for them? Archiving would also be fine with me, however, knowing myself, it would make me procrastinate further, and possibly make me miss next year as this year. Let's please not forget that this article is linked to from the prime source for Bach in the world, - I'd prefer to improve rather sooner than later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is ready to be promoted at present, but I am happy with the quality of the content so far and look forward to completing this or another review when remaining updates are completed. --Mirokado (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the content is great and just lacking in a few areas. Edit: Pretty much ready to support on prose and comprehensiveness. (00:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)) Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article issues are addressed by now. Please indicate open questions if I overlooked them. Nikkimaria and Francis Schonken debate the appearance of the sources. I don't care too much about that at this point. It would be nice if this could be settled not only by 25 March - day of Annunciation - but 21 March, Bach's birthday. I appreciate everybody's patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I think you misunderstand: I currently can't support a FA promotion for this article. I was clear about that above. When I tried a last check some time ago, I was rather aggressively interrupted (by reverts no less) during the proceedings. I don't know when I will have time for another attempt at last check. I think you had time enough to get this in FA shape, but much of the proceedings are what I always dread when one of your GANs or FACs gets started: the article is not even nearly in shape for GA or FA promotion (just see the number of comments on this page!), and there's a large amount of things that don't get sorted unless someone does it for you. I'm tired doing the work for what after the facts you consider your GAs or FAs. I can of course only speak for myself. I care about improving the encyclopedia, and don't care about who does what, but my work being presented as someone else's is, when that is done on a systematic base, getting a bit offensive. So I'd suggest this FA procedure be closed on non-promotion, and we all get to improving the article, not caring about FA promotion until it is really in shape to pass a FAC procedure with no more than a minimal amount of necessary adjustments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still want to do an over-all check (i.e., the entire article, not only the things I mostly (re)wrote myself in the reception section – although even that may still best be checked against the rest of the article, to see whether the narrative is coherent throughout). The issue with the lead image (I think it better to have the manuscript partly written by the composer as lead image instead of the current one, entirely written by a copyist) is also still unresolved. That issue is unrelated to the reception section. I recently also updated the collation of the sources list: while doing that I saw a few issues (which I forgot in the mean while, while the discussion then got hung on the new collation – but I want to take this up again). This is also unrelated to the reception section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, an oppose to promoting an FAC "must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis in original). I can see this with regards to Reception and the lead image. But not for "the entire article". You indicated above that you were unlikely to be coming back to this for some time; have I misunderstood that? While I don't want there to be unseemly haste over something as deciding whether to promote an article to FA, this nomination has been open for two months and you first commented on it 48 days ago. If you have further specific objections, I would be grateful if you could state them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The specific rationale being that I can't agree with the lead image, while there is a better one available (i.e., this arrangement of images instead of the current one), which I explained above (see AZA24's section). I'll try to make time for an over-all last check within the next 24H, which I hope you can grant me. If you want it sooner, let me know. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The best time for precisely worded concerns would have been the peer review in which you participated. The idea of a peer review is to prepare an article. - I don't want to reply to points such as the lead image again here. Please look above. (nutshell: the violins represent the morning star from the title, their music should be visible, not a continuo part in which Bach's entries are marginal, and not detectable to the unprepared reader who would therefore need a long explanation, which is undesirable for a lead image.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I believe that I have grasped your respective opinions on the lead image, and Francis Schonken's on the Reception section. I was concerned that there were other specific objections which had not been articulated and so could neither be responded to by the nominator nor taken into account by me. Francis, haste is good, but no need to rush. I shall return to this in 48 hours. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I shortened it again a bit: one paragraph on reception in the intro suffices. I'm now going to swap the two images again: the intro speaks about Bach's partial autograph (for which the partial autograph image is a better companion), while the scintillating by the violins isn't mentioned until the description of the 1st movement in the "Music" section, for which the violin manuscript picturing that movement is a better companion. I can assure you that neither page is exactly readable until it is clicked and viewed in a scale larger than thumbnail. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for shortening the lead, but I reverted the swapping of the images. After several users supported the violin part for the lead, and you seem to be the only one to prefer the continuo part there, we can discuss, or leave it as is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "After several users supported the violin part for the lead" – I am not able to find that in the discussion above. Can you clarify? As for the reasons why that is sub-optimal, I stick to what I said about that, and remain thus far unconvinced by your counterarguments (and, for clarity, your weak counterarguments are the only counterarguments I see in the discussions about this topic). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't support the violin pic for the lead explicitly, but when they supported it was in place. To make any major change to a FAC, you should seek consensus before. Some reviewers even do that for minor changes. I regard changing the lead image as a major change. If you still think the pic placement needs discussion, where, Gog the Mild, should that be held? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the nominators right to not make a change suggested by a reviewer, just as it is then a reviewer's right to then oppose the nomination on it not meeting one of the criteria. I believe that I have grasped your respective arguments on the lead, so there is no need to continue to restate them. As I read it, Francis Schonken is opposing promotion on the choice of lead image but is satisfied with other aspects. If I am mistaken on this, apologies, and could you gently point me to any other specific reasons why this should not be promoted?
Gerda Arendt, you seem to have responded to all reviewers concerns. If so, could you confirm this, if not, could you do so.
I note in passing that the article has been considerably improved thanks to Francis's considerable efforts here. All of this is without prejudice to whether I consider there to be a consensus to promote or not.
I didn't comment on the images previously, because I was happy with the original disposition. Looking at them in more detail, I think having an image of an artefact actually used for the first performance of the subject of the article is a good argument for keeping the violin part as the lead image. That is also less cluttered so just from the point of view of visual presentation it works better as a lead image and thus any reduced image representing the article. --Mirokado (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and this is the argumentation I feared... "it looks better, so who cares about authenticity?" – besides, the continuo part was of course also used at the first performance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about your fear, and you will call it a weak argument again: our general readers will rather have heard "violin" than "continuo", - it could be rather simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I have tried to respond to all concerns, but may have overlooked something. I acknowledge that Francis improved the article greatly by questions and editing, up to a point that I'd normally offer co-nomination. (Right now, that would probably seem like getting rid of a possible oppose, - what can I do?) Thanks also to Mathsci (image, music details) and Thoughtfortheday (recordings). I feel strongly that the violin pic should be in the lead, as it has been since 2015, and we don't talk about not using an image, only about position. From a distance, the two images look quite similar even. I will try to get rid of the red link in the caption. For a long time, red links in FAs were frowned upon. Now we accept them, but not in lead and infobox (not even in "normal" articles). I'd place the link in the body if only that scribe was mentioned there. I doubt that we need his name in the image caption. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3x(edit conflict) @Gog the Mild, my "final" assessment, seeing three remaining issues in total (including a new one!), is above in #New round (Francis). I put "final" in quotes, while this of course depends on what happens next: imho the last two (Nos. 11 and 12) don't require much effort, and the other one, the lead image issue, should anyhow best be settled by consensus before FA promotion (i.e., considering how it would become much more difficult to reach consensus on the issue after promotion). So, I'd much prefer to work away these last three issues, so that my current assessment does not need to be my final one. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken: Many thanks for the prompt and detailed response.
Gerda Arendt: Why is there a major edits label in Movements? Is this article stable? When is it anticipated that this "major edit" will be completed?
Mathsci announced expansion of the analysis of the first movement, on my talk. That's all I know. Should I have said "not now"? Probably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Gerda, you are the nominator, you are meant to be controlling the process. Even nominators should not be carrying out major edits during a FAC, much less third parties. Third parties should be posting comments and suggestions here. I now have to consider whether to archive the nomination on the grounds that the supports recorded so far were for for an article (possibly) materially different from what it is now, and that reviewers who continued to follow the FAC have not been able to follow any debate regarding proposed/made changes. Unlike for example with Francis's contributions. Can I recommend that you revert Mathsci's edits, apologise to them, and cordially request them to make any suggestions for improvement on this page? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read down to Mathsci's comment below. At least that lets other reviewers know what is happening, but gives them no detail and no opportunity to comment. I shall wait to see how substantial the changes end up being, but I am currently minded to archive the article so that it can be renominated and reviewers can appraise the substantially changed article, rather than have their supports for a different article carried forward. Or perhaps once Mathsci is finished you could furnish a diff and ask reviewers who have supported to reaffirm their support? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Hi again. Could I take you up on your last proposal? As I wrote below, I think the last changes can be done today so that reviewers can check matters. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Late - I was out as written here: These changes deal exclusively with movement 1. How is this: Mathsci finishes, and we invite all previous reviewers about that section, and the images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re Francis's point 2 above: I do not see that the nominator's preference is in breach of "Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." In any case there seems to be implicit and explicit support for the nominator's preference. Barring some fresh reasoning as to why this breaches a criterion I do not see it as an obstacle to promotion. (And yes, once promoted changing any material and contested aspect becomes extremely difficult.)
Point 11: I assume the objection is that this fails "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"? Francis, do you have an RS which confirms the order of issue?
Hi. The major editing is happening because, as discussed on User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#BWV_1,_concertante_violin_1, the musical analysis of Movement 1 needed to be improved. So far, as Gerda mentioned recently on this page, I have been the only editor to initiate such an improvement. It required having the ten-line hymn text available in translation (done); adding an image of the cantus firmus (done); describing the opening sinfonia (done); and then adding musical analysis about the instrumental episodes and vocal passages for the ten lines (in process). The main impetus for change was a new reference, Vol 2 of Whittaker, which I purchased only recently on ebay: it is not available online. The musical analysis required four different sources, so is slightly complex. Nevertheless it seems to be going fairly well and I hope to complete it today. I hope that clarifies matters. Gerda can probably explain the current status. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First page of the first volume of the Bach Gesellschaft edition (1851)
(edit conflict) – not a reply to the above (don't shoot me if you don't like it, just trying to find common ground) Proposing the first page of the very first volume of the BGA edition →
Some advantages:
* It has the "sparkle" motif right in the middle of the page (and indeed, one needs both violins to suggest the sparkle)
* Looks nice! (surely looks better than the authentic scribbles)
* Highly relevant (at least from a "reception" perspective)
(and another (edit conflict), this one is answering Gog the Mild, not Gerda's intermediate reply above): I didn't want to go too technical (yet), trying to find common ground should be the first step, no? Anyhow, technically, from the FA criteria: "It has images and other media, where appropriate, ..." (my emphasis) – the violin score is "appropriate" adjoining the prose explaining it in detail; the partial autograph is "appropriate" where "partial autograph" is mentioned. The other arrangement is "not appropriate".
Or, from the lead of the FA criteria "A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and ..." (again, my emphasis): the other arrangement does *not* exemplify "Wikipedia's very best work"; and it is far from distinguished by a "professional standard ... of ... presentation". So, there is enough material in the criteria to not grant it FA status under these conditions.
I answered just above - edit conflict - and already inserted the print where the publication is described in great detail. For the lead, a 19th-century print suggests the wrong period, imho. It wasn't printed for more than 125 years after being written, - we can show that at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: OK, "common ground" clearly failed. Indeed, the FAC has been open for too long. It should fail on (from the FA criteria, emphasis added):
"A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of ... presentation ..." – Not Wikipedia's very best work, not quite a professional standard of presentation.
"It has images and other media, where appropriate, ..." – the current arrangement does not present the images "where appropriate"
I was out as announced. I still feel that the order of cantatas in the Teldec series is of no concern for this cantata, - enough that it was the first - but I like to please and satisfy even wishes that I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now split the sentence and said (by adding a bracket) that "the first four cantatas" mean "BWV 1 to 4". Was that what you want? Same source as already used, it even gives all four titles full length but I fear that really would be undue weight on this detail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was nothing to fix any more, unless you really want the link (then you'd need to check whether it can be ascertained it is hosted on the "official" pages of the Hamburg University website, or otherwise copyright-wise OK). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wl dotted? Why is "dotted" in parentheses"? Actually, retaining the parentheses would separate the two wikilinks, so better anyway to retain them.
"The musical analysis of the chorale fantasia": I suspect "musical analysis in general" is meant here, in which case "The" is incorrect in English, just start the sentence "Musical analysis ...".
After the further discussion below, I think the continuo image should be moved to the start of the "For the first performance of the cantata ..." paragraph in §Libretto and first performance. --Mirokado (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lead image, caption: is "J. A. Kuhnau" Johann Kuhnau? If so, that article does not mention "Andreas", perhaps it should. Ha! he died in 1722, so not him. Perhaps his son, who is only referred to as "Andreas" in that article? Perhaps we could add a note somewhere about copyists to clarify who is meant.
The link is now blue, - not enough that we know about him to make it a stand-alone article, but I added the little bit to his uncle, with the scores as one of the refs. I think it looks better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
§Movements image: the continuo is not mentioned much in the content, so this image seems most bound to "Bach provided a rich orchestration". Can we mention something like "... including bass figures for the continuo in his own hand in the original performance parts."?
Re. is "J. A. Kuhnau" Johann Kuhnau? – no: J. A. is the (younger) nephew of J.: J. was Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor, and dead for about a year by the time Bach succeeded him in Leipzig; J. A. was, in Bach's early years in Leipzig, the new Thomaskantor's chief copyist until he became a student at Leipzig university.
Re. continuo and rich orchestration: there's no connection between "continuo" and "rich orchestration". If the current image arrangement gave you that impression, then there is indeed something wrong with the image arrangement. Even the leanest orchestration would still have a continuo in Bach's late Baroque period. That's why it doesn't belong along the description of the movements, because, as a continuo, it is not even worth mentioning (apart from being part of the ensemble): it is as standard as can be, and as ordinary as a bass drum in a drum kit. The importance of the continuo manuscript image is in being a partial autograph of the composer, and that is not explained near where the image is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. Indeed one of the benefits of asking questions is in revealing sources of misunderstanding or lack of clarity. A common convention in encyclopedia entries is to give birth and death dates for people when first mentioned. There is no need for us to do this if we have a wikilink, but in this case, with J., A. and J. A., adding J. A.'s dates would help someone to find who was meant. A sentence about original copyist(s) somewhere in the content would, I think, be in order. Thanks for clarifying about the continuo. Mentioning what survives in Bach's hand somewhere in the content would provide a good anchor for that image, I suggested one way to do that above. --Mirokado (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirokado: Thanks for the corrections. All high-res images for the Bach Archive were created by me on Commons, using the dezoomification tool and GIMP software. The zoom images of pages 1 and 2 of the soprano part are missing, so had to be uploaded differently. Since the "Reception" section specifically mentions autograph manuscripts and their loss, placing the image for the "transposed continuo" in that section might be appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well we should go back to what led me to propose the alternative lead image: another editor (not me!) found the caption for the lead image too convoluted (and still unclear). Then I saw it was not possible to reduce that caption much (but I did what I could), and then proposed another image, which was possible with a shorter caption. then the original image moved back to lead position, and now the proposal is to expand its caption again while it is not clear. Yeah sure... I can only say that seeing all this, shoving complexity on complexity, etc, etc, and yet another round of old arguments by another editor, while it can all be solved simply by putting the right image in the right place, will only lead me to put my foot down on what I come more and more to believe as what is right if this article wants to achieve FA status. The current arrangement of images (with captions which were not written for the place where they now occur in the article) is confusing, and more inspired by images as decoration than images as illustrating what the prose is about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried in preview moving the continuo image to the start of the "For the first performance of the cantata ..." paragraph in §Libretto and first performance. This is where it is directly relevant after Francis' recent update. On a wide window it is pushed down a bit by the preceding image, but otherwise it places fine. It does not interfere with the display of the following table, since either the window is wide enough or text flows below it. I suggest we move it there (I've also updated the comment earlier in this section). --Mirokado (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; I think the images are great, especially the additions. I will note that there are a lot of dup links—some may be justifiable, but most should probably be removed. I like the expanded movement one section as well, but would gently suggest the rather uncommon word "scintillating" (as lovely as it is) be switched with one of its many synonyms, or linked to the wikitionary. Aza24 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I reduced dupl links somewhat, but recitative, aria and such are still in three places: lead - history - structure. Can you please write the wikt link, - I'd have to look it up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, Mathsci,Ovinus, buidhe, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, HAL333, Mirokado, Jimfbleak, Wehwalt, Aza24: This nomination has sprawled somewhat, but seems to be coming to an end. I would be grateful if reviewers could flag up anything which they consider merits opposing promotion - other than Francis's objection to the lead image - so that I can take them into account in deciding whether a consensus has been reached to promote or not. I shall take an absence of comment to mean that any supports indicated above still stand. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting—if the image issue is FS wanting to use the original continuo part instead of the solo violin part as the lead image, I could support that, but it's certainly not something I would oppose the entire FA nomination for. Aza24 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A month and half ago I removed the merge suggestion tags seeking to re-integrate the discography into the article. Due to recent developments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination) (that last one: a cantata with many more recordings than BWV 1 seems unable to garner solid support for a separate discography article). I'm not sure where this is going to end, while I also want to keep to what I said a month and half ago (i.e., "I don't want this to stand in the way of FAC proceedings"). I can only hope that if some broad consensus develops over whether or not separate discography lists for Bach cantatas are desirable, that this can be implemented without much ado post FAC (if different from the current arrangement), in the same way as the BWV 4 discography was split from the article post FAC. That being said, I'm having a closer look at the Recordings section of the BWV 1 article, and see an issue with its first sentence: "... Fritz Lehmann recorded Bach's cantatas with ... as his first recording with Deutsche Grammophon" (emphasis added). The Lehmann reference has two external links: I could not find confirmation for the "... first recording with Deutsche Grammophon" bit in either. Can this be clarified? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence of the same opening paragraph of the "Recordings" section: "The recordings of nine cantatas, ..., were released beginning in 1952" (emphasis added) – according to the jpc link in the Lehmann reference, at least one of the nine cantatas (BWV 4) was already released in 1951. All others were released in 1952. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the same paragraph: "Fritz Werner recorded around 50 of Bach's church cantatas ... in the 1960s" (emphasis added) lacks precision: what I can derive from the given source, and its companion ([27]), is that Werner recorded 39 Bach cantatas in the 1960s (other recordings date from an earlier or later decade). Please adjust prose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the prose, - the precise years are rather for the recordings article, while the years for the cantata article should give a rough idea of the chronology (To my understanding, saying "in the 1960s" doesn't excluded the 1970s", but I added "beginning [in the 1960s]" for you.) I doubt that at any time the detailed list of recordings will return to the cantata article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Moto Hagio's seminal 1974 manga series, noted for its significant influence on Japanese girls' comics of the late 1970s and onward. Currently a Good Article, the article was nominated at FAC in January, though the nomination was autofailed due to a lack of substantive reviews. Since then, the article has undergone a substantial peer review – thank you to Aoba47, Fowler&fowler, SandyGeorgia, Link20XX, Chipmunkdavis, and Vanamonde93 for their comments, with special thanks to Fowler&fowler for their exhaustive source review. I am re-nominating this article in the hopes that in its current state, it will attract enough substantive reviews to be passed for FA. (Note: I've listed Lady freyja as a co-nominator, as the article is adapted from the equivalent article on the French Wikipedia which they were the primary author of, and which is itself an FA. The co-nomination is not expectation/obligation for them to participate in this FAC, though they are certainly welcome to do so.) Morgan695 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Noting for clarity that while some supports appear to be brief, all of the supporting editors offered substantive feedback either at the article's first FAC, or at its peer review.) Morgan695 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good to me. However, the nomination has only been open for 12 days. I would want to keep it open for another week or so to give sufficient time for any other potential reviewers to chip in with comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I participated at the peer review, so will hold off on Supporting until independent editors have been through. I anticipate supporting, but point out for now that the considerable, exhaustive and thorough work done by Fowler & fowler means that a source review (in every sense) has already been done (a time saver!! ... I hope Ealdgyth and Nikki don’t make a liar of me :). I believe the article is at FA standards, but hold off also because this is not an area I am familiar with. Please ping me if I forget to come back to this later. (The HarvRef errors I mentioned on talk should be cleared up.)SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that I did only an extended spot check in the Analysis section, and even there haven't checked ISBN numbers (I vaguely recall that a couple did not link). So the basic stuff may need a quick glance or two. Any outstanding content-related issues, I have no doubt, Morgan695 and Lady Freyja will sort out. If you have any specific questions about which my input is needed, please ping me. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks to both @Fowler&fowler and Morgan695 for your notifications. The article changed quite a lot since the last time I read it, you all did a great job! I will take time to review in details all the changes and discussions, for improving the French article when I have some free time for working on Wikipedia.
I won't speak about the form of the article, as I am not used to the conventions of English Wikipedia, but on the substance, I have two comments:
The sentence "Following soon was a period of immense change and upheaval for the shōjo manga: new aesthetic styles and more narratively complex stories focusing on social issues and sexuality emerged in the 1970s, differentiating the genre from shōnen manga (manga for boys).[11]" as it is, is an oversimplification; the shōjo aesthetic style (deviating from shōnen convention) started to be developed in the 1960s decade (or more exactly at the end of 1950s one) with Macoto Takahashi, Miyako Maki, and the likes; as rightly explained in the section Visual style, Hagio and the others Year 24 mangaka only followed this trend with new contributions, but the stylistic shift was already long done by the time of the Year 24. In the page cited, Shamoon says "Chapter 4 outlined the changes that took place in girls’ magazines through the 1950s and 1960s.", referring notably to p. 90 where she wrote a subsection tiltled Takahashi Makoto and the Development of the Shōjo Manga Aesthetic, which explains this development. I made the distinction between stylistic and narrative development taking place at two different time in the French article: "À cette époque le shōjo manga est en pleine expansion et transformation : lors des années 1960, il gagne ses propres codes esthétiques qui lui permettent de se différencier du shōnen manga, et le début des années 1970 voit l'apparition d'histoires plus complexes, qui n'hésitent plus à parler de politique ou de sexualité[13]."
About the sentence "Following the critical and commercial success of The Rose of Versailles at rival publisher Shueisha, Shūkan Shōjo Comic editor Junya Yamamoto asked Hagio to create a series of similar length and complexity, initially planned to be serialized over the course of two to three years.[23]" In the French article, I didn't mention Yamamoto, I stayed elusive only speaking about "un éditeur" because Tamura herself doesn't mention him in the page cited "Somewhat surprisingly, it was an editor at Weekly Shōjo Komikku who solicited the serial from her rather than her pitching it him."; Yamamoto is mentioned by Tamura 19 pages later. I am myself pretty sure that it is Yamamoto who asked Hagio, but I as couldn't find any source explicitly mentioning him, I didn't either. Lady freyja (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall Thorn mentioning in the intro to the Fantagraphics edition of Thomas that it was Yamamoto who was the commissioning editor, but as I unfortunately don't have a copy of that edition for reference at the moment, I've aligned the copy per the Tamura source. Morgan695 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reread Thorn's introduction, when speaking about Thomas's publication, she uses the expressions "Hagio's editor" and "that same editor — by then editor-in-chief —", but she also introduced Yamamoto as Hagio's editor few paragraphs earlier "where she was welcomed by the innovative editor Junya Yamamoto". So I guess it confirms it, yes. Lady freyja (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Yoshiya_Nobuko.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and is missing publication date
This might be a tougher one to resolve, but I've reached out to the original uploader to see if they can provide that information. The image was uploaded to Commons 14 years ago, but they're still actively editing, so hopefully I'll get a response. Morgan695 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Per the original uploader, "I am aware that the photo is on display at the Yoshiya Nobuko Memorial Museum in Kamakura, Japan, and appears in https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/yoshiya-nobuko-memorial-museum. It can also be found in a book called 文学都市かまくら１００人, published by the Kamakura Museum of Literature in 2005". As I am unable to access that book or the museum, I cannot confirm the authorship or date of the image. Please let me know if either of the other two images posted are acceptable alternatives. Morgan695 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The uncropped version on the Library of Congress indicates that it was taken in New York, NY. No publication info is listed, just that it is a "digital file from b&w film copy neg". I've added both of these pieces of info to the Commons page. Morgan695 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the current tagging is dependent on the image having been published, not just created, before 1926. If we don't know when it was published, how do we know that to be true? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped the image for the one that was previously used in that section, and which passed your review in the first FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: So this ended up being a moot point, as I've swapped this image for File:TakehisaYumeji-1926-Fujin Graph Spring 1926.png, as it far better illustrates the topic being depicted. The licensing info on the new image seems pretty comprehensive, but I wanted to ping you regardless.
I took part in the peer-review. The Heart of Thomas, I'm sure meets the FAC criteria, but they in some sense are beside the point. It's not often that accidents of fortune bring me to a new world on WP, even a wondrous one. Hagio Moto, her influences, her muses, her cohorts, the socioeconomic and cultural forces at play in post-war and 1970s Japan, and the scholars following in the wake of all, puzzling them out, have together created such a world. It deserves notice. For that reason alone, and many besides, I'm happy to support. Thanks and admiration for Morgan695 and Lady freyjaFowler&fowler«Talk»02:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave your previous nomination my support, and I gave a couple comments on the peer review, so I will definitely be doing the same here. You have worked tremendously hard on the article and it definitely shows. You have done excellent work that is more than worthy of a featured-article promotion in my book. I give this nomination my full Support. Link20XX (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about this part from the lead, his 1919 novel Demian; the Bildungsroman genre; and the 1964 film Les amitiés particulières. Is it normal to use semicolons in this manner to separate items in a list? I am only asking about this as I am more so used to seeing semicolons used to link together two independent clauses.
FAC review section stalker Yes, the main function of a semi-colon is to separate two independent clauses that are closer to each other (semantically) than they are to sentences to either side of them. Semi-colons are less commonly used in lists whose (three or more) constituents are either on the long side or have internal commas. (But usually (in my way of thinking) when so used, a reader should know that a list is coming.) The sentence is here is: "The series draws inspiration from the works of Hermann Hesse, particularly his 1919 novel Demian; the Bildungsroman genre; and the 1964 film Les amitiés particulières." The reader doesn't really recognize a list until the second semi-colon. A better phrasing would be: "Influencing the series were the novels of Harmann Hesse, especially Demian (1919); the bildungsroman genre; and 1964 film Les amitiés particulières." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. The semicolon usage looked odd to me, but thank you for informing me that is a valid method. I actually never saw semicolons used this way until Wikipedia, which is why I wanted to double-check about this. I do not have a strong opinion about either wording so I will leave that up to the nominators. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sentences in the lead's first paragraph (i.e. the series follows the events. . . and The series draws inspiration. . .) that start with the same thing. I would revise this to avoid having such close repetition.
Fixed now with previous revision.
I would identify in this sentence, It is noted as one of the earliest manga in the shōnen-ai (male-male romance) genre., who is saying this (i.e. is it critics, scholars, etc.). When I read this sentence, I immediately ask who is saying this.
In this part of the lead, young and adolescent women, I am not really sure the difference between young and adolescent. Could you explain this to me? Looking at the description as a whole, girls' comics that are typically aimed at young and adolescent women, I am uncertain about the first part as from my understanding this style of manga is more defined by who is created and marketed to, and girls' comics implies some level of possession that I do not think it is entirely accurate. I am just uncertain if this is the best translation for shōjo manga.
Would it be possible to put this sentence, The series was originally developed by Hagio as a personal project that she did not expect would ever be published., from the lead into a more active tense? Something like, Hagio originally developed the series as a personal project that she did not expect would ever be published., reads better to me and puts more emphasis on Hagio.
For this part of the lead, and has been described as a seminal work of shōjo manga, I would attributed in the text who is describing this manga in this way.
Replaced with the following, which I think is less fluffy and is directly cited in the article body: It significantly influenced shōjo manga as a medium, with many of the stylistic and narrative hallmarks of the series becoming standard tropes of the genre. The series has attracted considerable scholarly interest both in Japan and internationally, and has been adapted into a film, a stage play, and a novel.Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid the following sentence construction (with X verb-ing) as shown in this example from the lead, with critics exploring the series' depiction of gender. It is something that I have seen repeatedly discouraged in FACs so I would find ways to avoid this sentence construction if it appears anywhere else in the article.
These are my comments on the lead. They are very nitpick-y so apologies for that. I will review the rest of the article either tomorrow or on Tuesday. Given all of the activity both here and at the peer review (from much more experienced editors than myself), I expect my review to be short as any issues would have already been addressed by them. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick additional comment. I went to check how shōjo manga was defined in the article, and I have an issue with the definition there as well. The article defines this as, Shōjo manga (girls' comics). I see no reason to change manga to comics and I would actually think would cause some confusion. I would keep manga as you have done for the shōnen manga translation in the same paragraph. I would also say "manga for girls" instead as it is more so based on the intended readership and I just think the girls' part is misleading. I wanted to add this part now as it is similar to the issue I have with the translation of this in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be "manga for girls" and not "girls' manga" (in both the translation for the lead and the article) as I believe these represent two different things. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced both instances with "comics for girls," so it also explains what "manga" is to an audience that might not recognize the term. Morgan695 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manga and comics are not the same thing. They have different structures and histories. Manga has passed into popular culture, and you could always wikilink the word for the readers that have never heard of it before. But, I would not consider manga and comics to be the same thing to the point that this substitution would work. Aoba47 (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that interpretation, but I think it's one that is not necessarily aligned with how those terms are used in common use on Wikipedia (the article on manga literally defines it as comics or graphic novels originating from Japan). You could argue that the term "comic books" has a specific western context, but "comics" as an umbrella term for "ideas expressed with text and images" is pretty universal. Morgan695 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave that for other editors. I still disagree, but after looking at academic sources on manga, some also use the "comics" translation so you are right. I have two additional points about this. This translation is not consistently applied throughout the article. In the "Context" subsection, manga is used for this translation shōnen manga (manga for boys). The "manga"/"comics" translation should be consistent. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an audience might not recognize the term manga, then wouldn't they be confused by how manga is used in the lead's first sentence and two more times in the lead's first paragraph without any translation? Currently, the lead introduces "manga"/"comics" translation in the second paragraph. If there are readers that would be confused by this word, wouldn't it be more beneficial to include a translation like (comics or graphic novels originating from Japan) in the lead's first sentence? Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but upon reflection I think it's less about audience comprehension and more about not using a term in a definition of that term. I think this discussion is something of a moot point, as 1) per your point, "manga" has crossed over enough into the mainstream consciousness to be discernible to most people, and 2) the overwhelming consensus supports that "manga" and "comics" are synonymous, or at the very least that manga are a kind of comics. Morgan695 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the nomination for promotion. I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS Much as I love this article, I too remain a little troubled by the language of the lead. It is not made clear in the lead sentence that Hagio Moto wrote The Heart of Thomas for a readership of young women. Later in the lead is not good enough. It creates incoherence. In my view, that needs to be stated front and center as the French FA does "est un shōjo manga écrit et dessiné par Moto Hagio." The current language does not help the ordinary, inexpert, reader for whose edification we write. I can't be sure, but I suspect that the article might have attracted less attention in the first FAC than it deserved because of its somewhat opaque introduction. I support the article, of course, with the same enthusiasm. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I feel "Japanese manga series for young women written and illustrated by Moto Hagio," might be better. ("Girls" in place of "young women" would be OK as well if that is what the convention demands.) Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but it still skirts around the fact that the story was targeted at adolescent and young adult women (btw, is that what you mean by young and adolescent?). It merely states that she published the story in a magazine that is read by this demographic. Has she ever written anything targeted at men? If not substantially, then her readership needs to be stated in some fashion. After all, a large portion of the article is about how Thomas is suffused with symbolism, signifiers, and allegories that are of meaning mostly to women, mirroring conflicts that are mostly (though not uniquely) those of women.
Now that I've read the lead, I think a bigger problem might be that the lead is not an adequate summary of the article. I'm sorry to unload these minor misgivings here, in the fashion of afterthoughts, but I'll try to find some time in the next few days and expand the lead a little to make it more representative of the article body. I will do so on the talk page. As I've already offered support, it will be less confusing if others comment here. And you can tell me on the talk page what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the ping, I appreciate the change and I do not have any issue with it. I believe that Moto Hagio primarily writes shōjo manga (i.e. manga marketed young women). To avoid the confusion about the magazine, would it be more beneficial to somehow identify this as a shōjo manga in the very first sentence? Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Hi, just wanted to follow up on your comments re: the lead. Now that the nomination is at 5 supports and has undergone source and image reviews it's approaching the point where the FAC could reasonably be closed, but I wanted to make sure this was resolved first. Morgan695 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support; I reviewed the previous FAC, where most of my concerns with prose were addressed; and my most substantive commment, about the theme of coming-of-age, has also since been taken care of. I have made some minor copy-edits, but I have nothing further to complain about. This is a solid piece of work. Vanamonde (Talk)00:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "|last=School of Arts and Sciences|first=East Asian Languages and Civilizations" really make sense for ref 40; we have no idea of knowing who wrote her bio here — and in the future you can just do "|author=" :) — I would stick to put this as the "|website="
Ref 43 is formatted differently than the other book refs; the page range is also incomplete. I will also note that this is the only ref you include the state in the location
You have "Canada" here for two of the ANN refs, but not earlier in References; since it's a website, I wouldn't think it's inclusion is necessary, but if you differ that's fine, it just needs to be consistent
Both
The main issue with refs, besides these minor nitpicks above, is the designation of "References" and "Bibliography"; it remains ambiguous. What I mean is, you have a journal article in the refs (Shamoon) and some in the biblio (Hori, for example). I assumed you were putting the ones with only one citation in the refs, and those with others in the bibio, but Nagaike suggests this isn't the case. Likewise, one of the ANN citations is in the refs, while the others in the biblio; The Atlantic article is in the biblio but Gentosha Plus ones in the refs. I would think the simplest solution (though there are certainly others available) would be to move all refs with authors into the biblio and replace the current citations with sfn back to there.
That was the idea, but it looks like some books crept up into the references. All reviews, books, and scholarly articles should be under "Bibliography" now, while non-sfn references under "references" are either unauthored pages and/or basic newswire-type stories. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the subject-matter and analysis by F&F at PR, I'm inclined to give lee-way for what could otherwise be seen as not "high-quality sources". No issues here.
Back in 2018, everyone thought Taylor Swift was no longer relevant, until she launched a massive tour and released this song, which slowly climbed onto the charts and raked in hundred millions of YouTube views. After expanding the article from reliable, high-quality sources, including one peer-reviewed journal paper, I believe this article now meets FA status. Thank you in advance for any comment regarding the article's prose and sourcing issues. HĐ (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All Access is powered by Mediabase, which monitors airplay information across the U.S. and provides information for other music industry magazines [30]. The editorial board consists of music industry insiders, radio managers, and contributors to other publications i.e. Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, [31]. Subscribers to All Access also gain access to Billboard Pro [32]
À la All Access in Italy. It has partnership with many record labels and networks including Universal, MTV, Warner, to name a few, to promote songs on Italian airplay [33]
I don't know how you're getting a PR agency from that?? It's a company that monitors radio airplay in Italy and also happens to publish statements from record labels indicating when they make a song available for radio airplay in the country. If you look at the bottom right of the reference the writer of the statement and the record label who employs them are clearly visible. In the article, the source is obviously citing the "radio date" only. EarOne has also been cited/noted by Rolling Stone Italy. Heartfox (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially dubious about whether a "student journal" should qualify as high quality. I believe that this journal does satisfy in terms of quality, if my understanding of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is sufficient. The advisory board consists of professors in the music and media fields, which sort of explains that the journal is not wholly dependent on student operation. It has an open DOI access, which (to me) does not appear as original research, and proves that it has been vetted by the scholarly community.
Listed among reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC. Reuters acknowledged Slant among the reliable side of online publications, alongside the New York Times, WSJ, and LA Weekly. The magazine is quite valued within the film review community, with Cineaste describing it as "smart, idiosyncratic, well-written".
Works for me. We (the people who write FAs about pop music and the people who do source reviews) should probably work out WP:HQRSMUSIC to make these sorts of things easier. Sources can easily be RSes, and on WP:RSMUSIC, without being High Quality RSes to pass through FAC. --GuerilleroParlez Moi03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I will do my standard grumble about the use of Apple Music. Also
Thank you for the source review. I think Apple Music usage can be justified in this case, given that digital music releases most likely happen on such sites, and the two remixes in the article seem to have been released to Apple Music only. HĐ (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swift described the song as one of Reputation's few songs about vulnerability → suggest changing to "Swift described the song as one of the few on Reputation about vulnerability" or something similar to avoid "song" twice in the same sentence.
wondering, "Could something fake like your reputation affect something real, like someone getting to know you?" → I would cut this or the previous quote; both mostly say the same thing.
The song incorporates R&B elements, dense synthesizers, and house-influenced beats. → I would expect this to be a bit more detailed than a copy of what is in the lead.
The music video images are missing alt text
social media account → social media accounts?
Specified that it was Twitter.
She later uploaded the video → she didn't upload it herself
Rephrased.
Five sentences for Payne is a bit of undue weight I think, given that in the previous paragraph six sentences are given for three critics combined. I would replace the em dashes with commas and cut her comments down by a couple sentences.
I cut down one sentence... The rest are rather hard to remove since they provide in-depth analysis on the video's content. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Lmk if the article needs more work. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, there are two sentences in a row with "perceived" (i.e. perceived image and perceived reputation). Would it be possible to change one of these instances?
Changed one, perceived reputation to "blemished reputation"
The repetition of "Swift" in this part, Swift and Martin manipulated Swift's vocals with a vocoder., seems rather awkward to me. Also Swift is not credited as a producer for the song, so do you mean "Shellback" in the beginning? I have the same question for when this is repeated in the "Production and composition" section.
In the interview Swift used we, so I assumed it was her and the other producers. Changed to "Martin and Shellback"
In the lead, I would include a brief part about how critics considered the music video to be an autobiographical reference and the plagiarism allegation since it does form a separate subsection (i.e. Analysis and reception).
Added.
This is very nitpick-y, but I find the music video summary to overly wordy, and I think it can be condensed somewhat to be more concise.
I cut down some words here and there. It was a hard task because the video is so cinematic lol.
Is there a reason why the prose does not clarify what number single this is from the album?
Added a note.
For this part, Swift continued to be a major target of, I would say was a major target of instead as continued does not really make sense in this context as the previous sentences do not refer to Swift being a tabloid target prior to this.
Rephrased.
I have a comment for this part, "Delicate" is the fifth track on Reputation. I do not think it is particularly notable or worthwhile to mention where this song appears on the album track listing. I could see this being notable if critics discussed this in a meaningful way, but right now, it seems trivial.
The following paragraphs of the Composition section talks about how the track differs from its four preceding songs, so I do think it is relevant to some extent.
In the "Production and composition" section, I think the iHeartRadio sentence is awkwardly constructed. I think the first two paragraphs in this section could be improved to better convey the information. For instance, it seems off to start the first paragraph a sentence on how Swift wrote the song, then go into production information for the rest of the paragraph, and go back into the song-writing process for the second paragraph.
I rearranged the whole section; the first paragraph is about the credits and recording locations, the second about the songwriting inspirations, and the third about critical analysis of the song.
I was intrigued by the R&B elements bit as this sounds like a very pop song to me. I believe the R&B elements part is sourced through this New York Times article (but correct me if I am wrong here). Apologies in advance as this will be super-nitpick-y, but the source says "soft-core pop-R&B" not just R&B. I think saying just R&B elements is a little misleading.
I adhere to WP:EXPLICITGENRES. As the Times does not exactly describe this song as "pop-R&B" (but among the few of the album that are), I think it is best to leave it at "R&B elements"--or I could rephrase it to something like "R&B sensibility". This is different from the source I used for electropop--Time--which explicitly describes "Delicate" as an "electro-ballad".
I still disagree with connecting this song with R&B as I do not see how this is supported in the Times article. You are correct that the "soft-core pop-R&B" part is not explicitly tied to this song, but it is the only instance in the article where R&B is mentioned. I would suggest removing the R&B part entirely as I just do not see this being supported by the source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word "released" is used many times throughout the "Release" section. I know it is inevitable considering that this is what the section is about, but it may be worthwhile to find ways to revise some of these instances.
Revised some instances to "available".
In a random aside, I think it is interesting that a critic compared the video to "Lucky" when I think a more apt comparison would be to the video for ""Overprotected" (The Darkchild remix) since both focus on the singer's relationship with fame and have a sequence with dancing in the rain lol.
Haven't checked out the Overprotected video, but I think critics did so because "Lucky" was a more popular song (which is really catchy and memorable imo).
In the "Live performances", I would avoid having two sentences in a row saying (On X date) as it comes across too much like a list and makes the prose not as engaging as it could be.
I tried my best to make it not like a list, but I guess for live performances I cannot include much.
Unfortunately that is the best image I can retrieve from Commons... Would it be a miss to remove it from the article?
I would remove from the article as it is a low-quality image and it is awkwardly cutting across section titles anyway, but I will leave this up to whoever do this image review. I will leave this up to you as the image will not hold me up from supporting and it will likely be more beneficial to get other editors' opinions about it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any notable covers that can be included here? I know that Kelly Clarkson as one of the many, many, many songs she covers on her talk show. I was just curious if there were any notable covers out there as this song was very popular. Apparently, Kelsea Ballerini also did a cover of it (according to Billboard).
I don't really know about this... A popular song can be covered by other musicians, so I don't see how it could be beneficial to the article as an encyclopedic entry (inspired by a comment at the "Shake It Off" FAC). I'm open to discussion on this, though.
Is there a reason why the "The Making of a Song" video is only included as an external link and not used a source? I have not seen the video, but I would think it would have at least some helpful information?
The video is more or less what Swift had shared during the iHeartRadio interview. It's just that it features more scenes where she writes in her bedroom, which I think is a way for fans to get close and personal to her. Not much substance to add (you could watch to verify my words and check out whether I missed something..)
I hope these comments are helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article one more time to make sure I do not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. Once the R&B issue is cleared up, then I will support this. My issue is that the Times article does not explicitly connect the song with R&B. I would recommend removing the R&B part entirely since it is not really accurate to the source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Swift explained that, while she could feign disinterest in what others have to say about her, things began to get complicated" -- Is the usage of "have" and "began" correct here? It's a little confusing if the feigning of disinterest happened in the past or is currently happening. The quote directly after this part seems to go back into present tense.
This part still feels a bit off to me: "things turned complicated 'when you meet somebody that you really want in your life'". But I'm no Grammar expert so I'm going to leave this to your preference.
In this part: "really emotional, and really vulnerable, and ... sad but beautiful", maybe the repetition of "and" can be eliminated.
"At the beginning of the song, Swift confesses to her love interest that, because her reputation has "never been worse", he must have liked her for herself." -- I think this part is sung in present tense in the song. Maybe it's just me but the way this is framed seems to imply he stopped liking her.
Images are adequately licensed. I would keep the performance image, it may not be the greatest quality but I don't think it detracts at all from the article. The sound file should be shorter, I think it's longer than necessary to convey the fair use purpose and it's best to keep under 10% of the track. (t · c) buidhe10:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cut it from 23.2 to 22.6 seconds. Not a dramatic change, but still short enough and under 10% of the original. Thank you for the image review. HĐ (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The stated purpose of this non-free content is that it "illustrates Swift's manipulated vocals by a vocoder." I don't see how 22.6 seconds is necessary for this purpose. I think it could be done with more like 5 seconds. (t · c) buidhe07:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I updated the non-free rationale, which illustrates the muted pulse (as discussed in Pitchfork) and the synthesizers as well. I choose not to expand the caption because I believe it is supposed to be succinct, but I could expand it to include all matters the sample is supposed to illustrate. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, another Taylor Swift song! Not my favourite from Reputation but still worthy of attention. Are you planning to bring any of her back catalogue up to FA? This is a well-prepared nomination; I just have a few minor suggestions, after which I'll surely support. Note that I'm looking at prose/MoS/readability and comprehensiveness, not sources.
In the background section, I'd suggest adding a sentence or two about Swift's career up to the that point and her transition from country to pop. Nothing too duplicative of the album article, but just a little bit of context for a reader wondering where the song fits in her career.
She had short-lived romantic relationships with Scottish producer Calvin Harris and English actor Tom Hiddleston. I would avoid name-dropping short-term romantic partners, no matter how reliable the source. It's tabloid gossip and adds nothing to the reader's understanding and in my opinion is unbecoming an encyclopaedia.
blemished from publicized disputes this is a major theme of Reputation (down to the title of the album, and I'm thinking of LWYMMD and This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things) but I don't get that sense from the background section.
became increasingly reticent on social media but how much of that is a publicity stunt? After five studio albums, she has an established fan base and doesn't need to use social media to drum up sales, but by withdrawing from it the few things she does post attract a lot more attention.
I do not get what you are trying to say here... What should I do with this bit of information? I personally think that including it as it is right now could be beneficial to readers to understand the consequences of Swift's overexposure over the previous years. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
having maintained an active presence suggest "having previously maintained".
Swift wrote "Delicate" as her confession to a prospective lover suggest you add "lyrically" to make clear we're talking about writing lyrics as opposed to writing music. Or better yet, find a different opening phrase to avoid repetition from the previous paragraph.
Is tosses her heels really encyclopaedic language? Also, the way that paragraph is written sounds like it's been copied and pasted from somewhere. Suggest you double check that you're paraphrasing the source material in your own words.
"breaks free from the pressures of society and acts freely as though nobody is watching" You need a ref straight after a direct quote (end of sentence is fine, but this one is a few sentences away).
"marching and stomping" and "animalistic squatting" is this quoting Payne or is this supposed to be in Wikipedia's voice? Likewise "insincere or fake" and "dorky".
Reputation Stadium Tour (2018), which she launched in support of Reputation Can you think of a better way to phrase that? The reader can guess that the Reputation tour was supporting Reputation.
Thank you very much for the review. I am not particularly fond of this song on Reputation, but I find it uplifting that its chart success helped Swift maintain her superstardom after the underperforming singles "Ready for It" and "End Game"--the latter is one of my favorites. Let me know if there is anything left that needs to be addressed. HĐ (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the softer songs on Reputation, I prefer "Call it What You Want" but it's still great to see this article being brought up to FA standard. I'll leave it to you to decide what, if anything, you want to do with the social media line but Swift's use of social media is quite sophisticated and I'm not sure we should attribute so much to her lack of presence on it in the run-up to the release of a new album. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?17:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Meghan Trainor's second single "Lips Are Movin", which she wrote within eight minutes. Almost every critic that reviewed it compared this song to Trainor's debut single, and its release made Trainor the fifth female artist in Billboard Hot 100 history to follow her debut number-one single directly with a second top-five. Additionally, it is noteworthy as the first-ever music video made entirely by social media influencers. After its recent peer review, I am confident that this article has a decent chance of passing an FAC. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lead states that the song "is about Trainor leaving her significant other after discovering he is cheating on her". However, the text states that this is an interpretation by some reviewers, and indeed quotes a different explanation from the co-author. Be careful that opinions and facts are clearly distinguished throughout.
I have now made it clear this was just a critical interpretation.
"The first-ever music video with a cast consisted of only social media influencers" - the text says it's the first with a production team of influencers, which is a slightly different thing. Also this phrasing is grammatically incorrect.
The producer was not an influencer, so I have amended this.
Now switched to the Billboard wording: "created entirely by", which can be found in the Reception section.
FN1: link credits a different author
Robert Cocuzzo was the author upon the original 2013 publication, but I have now made the change.
What makes N Magazine a high-quality reliable source? Mashable?
N Magazine's about page provides evidence of editorial oversight, and its publisher has worked for The Boston Globe. The Mashable piece cited in this article is only used for critical commentary, its author Brian Anthony Hernandez has a documented history of contributing to several reputed sources, including Billboard.
There is no evidence that Trainor has recorded this song more than once. I believe it is safe to assume details like BPM and vocal range are about the one known recorded version.
FMQB is only being used to source the radio impact date as the AllAccess archives do not have a snapshot of this particular date. Would you like me to look for replacements?
It is in Idolator too but it is probably better to site a radio magazine directly for this purpose. Your call.
Pardon my chiming in, but I think FMQB is appropriate for radio releases. It monitored radio releases across the U.S. and could be compared to trade magazines i.e. MusicRow. HĐ (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are FNs 24 and 25 the same source?
The first one is the German release and the second is Swiss.
Best Buy is a publisher, not a work
Amended.
FN53 is malformatted. Ditto FN63, check charts throughout.
FN53 is the result of the singlechart template. Should it still be changed? I believe its use is highly recommended.
Is this something that can be changed at the template level? It might make sense to normalize, or provide a version that is normalized, to line up with CS1. If that is not possible then yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this for the New Zealand ref for the time being. But it seems like every other song FA (literally all) uses the singlechart templates instead. I think a larger discussion about this may be needed at the template talk page. I don't believe it is feasible to manually change them all.--NØ16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, as the above Idolator link and Bustle magazine confirm, "Lips Are Movin" was listed with an October 21 impact date on AllAccess. It just wasn't archived in a timely manner and the FMQB directory is now the best option available to verify this information.--NØ05:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man, Meghan Tumblr (it's an A Dose of Buckley joke)'s gonna get her own featured article. An as atheist, I can use this as proof there is no god...... Just kidding around.
I see you haven't treated yourself to a read of this one ;)
The lead section categorizes the song as "A retro-tinged doo-wop and pop song with girl-group harmonies and bubblegum pop hooks." (1) Girl group is not a doo-wop genre, it's a type of band and there have been many of all genres; we wouldn't categorize Destiny's Child, Spice Girls and Tegan and Sara as doo-wop groups, for instance, and I don't think this songs sounds like any of them. (2) This is a non-objective characterization from a Slant Magazine review. I understand this specific statement is in the lead cause it describes the genre of the song, but I'd like it presented it as an attributed saying to the Slant writer in said lead.
From what I've read at Girl group, it does seem to be a genre in the US that denotes doo-wop-influenced female pop groups from the 50s. For international readers' understanding, I will add a link to that page. And I understand where you are coming from, but musical elements are always covered unattributed in the lead and attributed in the article body. The lead is just supposed to be a brief summary that compels readers to read the rest of the article. (See Diamonds (Rihanna song), Style (Taylor Swift song), etc.)
I have no problem with context or background sections if they connect to the primary topic, but the only part of the background that seemed to influence the song's creation was "All About That Bass"'s commercial success. I'd only include that plus the making of "Lips Are Movin" itself.
Removed Trainor's independent albums. I believe keeping the details of how Kadish and Trainor met and the doo-wop pop nature of "All About That Bass" is reasonable, though, as it had a direct bearing on the creation of this song.
Why have the sample be the intro? Why not during the hooks where the "girl group" vocals are prominent as well as the handclaps and other instruments?
The current sample includes the hook: "lyin', lyin', lyin'", and the handclaps in the production. It most aptly demonstrates the song's "upbeat and catchy" nature, and is the part most similar to the chorus of "All About That Bass", aka the song's two qualities that were the biggest focus of critical commentary.
Actually, I just listened to it again. The intro actually does have girl group vocals, it's just they played the same pitch, hehehe. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have some issues with the composition section
"Trainor told The Tennessean that "Lips Are Movin" and "All About That Bass" follow the same formula," Specify. I know "formula" means the composition of the song, but I'm an experience editor who's worked on music articles before. I don't think the general audience (which is most WP readers) will get this. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering a wider perspective on this :) Clarified.
I just noticed a misinterpretation of a source, and I didn't even plan on a spot check of this article to find it: "saxophone beat.[15]" (1) Saxophone is also not a genre and a type of instrumental and (2) The source actually says "sax bLeats." Notice the "L." "Bleat" is defined as "a characteristic wavering cry"; in other words, it's not synonymous with "beat." I don't blame you if you didn't notice this, since it's one skinny letter hiding between fatter letters, but it shows you the importance of being healthy to have a fully-functioning brain (like I've been doing ;).
Whoops, definitely takes a smart one to notice this. Corrected.
A major problem with redundancy. The review summaries of "equally inspired by "vintage 45s and Amy Winehouse's snazzy new-millennial revival,"" "doo-wop throwback" and "Gary Trust characterized "Lips Are Movin" as doo-wop and pop" all state the same thing when you boil them down: it's a retro-inspired doo-wop track. If the genre is this widely agreed on, attribution is not needed.
Done. But imo "Lips Are Movin" being a doo-wop track should be stated explicitly once even after the line about its formula, just for readers' clarity.
Another redundancy issue in the last paragraph. In addition to word fluff, I don't think the quote is needed. I would write something like "While Kadish explained that the lyrics of "Lips Are Movin" were about by Trainor's frustrations with her record label,[8] critics Dave Paulson and Christina Garibaldi interpreted the track's lyrics as about leaving a significant other after being cheated.[12][19]"
Done. Although, chronologically, Kadish's explanation came after both the reviews were published so I framed it accordingly.
For completeness sake, I also found FN15 (The Billboard Singles "Worst to Best" piece), bringing up "a sly self-reference into its snappy chorus. "I gave you bass/You gave me sweet talk,"" I think we all know what that "self-reference" refers to, so I would put it in the composition section.
Removed the archives and tagged it for subscription.
The reception section is disorganized and, while not another quotefarm, has a fair amount of problems commonly associated with the way of writing. In simplier words, it doesn't have the best prose it could:
First, the beginning is presumably a section of "negative reviews," as the second paragraph prefixes with "Other reviewers were positive of the song" which indicates the paragraph will summarize the song's supporters. However, there are two reviews in the middle of the first paragraph that make positive comments: "Billboard's Carl Wilson complimented the lyrics, saying that they proved Trainor had "more going on than a topical trifle" [...] Brian Mansfield of USA Today called "Lips Are Movin" the "better record" of the two despite it lacking novelty.[36]" WTF?
Second, while there is an attempt at summarizing multiple opinions with the prefix sentences of both paragraphs, the section still suffers from redundancy. The Time quote establishes nothing new, while some of the other quotes give the same skepticism and criticism of "Lips are Movin" being the same song as "All About the Bass." The Clash and USA Today quotes also make the same statements of it having less novelty than "All About That Bass."
Definitely disagree on removing the Time review. Feeney's comment that "Lips" was created only to milk the commercial success of "Bass" isn't repeated by other critics so I fail to see how it constitutes redundancy.
Oh, that's not what I said. Probably should clarify. We already know in the background section that "Lips are Movin" was created to follow "All About That Bass"'s success. I think Time's statement means it's trying to be another "All About That Bass," as it "replicate[s]" the success of the song's style, but I'm pretty sure the later review quotes are similar. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember when I use to read Billboard's coverage of the Hot 100's top 10 back when I was a mid-teenager, and they would bring up the number of sales, streaming and radio for that week. Since the citation for "Lips are Movin"'s.... uh... move to the top ten brings up these numbers ("The similarly doo-wop/pop-styled cut soars to the Digital Songs top five (8-5; 110,000, up 2 percent) and the Streaming Songs top 10 (13-7; 7.8 million, up 20 percent). On Radio Songs, "Lips" lifts 44-36 (36 million, up 26 percent)."), plus I don't want just being another list of chart numbers and certifications when we already have those below, plus for completeness sake, these should be added. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary--per WP:CHARTTRAJ. Adding them for the sake of demonstrating weekly moves could constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should adhere to summary style i.e. peak positions, debut positions, charting weeks, should be enough. We are not meant to collect each-and-every detail. We are not a newspaper. HĐ (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I didn't say to talk about every week on the chart. I just said to add info of the sales numbers for that one week, since it's covered in the Billboard article. I'm talking about the number of sales for a single week, which I'm pretty sure summary style has tolerated in every other music article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was brought up during the PR as well. Weekly sales numbers are usually noteworthy when a song debuts high on the chart. "Lips Are Movin" is a sleeper hit, and highlighting its sales numbers during a random week when they were high is random and not in compliance with INDISCRIMINATE. The certified units sold in the US are already included to give people an accurate image of its overall success. Also, pardon me but I don't understand what is being implied with the excessive amount of periods in "'Lips are Movin''s.... uh... move into the top 10".--NØ18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The periods you're talking about, it was a joke. The joke was that the song had "Movin" at the end of its title, and that I couldn't think of an alternate word for "move" to avoid it sounding repetitive. It's a kind of joke I took from video reviews of movies and video games. Now you know the importance of real-life communication instead of just texting every time.
(2) "Sail" by Awolnation and "Somebody I used to Know" by Gotye are sleeper hits. "Lips are Movin" isn't; it got from 93 to 8 within a month (four weeks), with upward movements of around 20 positions each week, which is a pretty substantial move if I say so myself. Also, when a song gets to the top 10, that ain't no random week.
(3) Excuse the tangent here, but this relates to 1b of the FA criteria. I've seen the WP:Indiscriminate rationale used in other discussions, but with no explanation why it's "indiscriminate" or what the heck that even means. Aren't all encyclopedia articles already collections of information from sources? On a side note, why aren't we considering list of peak chart positions and certifications WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of information? While we're at it, why not extend the indiscriminate label to lists of albums and singles in discographies, or a list of personnel that worked on a single or album, causes the sources never cover the behind-the-scenes people, ya know? HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: Discography lists and credits section are not INDISCRIMINATE--they simply summarize the most vital details i.e. chart positions, certifications that an album or a song received (accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability), so I think you are confusing these two things here. Top 10 weeks are acceptable if you insist, but specific sales figures for specific weeks raised the question--if we mention the sales each week it moved upward, shouldn't we mention the sales each week it moved downward, or even until it dropped out of the chart? I do not see anything significant about that, unless the song saw a sudden surge in sales somewhere in the middle of its charting trajectory. HĐ (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I also do not think Lips Are Movin was a sleeper hit--but that makes sense to not include specific sales week to prove its success. In the digital age, songs that move 20-30+ positions on the Billboard charts are the norm, I'd say. HĐ (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro and HĐ, I am going to let you two decide what to do about this. I had included this information in the article before HĐ asked for its removal: [35]. So quite frankly, I am perfectly fine adding it back, and have done so for the time being so both of you can see how it looks. Best.--NØ03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the before and after edits (on the U.S. chart and sales paragraph)--I do not think the before section adds more substance to the readers' understanding with week-by-week sales and streaming figures. They are redundant especially when the song has sold millions way beyond the 100k-200k weekly sales (unless it received commentary from Billboard i.e. it was one of the highest weekly digital sales in the chart history). The most important takeaway, which is the fact that Trainor was fifth female artist to have two debut top-ten Hot 100 singles, is already mentioned. I am not seeing if week-by-week sales add anything substantial, and I shall reiterate my stance that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so even if the data per-se are mentioned by Billboard, we shall design the article in an encyclopedic manner--concise, straight to the point, no excessive details. HĐ (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HĐ that it would be unnecessary to bring up weekly moves (unless they are noteworthy and have received coverage, like a huge drop or rise in the charts) and it would be best to stick the summary style. Apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to second HĐ's point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, got busy working at my dad's small business, editing other Wikipedia articles on video games and learning Japanese. Here's a few more comments.
No problem.
"AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine described the track as Motown bounce.[17]" This stylistic description doesn't come close to reflect the most widely-agreed upon genre of the song by critics, that being a retro-tinged doo-wop number. I think it's redundant and unnecessary. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's being fairly attributed to Erlewine and not being misrepresented as anything more than his opinion. He is a reputed critic and his take is necessary to include for the sake of completeness.
"Spin's Dan Weiss dismissed the song as "the oldest-joke-in-the-book-ask-a-lawyer".[34]" Can someone clarify what the heck this means or saying? Cause (1) it breaks the flow of the paragraph and (2) it seems to be a simple "it's good," "it's bad" opinion, which we want the sentences to add substance to the topic. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an "it's bad" opinion. Clarified.
"Yahoo! Music writer Lyndsey Parker compared the latter to the ones featured in a poster for The Rocky Horror Picture Show.[73]" I'd say this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. Why are we devoting an entire sentence to this? I wouldn't mean if it incorporated the concept of being like the Rocky Horror lips in the previous description about the other lip visualizations, but why a full sentence about one person's abstract view not shared by any other critic? HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry for the comments a bit delayed again. I'm on a general food and sugar detox (I mean, I still a little bit of a sugar, but far less) and focus on getting my brain as well as editing VG articles.
Most of the music video section looks good, but "She expressed excitement about the video's concept and concluded "it still feels very 'Meghan Trainor,' which is amazing!".[70]" (1) "Expressed excited" just sounds weird, and (2) we've already established she's talking about the "video's concept" in the previous sentenece.
Fixed.
Not sure why the first paragraph of the synopsis section is in there instead of the background and concept section.
Moved.
The music video reception sub-section is another quotefarm, with some of the quotes being summaries instead of real opinions. For example,
"Pell wrote that the clip continued the "bubbly and bright" theme of the "All About That Bass" video.[74]"
"Parker noted Trainor's fashion in the video, and stated that it "seems to be an unofficial campaign to land her own M.A.C. Viva Glam endorsement deal".[72]"
She described the video as "a super-meta technicolor dance party".[73]
Mashable's Brian Anthony Hernandez wrote that "the visuals are what you would expect from a bouncy pop song: young dancers, colorful backgrounds, quirky outfits and exaggerated expressions".[75]
These quotes are equivalent to review of music analyzing the genre of the song instead of giving a good/bad opinion.
I picked out more critical quotes from the article and rewrote the section. Mashable removed as it didn't offer anything critical.
The live performances paragraph also has a bit of a quotefarm vibe; I mean, there's no quotes, sure, but it's got that indiscriminate list feel to it. I think it's just the first paragraph.
Hmm, it doesn't have any quotes. I rewrote it a bit though and made the first paragraph more informative.
OK, I think these are all the comments I need to make, plus Nikkimaria's checking the sources, so I'll let them take care of that. Best of luck HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait to further comments until the above review as I do not want to step on anyone's toes. Apologies for interrupting their discussion above. Just wanted to let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would revise the following part from the lead, The song had a premiere on MTV News on October 15, 2014, and was released to United States contemporary hit radio stations by Epic Records, to the following, Epic Records premiered the song on MTV News on October 15, 2014, and released it to United States contemporary hit radio stations. I am recommending this for a few reasons. I think it is important to clarify that the MTV news premiere was also done by Epic Records. This revision would also put this part into a more active tense, and change up the sentence variation as most of the first paragraph has the song at the start of the sentences.
Sounds better to me. Done.
I am uncertain if the novelty part of this part of the lead, it too derivative of its predecessor and thought it lacked novelty, is really supported in the article or if it is really needed.
Given the equal amount of weightage negative and positive reviews have in the article body, I think it is important to represent the negative ones in this sentence too. Therefore, I have tweaked and kept some of it. Please feel free to change it to wording you think represents it better.
To be clear. I was not asking you to remove the negative criticism part entirely. I was only referencing the thought it lacked novelty. I think the revision looks good though. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by this sentence, The two had an additional day to work together and went into the studio., in the "Background" section. What do you mean by "an additional day"? There was not a time frame or schedule set up prior to this so "an additional day" lacks any context to be really understand (at least in my opinion).
I could have sworn the part about it being after the album's initial completion used to be in the article lol. Just added it back.
For this part, He spoke fondly about writing with Trainor: "It's almost like we share a brain musically when we're writing a song. I've never had that with anyone before.", I would add in the prose the year that he said this to just clarify that to readers. I would say something like In a 2014 interview.
Done.
Since single is linked in the lead, I would also link it on the first mention in the article for consistency.
Done.
I have a clarification question about this part, "Lips Are Movin" was briefly available to stream on mobile application Shazam. Why was it only briefly available on Shazam?
Shazam does this thing called "First listen", where a song exclusively premieres on there for a while and is available to stream upon shazamming the artist's previous single. This stops working when the song is officially out and is replaced with links to retailers like Apple Music instead.
I have another clarification question about this part American actress Liza Koshy. I never really associated Koshy as an actress (no offense to her, but I think she is far more well known as a YouTuber). Is that a fair assessment? I would put a description next to her that reflects what she is most well known for and I frankly do not think actress is it (but feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
I had initially gone for "actress" as it was the first profession listed in the opening sentence of her bio but you're right, her being a YouTuber is way more relevant to the context of her starring in this video. Changed.
I would either paraphrase or remove the "fierce" quote. I have always been told to avoid one-word quotes as they are never particularly useful, and the quote used later in the same sentence is much more interesting and informative anyway.
Removed.
Great work with the article. I have focused primarily on the prose. I do not notice anything obviously wrong with the images or the citations, but I have admittedly only looked at them superficially and without any deeper analysis. All my comments above are quite nitpick-y, and once they are addressed, I will read through the article again (and will likely support this FAC for promotion at that time). I am happy that you have gone for another FAC and I hope this encourages other editors who may have less-than-stellar experiences in the FAC space to consider doing future nominations. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the article's peer review, and will look through the article one more time to make sure it meets FA criteria. HĐ (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"However, critical commentary has described it as a song about Trainor leaving her significant other" I am uncertain if using "However" is correct--removing it would cause no harm.
Grammarly did not pick up any mistake in this sentence. I think the word "however" is beneficial here to represent the contrast between what the song was actually inspired by, and what critical commentary interpreted it as.
The Andrew Hampp link has the title "Best and Worst Singles of the Week"--I think it would be helpful to note whether Lips Are Movin was among the worst or best of the week.
The article does not make an explicit distinction between these but the tone of the review seems favorable so I added that.
"versatility, confidence, vulnerability and smartness" shouldn't this be in quotes?
Done.
I see that the weekly sales for its top-10 entry was re-added. I don't press to remove it completely--it's just that it reads incomplete that there is weekly sales for one week, and then this information disappears in thin air.
This was a re-addition insisted on by another reviewer. Since this information is also available for the following week, I have now added it.
Link laptop (I know this is a common term, but still..)
Linked.
"Andelman suggested showcasing behind-the-scenes events occurring during a music video shoot, which was used as the video's theme" convoluted. Is there any more straightforward way to word this?
Clarified.
"The x360 was utilized by each influencer who participated in the clip" I think something like "The x360 laptop appears frequently in the music video as a product placement" would sound better.
Changed.
Ref 9 has a harv error (to see this error, you must install this script).
It doesn't show the error anymore. Please feel free to verify if I have done this correctly.
I revised the wording for one sentence--please feel free to revise/revert if you think it reads awkwardly. Other than that, all of my concerns are now resolved. Happy to support this article for FA. Well done! HĐ (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ Please remove your blue templates from everywhere in FAC. Transclusions are to be avoided at FAC because they cause the page to exceed template limits, meaning FACs later on the page get cut off. Hopefully people can read a quote by ... using quote marks rather than colors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WT:FAC; in the past, it was encouraged, but it seems that it may now be a problem. I prefer just to use straight quotes without any transclusions at all, as we now have such a problem at FAC. It is being discussed on FAC talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I would say this article is extremely well done. Congrats MaranoFan! The prose is engaging, I see no original research and this article is definitely broad in its coverage. The only issues I have are with the citations, although all of them seem reputable and high quality. Here are my concerns:
Note 'A' cites six sources at the end (WP:OVERCITE?). I see that ref 2, 8, and 12 are used throughout the article so maybe remove those or convert ref 9-11 to a bullet point list ref.
Fixed.
Repeating a wikilink is okay on citations per MOS:REPEATLINK. I would recommend adding them in as it could enhance understanding.
@FAC coordinators: , this nomination has accrued five supports and complete source and media reviews as well. I just wanted to bring that to your attention since I am excited and this seems to be the average count at which recent nominations got promoted. Regards.--NØ03:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no particular problems, but it has only been nominated for two weeks. I intend to leave it open for a few more days to allow time for other potentially interested reviewers to chip in. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Kevin Kadish met Meghan Trainor" → who is Kevin Kadish?
Clarified.
fn 6 url didnt work
Fixed.
"Trainor overheard the track for "Lips Are Movin" through Kadish's headphone box and insisted they write it that day" → I'm a bit confused. Did she hear like an instrumental version and then they wrote lyrics to it?
Yes. Since it's clear from the references the lyrics weren't written yet, I have changed it to instrumental track.
fn 17 use the archived version which contains the text cited in the article
Done.
"The record label sent it to radio stations in the United Kingdom" → I believe BBC Radio songs are added their playlists by BBC (as does every radio station), but unlike US/Italy, the record label doesn't officially send them on a date. Maybe reword?
Changed.
fn 27 missing first/last, suggest adding via= as it's published by Sony, not the website
Fixed.
"Mikael Wood of Los Angeles Times considered "Lips Are Movin" as one of Title's dozen versions of the latter, which he found as cheerful but also as annoying." → Mikael Wood of the Los Angeles Times considered it one of Title's dozen versions of the latter..."
Amended.
fn 37 "spells great things for" is the same text as in the article, but no quotation marks are given?
This must have slipped out. Thanks, reworded.
"which Parker likened to the one in American television program So You Think You Can Dance" → I think this part is unnecessary
Removed.
"The music video's release reportedly boosted Trainor's social media presence, including an 11% surge in Twitter followers and 16% on Facebook." → the Billboard article fn 77 cites has more info; also "reportedly" makes it seem it could be untrue
I have kept "reportedly" as there is no explicit way to know that the music video was the sole reason for the gain. It is just what was reported :)
fn 85 "EW" should be in italics, same for "Billboard" in fn 41
Done.
fn 90 "TODAY" is a stylization, not an acronym, so it can be written as "Today".
The anons as authors is kinda kludgy. Is that used by a citation style?
From Template:Sfn: "There is no consensus (in Wikipedia or among citation styles) about how to format author–date citations for works that do not have a specific author...Other style guides recommend using "Anonymous" or "Anon."DMT biscuit (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to keep track on Anona versus Anonb. I basically need to Ctl+F to find the citation that points to the text
You can set the anchors to the title if that would work better for you
Martin (2017) has been removed. Levenson (2017) currently remains as it's writer's past work with NPR and Pitchfork may ensure reliability; this is per your discretion.DMT biscuit (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vice has cited TMT; so have The New York Times. Writer cited and editor-in-chief Marvin Lin has as published a 33⅓ book for which TMT staff were consulted. Lin was an editor at Pitchfork before starting the magazine ([37]). Another staffer, Charles Ubaghs, has given academic lectures on social media and served as a journalist/editor for BBC, DrownedinSound, The Quietus, and The Stool Pigeon ([38]).DMT biscuit (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guerillero that "anons as authors is kinda kludgy". While I understand they may be "an allowable style choice", the way the short note SFNs are done actually creates a problem. Imagine the reader looking at this article in hard print (it happens). Without the "jump" provided by the SFN to the actual source, how do they determine which anon is the source ? It would be much preferable to spell out the article name in the SFN, in place of anon, since there are so many of those. I would prefer that these be fixed so that they work in hardprint versions and mirrors as well as on Wikipedia, where the jumps can be clicked on.
DMT hit on the "Pitchfork editors (December 22, 2017)" formula this morning, which I much prefer and recommend that they implement for all the anon sources. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Ceoil mentioned I've converted the majority of Anon cites into [publication] editors/writers. The general consensus is that this is for the better. Do you agree?DMT biscuit (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: on the query Guerillero made above about https://maximumfun.org/episodes/bullseye-with-jesse-thorn/bullseye-jesse-thorn-werner-herzog-and-phil-elverum/, where you answered "The host Jesse Thron has had worked published by PRI and NPR and work praised by the WSJ", typically your should provide evidence of that. By not giving us that info, diligent reviewers are then obligated to look that up. Also, "just an interview" logic doesn't work for me, for two reasons: a) still has to be reliable (how do we know the author reliably used the interview material), and b) typically, anything worth saying is said by reliable sources. I am not objecting per se to that source, just pointing out these issues.
The combination of relatively short paragraphs and long sections in "Background and composition" and to a lesser extent "Music and lyrics" overview make it more difficult to scan. It is best for the reader to break up content into chunks about 3-4 paragraphs long with subheadings, especially on mobile devices where, for instance, your background and composition section is going to take up several screens of space. (t · c) buidhe06:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the quoteboxes in the Reception section don't seem to be doing enough to justify their existence; I would recommend putting the quotes into the text and/or paraphrasing. (t · c) buidhe22:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images in "Impact" section: According to WP:NPOV, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement..." What makes these two reactions more important than the others, justifying the greater prominence? What about their appearance adds encyclopedic value to the article? (t · c) buidhe18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: They're prominent artists in genres other than Elverum's, thus demonstrating how the album impacted not only fans and music critics but disparate artists. The image and their respective captions summarization the adjacent text. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too bothered by those images because they are not adding POV; they are presenting a view that is pretty common in the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as with Moisejp, also made many comments on talk, a few edits, and participated in the last PR. I'm [now, having become a bit obsessed with the album since discovering it via the PR] familiar with most of the sources, and confident that this is one of our better FAC standard album articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To note, the comment re familar with most of the sources can be taken as confirmation that there is no evidence of close paraphrasing etc, and essentially a sign off on a source review. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"His working title for the album was Death is Real." – Though it's not directly addressed in the source, it's worth addressing here that this did become the title of the intro track.
The opening track is entitled "Real Death". It does however feature the phrase "Death is Real"; the soundclip of includes the caption: "The first track...introduces the theme that "Death is Real", which Elverum once said could be the name of the album.[50]"DMT biscuit (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... to represent the 'uncomfortable feeling of applying significance to insignificant things'. Two sources are cited but presumably the quote only comes from the latter.
Sources without a date should have | (i.e. "no date"). It also goes in the shortcite in place of the year, e.g. "Smith n.d."; if necessary they can be distinguished by "n.d.a", "n.d.b" and so on.
In the "Citations" I would recommend sorting "Anon." sources by date, earliest to latest; it's not immediately clear to me how they're sorted at the moment.
Fixed. I reworked the abundance of anons; adding either blanket titles, such as "ABC Writer" "Pitchfork Writers"... or in the case of Year end lists crediting the writer who wrote the segment cited--including that segment in the title as well. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes for Metacritic and Acclaimed Music—"Its appearance on the list made it the highest rated folk album of the decade." and "In total, the tenth-highest ranking for an indie folk album"—strike me as somewhat arbitrary. It's comparatively high on Acclaimed Music's "indie folk" list, yes, but the site also attaches the album to the genre "singer-songwriter", and the article could also include the album's rankings by year or by decade (both comparatively high). In any case the Acclaimed Music "indie folk" reference link is dead, though if you're set on keeping it this URL works.
The "Accolades" table could be expanded. Many major music/news publications are missing (Exlaim! ["folk and country" genre list, but a #2 placement], Fact, The Guardian, Magnet, NPR Music, PopMatters, Tiny Mix Tapes [#1!!], Uncut). Other times only a publication's decade-end list is included, but not its year-end (Noisey, Spin); OTOH I would include AllMusic's decade-end list but not its year-end, since both are unranked anyway, though adding at least one of them means there would be some function for the "unranked/asterisk" note below the table.
I've implemented TMT. I'm hesitant to add the others. I feel the accolades section should be brief and highlight the most relevant examples (those placed within in the top ten or nearabouts); the inclusion of rankings such as the Guardian's 47 may run the risk of betraying summary style and evoking wikipuffery. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should be at least a brief paragraph summarizing the "Accolades" section in prose. A good model here is Yeezus§ Accolades, although of course it doesn't need to be nearly as long what's there. I would recommend mentioning at least Metacritic and Pazz & Jop in prose, plus maybe meta-commentary on its acclaim like e.g. Seattle Metropolitan noting it as the most-mentioned album by an artist from Washington state on "best of the 2010s" lists. Come to think of it, a paragraph in this section would also be a much better home for the footnotes I took issue with a few bullet points above. Pazz & Jop in prose would be a good opportunity to also note that Robert Christgau's P&J top ten ballot listed the album third, and he pumped the album in his accompanying P&J essay It's a bit surprising too that Xgau's Vice review is cited in-table for its score but not quoted from elsewhere; he had unusually much to say about the album, and it's rare that the Dean is reduced to a sentiment like "Like nothing I've ever heard."
In the "Personnel" section: "Credits adapted from the album's liner notes and Cult MTL." It's not clear why the liner notes alone don't suffice, and besides the cites are to Cult MTL and Consequence of Sound. —BLZ · talk09:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The album was recorded onto a laptop computer, making A Crow Looked at Me his first album to be produced entirely in this way" – Not entirely clear what this means. Digital vs. analog? Had he recorded on a computer before, but not a laptop? Possibly better phrased as something like "A Crow Looked at Me was his first album recorded onto a laptop computer, having previously recorded with [x, y, z conditions]."
Regarding Bandcamp Daily: It looks like Bandcamp's Best of 2017 list was called into question, but not Martin 2017 directly. I don't see any issue whatsoever with Martin 2017 as a reliable source. Bandcamp Daily is overseen by a permanent professional editorial staff (see this post), including former contributors to music publications like Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, etc., and the former editor of the 33⅓ series. In any case, there's no doubt that they conducted an interview with Elverum and that it was not fabricated.
Regarding the info I added to the "cover artwork" section: The reference to Tintin in Tibet was previously deemed trivial in the second peer review because it was embedded in the prose in a trivial way. The connection to the song on Now Only was not made clear. The major issue raised at peer review was that the way it was written made the subject of the next sentence confusing/ambiguous. The connection to Now Only can be established by this Stereogum interview: "STEREOGUM: There are clear connections between your last two albums, whether it's the fact that the main subject matter is Geneviève, or smaller stuff like the Tintin In Tibet comic being in one album’s artwork and inspiring a song title on the other..." Other facts added to the cover artwork section were not merely restating the information provided by the album cover image in the infobox—it's hardly obvious what room that is in the photo, just that it is "a room", but the fact that it's Castrée's former studio carries enormous significance. —BLZ · talk01:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like above I'll restate the info from Martin 2017 and add the stereogum cite. Nice find. Update: I added the info from Lyons 2018 in the form of a note as I feel inclusion in the prose would be jarring. DMT biscuit (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books URL attached to Franklin 2020 seems to be dead, it doesn't link to an actual page because there's no preview for the linked edition. Not that it really matters, so long as you're sure that the ISBN/edition and cited page number are correct. There's another edition on Google Books with a preview, but it's an ebook edition without numbered pagination.
I noticed the archive URL for Sankowski 2017 was blank, and indeed was blank on every date the page had been "archived" on Archive.org (whether or not the UTM "?disableRedirects=true" was attached to the end of the URL or not). This sometimes happens on certain websites that want to try to prevent archiving (or to prevent some other behavior that happens to also prevent archiving as a side effect). If this happens, it's worth checking Archive.is as an alternative; I find that it's almost always (but not quite always) able to save pages that are unsaveable on Archive.org. One tip: if you use Archive.is, you have to "share" and copy the "long link" (which uses "archive.today/" and includes the full URL of the archived link, just like Archive.org links) to be able to save it on Wikipedia.
The |language= parameter is used inconsistently for English-language sources. It's variously included as en-us, en-br, en, or most often not at all. Doesn't ultimately matter too much—afaik it's really only strictly necessary for non-English sources, but if you're going to use it I'd be as consistent and thorough as possible.
I feel (perhaps self consciously) as though my review comments so far have been too harshly critical, maybe because I didn't open my review with my usual preamble about how I deem the project at hand to be clearly worthy of serious consideration and how I caution that my method of directly editing the article is not intended to assert any "my way or the highway" attitude (I swear I'm not trying to be a dick). Rest assured you have done a tremendous job writing this article, and I have enjoyed almost every step of the way. This is how the article looked way back before you ever edited it, way back in 2019, and I've been checking in on it over that time feeling nothing but amazement, shock and appreciation that someone was developing it so well. You've killed it. Your overall sensitivity and attunement to the themes and spirit of the album are extraordinary and I can't wait for this to be featured because you've really earned it. —BLZ · talk08:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you. I don't think you've been a "dick" or overly critical, considering this is FAC. I've actually been quite surprised by how nice everyone has been here. You're edits have also been very helpful--especially regarding the more technical stuff, which I think you'll know from my work on this and the Great American Novel isn't my strong suit. I was very happy to have you on board as Ok Computer, alongside Loveless and recently 1989, was an article i frequently referred to for inspiration. While we're doing compliments, congratulations on being, perhaps the first person to have a Chief Keef lyric as an edit summary. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I engaged at the peer review to look at MOS and sourcing issues. I am satisfied that reliability of sourcing concerns have been met, and support on crit. 1, 2 and 4. I believe material is available in sources to write this article in more compelling prose, but the prose meets FA standard as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, I have now revisited and refreshed my memory of what review I did, and no, it does not count as first-time spot check (I was not aware this was a first-timer). I will dig in to do that, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was involved in writing this article as far as the GA review, and DMT Biscuit has excelled in getting it to the current status since then. As I see it, this article meets the FA criteria through quality of prose, breadth of coverage, sourcing and subject matter. Great work. — sparklism hey!15:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If its expectation of further from BLZ, he seems to be pre-occupied IRL atm and not editing much; but all his points have been met and I take tacit support from "I can't wait for this to be featured because you've really earned it". Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime his prior albums are mentioned, shouldn't their chronological appearance in his discography be mentioned too? i.e. "his second album Lost Wisdom (2008)"
@MaranoFan:Lost Wisdom isn't his second album overall, but, just the second studio album under the Mount Eerie name—he previously recorded under The Microphones. As a result, it would likely become convoluted to mention their place in Elverum's discography. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"After its release and widespread acclaim, he undertook well-received tours of North America and Europe" -- I would omit the part about widespread acclaim here and move it to the last paragraph of the lead, since the tours' good reception doesn't have any direct correlation with the album itself.
"Kyger died two days before the album's release" -- This seems trivial and I'm not sure how it influenced this album if it was so close to its release.
"He had originally planned a small-scale release on his website, but as the album took shape, wanted to reach a wider audience" -- A better way to frame this would be "He had originally planned a small-scale release on his website but wanted to reach a wider audience as the album took shape".
"The album's music is reminiscent of his 2008 albums" -- I think this would still make sense if you just said "The album is reminiscent of his 2008 works" or "Its music is reminiscent of his 2008 albums"
Did a secondary source report Zauner's comments? If Tidal (a streaming service) is the only source covering this, its inclusion might be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Support - I will assume good faith that you will address the two remaining minor concerns and am now ready to support this for promotion. This article convinced me to listen to the album, so job accomplished! :) In case you have some time, please do consider reviewing my current FAC which is also music-related. Best wishes, NØ13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On talk, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/A Crow Looked at Me/archive1#First-time nom spot check. There are still a few niggles to wrap up, but between the sources I reviewed on this spot check and those I also reviewed at peer review and at my FAC review, I am confident DMT biscuit has accurately represented the body of the literature and has no issues with too-close paraphrasing or copyvio. There were minor instances of use of less-than-best sources, but most of the sources for this topic are all saying similar things, so sources are easily swapped. On sourcing, I believe the article meets 1b, 1c, 1f, and 2c. It might not hurt, should they be interested, for @Nikkimaria: or @Ealdgyth: to look over my work, as I don’t typically do source reviews. Signing off as I am going to be traveling over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When have these plans been made public? Was there any public reaction upon release?
The plans were largely declassified under the 30-year rule in the late 1970s. Books appeared in the early 1980s, including Gregg Herken's The Winning Weapon (1980) and Borowski's A Hollow Threat: Strategic Air Power and Containment Before Korea (1982). The central issue that Soviets had the ability to overrun Europe and Asia, and that nuclear weapons were no deterrent at all doesn't seem to have made much of an impression, although I know that my generation were astounded when the old hands talked about the planned retreat to the Pyrenees. There were two factors here: the capability of Soviet conventional forces was well understood and still an important issue in the 1980s; and the fact that the atomic stockpile was small in the late 1940s had been revealed in the early 1960s (by which time the stockpile was humungous). Yet in 2016, documents on targeting obtained through FOI ("1950s U.S. Nuclear Target List Offers Chilling Insight") still made front page news in the New York Times. (Targeting is more sensitive than the war plans because it incorporated more detailed intelligence.) Comments from reviewers of the article seem to indicate a much greater fascination with the destructiveness of nuclear weapons that with the dangerous bluff. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
followed, if necessary by a retreat to the Pyrenees – comma missing here behind "necessary"?
Not required but small and quick fixes that are beneficial to the readers. Is that not what we're here for, or is it just the bronze star...? Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Apologies for my comment, I see they've been inserted regardless. Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It was expected that the Soviet Union would demobilize most of its forces to facilitate the post-war reconstruction of its economy, which had been devastated by the war, and was not expected to recover before 1952." I might cut "post-war" as implied by the rest of the sentence.
"581,000 Army personnel had been separated." Maybe "discharged"?
Not the same thing. A discharge completely alleviates the veteran of any unfulfilled military service obligation, whereas a separation (which may be voluntary or involuntary) may leave an additional unfulfilled military service obligation to be carried out. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonetheless, the Harmon committee doubted that it would destroy civilian morale; based on World War II experience, the reverse would be more likely." I would suggest "opposite" instead of "reverse"
I would recommend looking again at the accessibility concerns above if they are resolvable.
I already did them under protest. The changes to the table were extensive, complex and troublesome. I fear that they would have been a deterrent to less technical editor Hawkeye7(discuss)20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian, Iberian, Danish and Scandinavian peninsulas could be held against superior numbers Is this supposed to be in Wikipedia's voice or is this the opinion of the JWPC?
would be unwilling to divert the resources required to hold Scandinavia you mention Iberia, Denmark, Scandinavia, and Italy above but only Scandinavia here.
I'm curious, why did the plans call for so many nukes to be dropped on cities? Surely they had seen the devastation caused in Japan at the end of WWII? Why were they planning to drop potentially dozens of atomic bombs on one city?
The damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been studied. The map is instructive here: targets were identified as industrial, oil production and communications. It wasn't so much targeting cities per se as the industries in them. Hiroshima would have been a communications target and Nagasaki an industrial one. At Nagasaki, two industrial facilities were targeted with the one bomb. This thinking drove the acquisition of megaton bombs that could take out multiple facilities at once. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20 division Army, 143 wing Air Force and 402 ship Navy those are all compound adjectives and need a hyphen between the number and the noun.
improved designs, with the X-Ray and Yoke tests having yield The ", with" construction is a poor way of joining a sentence, although it's the only one I spotted.
I love twentieth-century history, but most of my knowledge is through the lens of Canadian history. Consider me a non-expert.
At some point the Canadians realised that nobody else was going to write Canadian military history, but I'm open to collaboration on 20th century topics. For my master's thesis my supervisor gave me a Canadian book and asked me to produce an Australian version. Which I did. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically the story of Canadian history: we realised that Americans and Brits are not going to write about our history, so we have to do it ourselves. If I start editing 20th century military history topics, I'll give you a shout (though I'm more interested in the political side of history). Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review: lede and background
Many of my comments involve removing words or tightening up the language. I suggest you conduct a copyedit for similar issues in the rest of the article.
"were formulated on a regular basis between 1945 and 1950" This feels very general, especially for an opening sentence. Were the plans being remade from the beginning every day? Were they being revised every six months? I want much more specific language in the opening sentence. Maybe something like "were constantly created and revised by the US government between 1945 and 1950."
"At no point was it considered likely that the Soviet Union or United States would resort to war, only that one could potentially occur as a result of a terrible miscalculation." Change to "It was considered unlikely that the Soviet Union or United States would resort to war, but one could potentially occur as a result of a strategic miscalculation" This tightens up the words and removes commentary/opinion that a war between the two countries would be terrible. (Just because I think it would be terrible doesn't mean everyone thought a war was terrible.)
"Intelligence assessments of the Soviet Union's capabilities" whose intelligence assessments? American? This is important because the reader needs to know if this was the truth of the Soviet capabilities, or what the Americans thought was the Soviet capabilities. (or something else)
"About 6.7 million casualties were anticipated, of whom 2.7 million would be killed." When I think of "casualty" I think of someone dying, so this sentence confused me. Maybe change the word to "injuries"?
Per MOS:BOLD, only the first occurrence of the title word or phrase should be bolded. Most of the bolded words in the body should be unbolded (especially when the word is the title of the section)
MOS:BOLD: The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not.Hawkeye7(discuss)03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct that the word should be bolded in the body, per the above quote. My concern is that Pincher, Broiler, Halfmoon and Offtackle were bolded twice in the article: once in the lede and once in the body. I haven't seen this done in an article before, and I just skimmed some warfare FAs and didn't find an article that bolded a term twice. Should these terms be bolded in the lede? Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the lead and the article are considered independent of each other, as it is the practice to use one of the other for various applications. I'll wait and see if someone else wants to weigh in on it. Hawkeye7(discuss)05:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t consider myself an authority on this, as I had a run-in myself regarding MOSBOLD with some MOS warriors in my own editing :). But ... MOS:BOLD also says (in the next sentence after those quoted) that this use is not a requirement, so it seems like we can choose to do whatever makes most sense. Most of our readers probably have no idea why we are bolding these words anyway, which would appear random to them if they don’t know about redirects, whether they are in the lead or anywhere else, so I’m not sure doing it elsewhere (twice) does them any good, so ... why do we bother? Maybe so we will remember to change it to a link should someone create that article and it is no longer a redirect? If that is unlikely to happen, I don’t see that we are helping either ourselves or the reader by having a bolded word show up in the middle of the article, making them wonder why ... not sure that answer helps at all, but I have kinda/sorta given up on keeping up with the vagaries of MOS. If it helps, I don’t recall ever seeing it done like this (twice), but I am not as active at FAC or FAR as I once was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What happened here was that there was originally separate articles for each war plan, but they were stubs. I changed them all to be redirects to this article. It's possible that they could be upgraded to real articles again, but given how long they remained as stubs, and the depth of coverage here, I wouldn't hold my breath. Accordingly, I have unboldened them in the body and left them bold only in the lead, which should satisfy the presumed requirement. Note the bit above where compliance with MOS:DTAB is requested. This is technical and tricky, and while I have complied, I fear that many editors would delete the table or not nominate at FAC at all if they had to conform. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"While Britain would continue to be an important power, its position would be greatly diminished." Replace "would be" with "was".
"Until then the Soviet Union would seek to avoid conflict, but for its own security it would attempt to control border states." Replace "would seek to avoid" with "avoided"
The sentence would read, "At the surrender of Japan in August 1945, 581,000 Army personnel had been separated." In my writing, I always try to eliminate extra words and say things with as few words as possible. I don't think my suggestion changes the meaning of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Of most interest were nuclear weapons and long range missiles." This sounds awkward because the noun is not at the beginning of the sentence. Change to "Their first concern was nuclear weapons and long range missiles" or something similar.
"Bush did not think it was possible to build a missile like the German V-2 rocket of World War II, but with a range of 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km), and even if it were, it would still need overseas bases to reach the Soviet Union." Awkward phrasing. Change to "Bush was sceptical that a missile like the German V-2 rocket of World War II could be built, but if it was possible it would need overseas bases to reach the Soviet Union."
"The plan did not specifically call for the use of nuclear weapons, although it noted that bases within Boeing B-29 Superfortress range of key targets were lacking.[12] At the time the B-29 was the USAAF's most advanced long-range bomber.[13]" As a non-military expert, I think these sentences imply that the B-29 would be used to deploy nuclear weapons. Is this the case? If so, this should be stated in the second sentence with something like "At the time the B-29 was the USAAF's most advanced long-range bomber and would be used to deploy nuclear weapons."
"The Air Force gradually became the major user of nuclear weapons" The word "user" here confuses me, as nuclear weapons were only used in 1945. Do you mean they were the major stockpiler, the organisation in charge, the branch with the most nuclear weapons ready to deploy, or something else?
Custody of the nuclear stockpile was in the hands of the Atomic Energy Commission. Changed to "the agency most concerned with the delivery of nuclear weapons". The original use of "user" was correct in the military usage of the word; I have a habit of using words in their narrowest, most precise meanings. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Convair B-36 Peacemaker, with a range of 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 km), was being introduced to service in 1948, but was not atomic capable." Remove being
Changed to "in the process of being introduced to service". Deliveries began in August 1947, but due to the large number of bugs, the B-36 did not become operational for several years. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"One reason for this was the paucity of intelligence on the precise location" This is the first time I have heard of the word "paucity". Maybe change to scarcity?
"Although Broiler was accepted as an emergency war plan, this did not mean that the Joint Chiefs liked it. On the contrary, all the chiefs had reservations about it." This can be shortened to "Although Broiler was accepted as an emergency war plan, all "the Joint Chiefs had reservations about it."
"Although he recognized the reality that the Rhine could not be held with the available forces, he wanted a return to Western Europe at the earliest possible date." Suggested change to "He determined that the Rhine could not be held with the available forces but wanted a return to Western Europe at the earliest possible date."
I added non-breaking spaces to the article for dates, which allows easier reading for users on a smaller screen (like a smartphone). This was taught to me by a member of the GOCE. If you do not like the changes, you can revert my edit.
(which included the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF)) The parentheses within parentheses bugs me. Maybe turn into a parenthetical phrase with commas?
Added: "a system whereby soldiers were awarded points based for length of service, length of overseas service, children and decorations. Those with the highest scores had priority for separation from the Army." See here for more details. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a beginner at doing formal reviewing, but I just wanted to note a confusing point(s) (may add more if I find any):
In the Pincher section, I think that it should be more clear that "This was a major barrier, but it was anticipated that it could not be held for long" was referring to the entirety of Western Europe and not just the Rhine. Shotgunscoop (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering about include the volume number in Poole and Schnabel; perhaps put it separately, like in Little? Condit and Knaack seem fine, as there is a subtitle with the volume number, in those cases. Feel free to disagree, this is just my initial reaction.
No doubts here, all consistently high-quality sources
Verifiability
Not done, though the nominator is a prolific FAC participant, and I believe I have spot checked them in the past. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only bulleted list I see there starts with "Renault-Elf", which is a redirect to "Renault (cycling team)". That is not a person, but definitely a team. The same goes for the other seventeen items in that bulleted list. Are you really talking about that list? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-race favourites
"had won the 1984 Tour de France" --> "had won the previous Tour de France".
Done.
"Panasonic–Raleigh" is linked in the second mention; should be linked in the first mention.
Done.
Route and stages
"Summit of the Col du Tourmalet, the highest point of elevation during this year's Tour"-- suggest changing "this year's" to "the 1985", as "this" may sound like "the current year" aka 2021.
Done.
Italicizing "en route" is not needed,
Done. Never sure which terms are covered and which aren't.
In the table's header, suggest switching positions of ref 38 and 30. Feel free to do this or not, I'm sure it's just my OCD triggered.
Done.
Race overview
Suggest making the display text of the second main article as "Stage 12 to Stage 22", as the prefix "1985 Tour de France" has been stated in the first main article.
In accordance with MOS:LEADCITE, I added that citation since this statement is not repeated anywhere in the article and might be challenged.
but time bonuses saw the lead switch to Eric Vanderaerden after stage 1 ===>>> but lost the lead to Eric Vanderaerden after stage 1 because of time bonuses. (as is, it doesn't follow parallelism)
Done.
leading to a bronchitis ===>> leading to bronchitis
Done.
However, he was able to fight off ===>>> Nonetheless, he was able to fight off (two "However"s)
Done.
Clarify that Hinault had a large lead from stage 8 onwards.
Done.
For his assistance ===>>> For LeMond's assistance (unclear "his")
Done.
The above sentence sounds like it is contradictory with the previous one. Maybe be more specific with what happened with LeMond.
I cannot quite follow which sentence you mean?
Nonetheless, he was able to fight off challenges by teammate LeMond and Roche to win the race overall. For LeMond's assistance, Hinault publicly pledged to support LeMond for overall victory the following year. <<<=== These two sentences. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Mhh, I am not quite convinced. If I word it as "in Hinault's victory", that makes it sound that the change was made to specifically disadvantage Hinault (which he might have believed, but was certainly not the whole truth). Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teams
Three Italian teams (Gis Gelati, Alpilatte–Olmo–Cierre, and Malvor–Bottecchia–Vaporella) withdrew ===>>> Because three Italian teams (Gis Gelati, Alpilatte–Olmo–Cierre, and Malvor–Bottecchia–Vaporella) withdrew, the Tour started (I don't like "so" as a transition word)
Done.
Each team had 10 cyclists, so the 1985 Tour ===>>> With 10 cyclists on each team, the 1985 Tour
Done.
The average age of riders in the race was 26.76 years ===>>> The riders in the race had an average age of 26.76 years (to make "ranging" work in the next clause)
Done.
who had won in 1980 <<<=== should be in parentheses
Done.
, as it was their fifteenth start in the race ===>>> by each starting in the race for their fifteenth time.
Done.
That one sentence could just be the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Done.
Favourites
as record winner of the Tour ===>> for the record number of Tour wins.
Done.
winning the road world championship ===>>> a win in the road world championship (to keep parallelism with the next clause)
Done.
The amount of individual time trials, a total of 159 km (99 mi), ===>>> Either "The number of individual time trials, totaling 159 km (99 mi)," OR "The amount of individual time trials, four stages totaling 159 km (99 mi)," OR "The length of the individual time trials, totaling 159 km (99 mi),"
Done.
Route
started in Brittany ===>>> started in Brittany in northwest France
Done.
Vosges and Jura ===>>> Vosges and Jura mountains
Done.
into the Alps ===>>> into the Alps for stages 11 through 13
Done.
to the Pyrenees ===>>> to the Pyrenees for stages 17 and 18 (again, check that?)
Reworded "for three high-mountain stages".
Opening stages
immediately, by <<<=== you don't need a comma
Done.
meaning that he was eliminated from the race before reaching the first stage proper, having missed the time limit ===>>> eliminating him from the race before reaching the first stage proper due to having missed the time limit.
Done.
highlighted the stage with a 205 km <<<=== "highlighted" doesn't sound right here
Reworded.
jersey, courtesy <<<=== you don't need a comma
Come.
now came from ===>>> came from
Done.
Manders left him ===>>> leaving him
That would make the sentence wrong, since then it would sound like van Vliet left Manders behind.
before the finish, as van Vliet ===>>> before the finish when van Vliet
Done.
Kelly and Vanderaerden had battled hard for the victory, with the latter pushing Kelly towards the barriers, who pushed back with his arm. ===>>> During the sprint, Kelly and Vanderaerden pushed against each other, forcing Kelly towards the barriers.
Done.
the race lead remained with Andersen. ===>>> while Andersen kept the race lead. (parallelism)
Done.
on stage 7 ===>>> into stage 7
Done.
Vosges
who had started two minutes ahead of him ===>>> who had started two minutes ahead of him,
Done.
proceeded to take another minute out of him ===>>> proceeded to gain another minute on him
Done.
was taken to hospital ===>>> was taken to the hospital
Done.
into second place <<<=== remove this
Done.
Alps
stage 11, with the first leg <<<=== you don't need a comma
Done.
he collected the points ===>>> Herrera collected the points
Done.
in between teammates ===>> between teammates (unless they were in-between some other teammates, haha)
Done.
Hinault driving up to Pelier <<<=== Is "driving" fair here? You mean on the bike, right?
Changed to "riding".
Weakened by his attacking riding style <<<=== Do you mean Hinault was unable to attack? (You can't attack on a time trial, right?)
I meant over the previous days, have clarified.
Transition
of Fagor ===>> (Fagor)
Done.
15 km (9.3 mi) from the finish. ===>>> With 15 km (9.3 mi) from the finish,
Reworded.
Pyrenees
led to a bronchitis ===>>> led to bronchitis
Done.
He was therefore on the back foot <<<=== this is too informal. What does "back foot" mean here?
Changed to "weakened".
therefore, both cancelled each other out and allowed other riders to catch back up. ===>>> leading to both cancelling each other out and allowing other riders to catch back up.
Done.
he had to push his teammate ===>>> LeMond had to push his teammate
Done.
Finals
compared to 35.882 km/h ===>>> slightly faster than the 35.882 km/h
Done.
Leadership
changed for the 195 Tour <<<=== typo
Done.
for 25th placce <<<=== typo
Done. Must have been drunk when I wrote this section (but what does that say about the GA reviewer?)
The combination jersey for the combination classification was introduced in 1985 ===>>> The combination jersey for the combination classification was introduced in this year's Tour.
Done.
only points were awarded on intermediate sprints ===>>> only awarded points on intermediate sprints
Done.
from 3,2, and 1 points for the first three riders across during stages 1 to 5 to 12,8, and 4 points respectively during the last five stages <<<=== fix the two spacing issues
Done.
Who wore the green caps when La Vie Claire led both classifications? (Was it no one?)
Unfortunately, this sort of information is borderline impossible to come by. Even van den Akker, who did a tremendous job in collecting this sort of info, does not specify. If this classification was still around today, I would assume the second-placed team would wear them, but to be honest, if you look at the TV footage, even the team who did lead the classification did not wear those caps all the time back then, so maybe they didn't even bother... it's easier to enforce nowadays with helmets being compulsory.
and the idea was scrapped the following year. ===>>> . The idea was scrapped the following year.
Done.
120,000 Francs ===>>> 120,000 francs
Done.
Greg LeMond wore the technicolor jersey. <<<=== This isn't explained. Which one is the technicolor jersey? (It should be mentioned as the jersey for the combination classification above.) This also doesn't seem right? Why would this happen on Stage 21? What about the other stages where Kelly held two jerseys?
I have removed this altogether, since you are right, this should be noted for all the stages, but I cannot find the exact information on who wore the jerseys each day in place of somebody else. I guess somebody added this line because they saw LeMond in the jersey on the TV footage...
All (?) stages where somebody wore a jersey in place of somebody else are listed here. Not sure if this should be added, though, it is more a curiosity.
I'll try to add this information, but van den Akker's validity has been called into question in the source review, so we might have to wait how that turns out... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
His first Tour victory the following year did not come to LeMond as easily ===>>> LeMond's first Tour victory the following year did not come as easily
Supporting, but also see the two added comments on the lead. Also, I'd push for "22 stages and a prologue" (what you had originally) instead of "a prologue and 22 stages" as suggested below. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The license is given in the original image here, which links to here, where the Creative Commons licence is under "Auteursrechthebbende". Why the cropped image has CC 3.0 instead of CC 1.0 of the original, I do not know. I am not an expert on those licences unfortunately, so I am not sure if there is anything wrong with that. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I have given my support to this article. One of the many unfortunate nominations that did not manage to attract as much editors. It's a quality article, so I hope more editors look through this. GeraldWL02:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The final standings legend table is missing a caption and row scopes, and the table in the aftermath section is missing column scopes a caption. Heartfox (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Well, for the legend table, have moved the header into the caption, however, I don't really know where to put the scopes, since the table does not really have any rows and columns? For the table in the aftermath section, have added col scopes and a caption. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Have used headers to include the col scopes. Hope this is sufficient? I am sorry for being a bit of an idiot here, tables are my least favourite part of Wikipedia... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly taking the sources given on good faith as I read through this. Obviously if they haven't already been reviewed by somebody then they would need to be.
The infobox is quite wide and sandwiches text in the lead awkwardly on my screen. I don't know how much can be done about this or what standards exist regarding related articles, but it is something to consider.
It looks OK on my computer and to be honest, I have no idea how I would change it...
Is noting a cyclist's team in brackets in prose a standard when writing about road cycling? It took me a couple of moments to realise that this was the significance of the terms in brackets after the competitors names, and to someone who doesn't know that road cycling is a team sport it could prove difficult to parse.
So far, this has been standard in all cycling articles I've seen (at least the higher quality ones).
Personally I would suggest using the phrasing "Rider Cyclistsson (riding for the Organisation McOrganisationface team)" for the first rider who is mentioned and then just sticking to "Cyclist McRider (Operation Society)" for all the others in order to get a balance between clarity and conciseness. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions that there were "22 stages and a prologue"; would it make more sense to say "a prologue and 22 stages" since the prologue came first?
Done.
Remaining with the lead and still regarding the prologue, it may be worthwhile to provide some brief indication of the significance of the prologue relative to the other stages in the lead. A link to the individual time trial article from the word prologue would likely suffice.
Done.
Is there a reason why "Fabio Parra (Varta–Café de Colombia–Mavic) was the best rider who rode for the first time" is the exact wording used or could something more concise like "the best debutant" or "the best rookie" be used?
Done.
This source: "Record-aantal ploegen in Tour" Koninklijke Bibliotheek Nieuwsblad van het Noorden (15 June 1985) page 23" seems to go to a dead link.
I will have to come back to this, apparently Kranter has removed the paper from their library. Shame.
@HumanBodyPiloter5: OK, so I have scratched that statement alltogether since I found a newspaper article from the same date (15 June 1985) were the 18 teams were already announced, so that was a bit misguided anyway. I've also therefore scratched the part about the three Italian teams.
I assume that the part saying "Since three Italian teams (Gis Gelati, Alpilatte–Olmo–Cierre, and Malvor–Bottecchia–Vaporella) withdrew" is referring to three teams mentioned in the preceeding source which seems to be a dead link. Is there a particular significance to these teams being Italian relating to their withdrawal or is it just a coincidence?
See above.
Is "which would draw him level with Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx for the record number of Tour wins" referencing Tour de France wins or Grand Tour wins?
Clarified.
How does Philippa York prefer to be referred to in the past tense? If she hasn't said that she prefers to be refered to under her former public-facing identity in the past tense I would use her current identity.
I have so far not found an indication over how she wants to be spoken of when talking about the time when she was known as Millar. My reasoning was that for people familiar with cyling in the 80s, they might not be aware of her transition, so I have included the former name to avoid confusion and added the note to make it clear. I guess there can be different views on this, but since the sources on the topic all refer to her as "Robert Millar", I would argue that for her in the 80s, that is the WP:COMMONNAME.
Does the team time trial have any influence on the individual classifications?
Were Kelly and Vanderaerden relegated to the back of the field for the stage results or in the overall classification?
Just the actual field. Not even the stage result in general, but the field that they were in when they crossed the line. Whoever arrived later, seperate from the main pack, was still behind them.
That would make far more sense as a penalty. I would suggest changing the wording to say "their group" rather than "field" as the latter term is suggestive of the phrase "(x number) of teams fielded an entry", hence the confusion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I understand that the section titled "Vosges and Jura" is referring to the mountain ranges which were mentioned earlier in the article, and that presumably these stages took place in those regions, but reading through the article this heading stuck out as a little vague in its subject matter relative to the prose it contains.
The reason why I chose those quite generic descriptions was because I wanted to avoid editorializing, which basically every header containing the actual events in the race would mean... at least that is how I feel like.
The footnote explains about how Dietrich Thurau believed that Raymond Trine held a grudge against him, and while most of the information contained within that footnote is better suited to an explanatory footnote than the main prose, I think a few words mentioning that there was some sort of existing rancour may be suitable in the main prose.
Since the other altercations between the two are not strictly relevant to the 1985 Tour, I would prefer to leave them in the footnote.
A brief explanation or a suitable link explaining what a "categorised climb" is at first mention would probably be a good idea.
Will get back to this when rearranging the classifications section.
Is "led to a bronchitis" the normal wording? I'm no medical expert so I don't want to comment too much about this sort of thing.
Doing a quick Google search "leading to [illness]" seems quite common in English?
Is there a reason Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx have their full names used twice in the main body?
Done.
The explanation of the different classifications comes quite late in the article. I haven't found this to be a problem, but someone with no background knowledge may find it a little harder to parse. Not a particularly serious issue though, as the table of contents will presumably help anyone who's truly stuck.
Other than a few small concerns raised above, I would support this article for featured article status, provided all of the citations have been/will be verified appropriately by someone with the means or the time. A very high quality read for the most part.
Apart from the classifications section, which will need a complete new look considering the comments raised below, I think I have adressed everything from your side :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my position has changed from before. I will support the nomination unless it is shown that the article's contents cannot be verified from the sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A note, you seem to have missed the accessibility review further up in the page
If this is done than a caption can be added to the Aftermath table and ref 138 could be moved next to it like the other tables
Done.
Wondering if it's possible to include the information cited in the first sentence in the body text so the ref can be removed
Hmm, it doesn't really fit in the article body. Doesn't seem like a dealbreaker to me, all TdF FAs so far have the same format, I believe, with that statement in the lead only. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, just thought I'd check
Formatting
Bibliography
Why sometimes include the country as location and sometimes not? Needs to be consistent
Done.
References
Refs 4, 38, 74 missing |trans-title= that the others have
There were a couple of those, I think I have done all now.
ref 35 missing retrieval date
Done.
I'm confused by your use of retrieval dates, you're inconsistent with including them for refs via Delpher (e.g. ref 29 vs ref 66) and inconsistent with refs via Newspapers.com. (e.g. ref 62 vs 58). Either always include them or don't at all, just needs to be consistent—I would think it's better to include though
Reliability
What makes van den Akker, Pieter a high-quality reliable source if it's self-published? How is there credibility or oversight here?
@Aza24 and EdgeNavidad: In the end, the oversight comes from me and other editors who decide to use it as a source and check the contents. I, being quite knowledgable myself in the field of road cycling, if I dare say so, have found only minor errors in van den Akker's work (a lot less I might add than in books by highly-rated journalists!). And on top of that, I was able to write an email to Mr. van den Akker and he has promised to remove them and add some more information that I provided (with sources) to subsequent editions. Also, van den Akker does give a whole list of sources which he uses for the information he gathers. I would find it a travesty if his book should be excluded as a reliable source simply because he self-published it. That does not make a source unreliable. It might make it questionable, but that question can be answered by taking a thorough look at the source. If he were to be removed from this and all other Tour de France articles, a lot of information would be a lot harder to come by, since we would go through the years-long process that Mr van den Akker has, in great detail and thoroughness, done for us already. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's not looking good for the van der Akker source. At FAC the sourcing standards are very high (see 1c. at WP:FACRITERIA), more so than WP:GAN and WP:FLC; the self publish part by a non-subject matter author is almost certainly a no-go. I discussed this with a user who also does source reviews at FAC, she recommends seeing if van der Akker has any publications in Dutch that could prove he is a Subject-matter expert, otherwise, the source will have to be replaced. Aza24 (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a statistical compilation. Van den Akker is a subject-matter expert by virtue of how they have compiled the material, which they have explained in detail. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 and Sportsfan77777: To be perfectly honest, if this source cannot pass, then I am afraid I will abandon this review and the article will not get promoted. Van den Akker does so much work which is vital to many cycling articles I have dealt with in the past. I had assumed that apart from the strict formal guidelines that Wikipedia has on reliable sources, there would still be leeway for the editors to judge sources on their merit and not just judging a "book by its cover" as they say. I could give you hundreds of examples of books written by journalists and the like, which would have no problem passing the formal requirements for a reliable source, but they prove unreliable in places when you take a closer look. Wikipedia expects me as an editor to catch those mistakes and prevent them from entering the articles. But apparently, I am not allowed to do the opposite and determine that a source is reliable even if it is self-published. I cannot comprehend that and am very unwilling to accept it. One more note: 1989 Tour de France passed its FA review and was even Featured Article of the Day, with van den Akker as a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: If this is him (I am not sure he is, but I can ask him), then he apparently is a sports journalist. If that counts for something... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what makes CVCCBike.com a high-quality reliable source?
(Not the nominator): I think CVCCBike.com can just be removed as source; it does not give any info that is not given in other sources. When I added this source [in 2011], those other sources did not exist yet.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand linking to the google books, almost all of them don't have a preview available or open access
Aza24, just to comment. I don't think paywall means the GBooks links are not sufficient. Adding a url-access parameter with "subscription" would rest the case. GeraldWL12:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, afaik google books does not offer subscriptions; sometimes you can purchase the book, most of the time it's just a preview. The latter is why if you go to "Get the book" it's just links to external websites (and not a link to buying it from google, which if available would surely be the first option!). Aza24 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, if there's a preview I'd just let it be as it is, but if you need to purchase it to read that specific page(s), I'd put it on subscription. GeraldWL03:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis the point of the subscription template is that it doesn't equate to purchasing individually, otherwise you could link every book to amazon and put a subscription parameter. I usually don't bring up google books as an issue because the preview can supply enough pages to be useful for the reader; however, in this case, most of the goole books don't even have previews, resulting in what seems to be an useless (and miseleading) link for the readers. Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of jargon which isn't explained within the article and that is something which needs to be addressed in all articles, so I'll give some examples here, but the whole article needs to be addressed from this perspective. Some initial comments:
"as a jammed chain slowed" if it was jammed wouldn't it stop him altogether unless he was just free-wheeling downhill?
I think every person who has ever ridden a bicycle knows that you can unjam a chain with your hand? My guess is that that is what LeMond did, though the source does not specify, since they did not feel the need to.
"won the first stage from a bunch sprint"
Well, it is wikilinked. I am not quite sure how to make this clearer unless I get into a tangient and/or move away from WP:COMMONNAME.
"behind him on general classification came" what's general classification?
Fixed by moving sections.
"won the points classification for a" what's that?
Fixed by moving sections.
"relegate both Kelly and Vanderaerden to the back of the field" to the back of the results for that stage? Or for the race as a whole? Or just for the start of the next stage?
Further clarified.
"who had mixed himself into the sprint, was raised from fourth to second, giving him a twenty-second time bonus" uncertain of the wording here, and it sounds like he "was raised" by means other than him doing it himself, what were they? And how did he get a bonus? Was it deducted at the end of the stage or was it something else?
Stage time bonuses are explained in the classifications section, which is now ahead of the race report. I do not really understand what is unclear about "was raised"? He finished fourth, two other riders, as is mentioned, were relegated down the order, so then he was second.
"for mountain points" what are they?
Fixed by moving sections.
"finished the Tour third overall." is that in "general classification" or some other way of scoring?
I actually think that the term "overall" is easier to understand for laypeople than "general classification". It is also a common term.
"penalty for drafting behind" what's that?
Have added a explanatory footnote.
" to get away from the peloton" what's a peloton?
Surprised the term only turned up once, have reworded.
"He was told to hold station or attack and drop Roche." what does that mean?
Reworded.
"several riders tried, but failed, to escape." escape what?
The term is used three times beforehand and I think is easily understandable from context.
"reached the finish together." all 145 riders got to the finish line at the same time?
In one group, I think also quite understandable from context.
"Giro-Tour double." what's that?
Clarified.
I note that some of the comments above can be addressed by placing the explanatory section "Classification leadership and minor prizes" ahead of the race description.
Other comments
"to be the main favourite " usually there's one favourite, not a "main" one and some "non-main" ones.
I beg to differ, in most sports, there are often several people considered capable of winning a particular event, and some stand out more than others. Take the coming Formula One season. Max Verstappen can certainly be considered a favourite for the title, but nobody would seriously doubt that Lewis Hamilton is the main favourite.
"inflamed Achilles tendon l" why link just "tendon"?
Wasn't aware the Achilles one had a seperate article.
" abandoned after " abandoned what? Do you mean they withdrew?
Yes, clarified based on an earlier comment.
Stage characteristics and winner table, cumulative distance would be very helpful.
What do you mean? The overall distance of the race is given in the table and in the infobox.
"a select group of riders " what made the group "select"?
Reworded.
"3:32 minutes" do you mean "3 minutes 32 seconds"?
Of course, perfectly in line with MOS:NUM, I do not really see an issue here?
"but he managed to win the stage" loose prose, just "he won the stage" would suffice.
Done.
"was won by ... , who won " again, not great prose.
Reworded.
"Given the course changes substantially year after year, is the comparison of average speed of any relevance at all?
Removed.
Some of the awards are not covered at all in the prose, e.g. the combativity award appears only in the table.
It is mentioned in the classifications section.
"Final general classification (11–144)" earlier it said there were 145 riders, I guess one DNF but I'd expect to see that in the table.
145 was the number three stages from the end of the Tour. Someone must have abandoned in between. But all abandoned riders are not in the result table, you can find them in the start list article, which is wikilinked at the beginning.
"Czesław Lang" and "L'Equipe" are missing diacritics.
You have a keen eye. Done.
"§260,000" no currency I know.
Now you know which symbols are next to one another on a German keyboard.
ref 42 has spaced hyphen, MOS:DASH.
I do not really understand the issue. Since I am not a native speaker, those dash rules are a bit of a mystery to me in English. However, what I do know is that those dashes are not hyphens. And when it comes to en dashes, I don't really see a reason given in MOS:DASH why there cannot be spaces in between them? But again, I don't fully comprehend those rules, so please elaborate.
ISBNs don't appear to be formatted consistently.
They are now, have made it consistent in order not to make a fuzz about it. I will note though that there is no mention whatsoever in WP:MOS-BIBLIO that ISBN numbers have to be consistent. They are not consistent in how they are given in books (where I copy them out of 1:1).
"I note that some of the comments above can be addressed by placing the explanatory section "Classification leadership and minor prizes" ahead of the race description." This remark alone makes this review already very valuable, regardless of the outcome. I think this applies to all cycling race reports, and doing this improves hundreds, maybe thousands of articles. Thanks for this suggestion. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and EdgeNavidad: I will take a closer look at this later today. Obviously, it's a fair point to say that the classifications should be explained BEFORE they are constantly mentioned in a race overview. However, this section also includes information that clearly constitutes "results", which make more sense BEHIND the race report. I will try to find a solution to make it work, but right now, I don't see a way to do so clearly in my head yet. Also, loads of work then to do for the Cycling Wikiproject in bringing all race overview articles into that new format. But it appears that not just our WikiProject, but several others as well, should pay more attention to FA reviews when they discuss how their articles should be structured (had an entire discussion along the same lines during the FA review for 1982 Formula One season, if I am not mistaken also with you, TRM, right?). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I have replied to all of them and have made several changes, including switching the order of the sections. I hope it is more understandable now. However, in some instances, I am having a hard time in understanding what the problem is in terms of "jargon". But I am probably blinded for it. I've tried to write this as accessible as possible. If you could elaborate more, that would be helpful. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a little-known episode in the late 1960s, in which Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands ganged up on Greece intervened on behalf of Greeks who were wrongfully detained, tortured, or victimized by other human rights abuses under the Greek junta. The damning findings of the European Commission of Human Rights exposed the junta's brutal methods and led to its exit from the Council of Europe, the only country to leave to date despite threats of a Ruxit. I would like to thank Twofingered Typist for copyediting. (t · c) buidhe15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@buidhe Amazing work! It is very rare to see a comprehensive article about the European Convention on Human Rights here, and I am pleased to see that it also relies on academic sources. I will read the whole article, and it may take some time for me to complete the review of the article, but I will put some of my thoughts here already so that you can already work on it:
"The European Commission of Human Rights (1954) and European Court of Human Rights (1959) were set up to adjudicate alleged violations of the Convention" --> I think you should add a note on the difference between the Commission and the Court with regard to the procedure, bindingness, etc, because most of Wikipedia readers are laymen and they will not know already.
I added a brief information to background. I admit I do not completely understand this aspect.
"Greece did not allow individual petitions to the Commission" --> on which legal basis? Perhaps you could mention briefly.
I am not sure what you are suggesting? In the 1960s, individual petition was not mandatory for states, and only a very small number of individual cases were decided. That has changed, but I don't see how that is relevant.
"Greece was not a party of the Court and had not ratified Protocol 4 to the Convention" --> Why should you mention Protocol 4 here? Perhaps you should elaborate it in the article.
I have read the article until the "Findings" part, here are some of my comments for the time being:
The ECHR has been amended several times, so there is a difference between the old version and the new version. Consequently, there is a discrepancy that could be confusing with regard to Article 24, 28 and 28(b). Somewhere we need to clarify that the numbering here refers to the old convention before it was amended by protocols 11 and 14.
Added note for clarification
“Unlike in other interstate cases before the Commission, the Scandinavian countries did not have an ethnic affinity to the victims of human rights violations.” --> perhaps you need to clarify which “other interstate cases” were there before the Greek case?
Added footnote
“14 (non-discrimination, including on the basis of political belief)” --> it’s a minor detail, but you should instead write “principle of non-discrimination in securing the rights under the Convention”, because it’s to be contrasted with the autonomous right of non-discrimination under Article 1 Protocol 12
Done
“Belgium, Luxembourg and Iceland later announced that they supported the actions of the Scandinavian and Dutch governments, with a declaration that was not cited by the Commission and most likely had no legal effect.” --> what do you mean by “was not cited by the Commission”? Perhaps you could simply write: “Belgium, Luxembourg and Iceland later declared that they supported the actions of the Scandinavian and Dutch governments, although this declaration had no legal effect.”
Done
“ The Greek government argued domestic remedies were available for these alleged violations, and therefore the application should be declared inadmissible under Article 26 of the ECHR. “ --> shouldn’t you mention somewhere here that the ECHR is based on the principle of subsidiarity? So that the reader will understand why Greece tried to rely on this argument.
Added to background section
“The allegation of torture raised the public profile of the case in Europe and changed the Greek junta's defense strategy, since Article 15 explicitly forbade derogation of Article 3.” --> I would suggest to paraphrase the second limb to something along the line of “since Article 3 enshrined an absolute right and Article 15 explicitly forbade derogation of this right.” Just to let the reader know that the prohibition of torture and CIDH can never be limited or derogated in any circumstances.
According to this source (p. 23) (as cited in the last section of the article) the idea that torture and CIDH could not be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever was not settled at this point, so I preferred this wording to indicate that they were not subject to derogation under Article 15.
“in particular, not being allowed to visit Leros or Averoff Prison” --> why were these prisons notable? Probably not all the readers will know, so you should explain a little bit.
No problem at all, I also needed time to finish reviewing the article.
"The Commission also found that Greece had infringed Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 as well as Article 3 of Protocol 1" --> in the "Findings" part, violations of Article 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 are not explained further in the "other articles" part.
Add a note why a visit to "Bouboulinas Street" could produce a lot of evidence of torture
Done
"made it clear that without respecting human rights, a state could not be part of the West" --> what is meant by "the West" here?
The source doesn't offer any further clarification, so I've removed it.
"The Greek case report had a significant impact on the United Nations Declaration against Torture (1975) and the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention against Torture (1984)" --> in what way? You should explain it briefly
The sources don't give more information on this impact.
"Margin of appreciation" is a technical term and at the same time is a key concept in the ECHR jurisprudence, I think you should add a footnote when it's first mentioned in order to explain what it is
Added gloss
"Commissioner Philip O'Donoghue, later a judge on the European Court of Human Rights, stated in his dissent to Ireland v. United Kingdom that, "The value of hearing evidence in a local venue cannot be overestimated... No written description, however colorful, could have been as informative as the visit to Bouboulinas Street in Athens.""; "Unlike other cases before the Commission at the time, but similar to Ireland v. United Kingdom"; "However, in Ireland v. United Kingdom the Commission found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition"; "The definitions of the Greek case were reused during Ireland v. United Kingdom" --> it seems that Ireland v. the United Kingdom is a case before the Court instead of the Commission, see here.
The Ireland case was heard first by the Commission and then by the Court.
O'Donoghue was a member of the Commission and later a judge on the Court; at the time of the Ireland case, he was on the court. , but it according to was the Commission
"Unlike other cases before the Commission at the time, but similar to Ireland v. United Kingdom" -> Reworded to "Unlike other Convention cases..." to reflect the source
"However, in Ireland v. United Kingdom the Commission found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition" -> The source specifically refers to the Commission, not the Court, on this point
"The definitions of the Greek case were reused during Ireland v. United Kingdom" -> Clarify that this refers to the Commission's involvement in the case, not the Court, according to the source.
The image under "Article 3" could maybe be right aligned so it doesn't clash with the section header below it.
Done
"so the only way to hold it accountable for violations" You could say "the country" instead if "it" for clarity.
Done
Link communist?
Done
"which justified human rights violations" I'm curious as to their wording, perhaps it could be quoted, as you do with Resolution 346 just below? That would also make it more balanced, perhaps.
The decree mostly just lists several articles that are suspended, so I don't think it's helpful to quote. I have reworded the sentence.
You have photos of two Greek figures, but the captions give no clues as to their roles. You could present them as you do below with the caption "As Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Max van der Stoel".
Done
"One of them did so, the other (Pantelis Marketakis)" Why only give the name of the second? Why any name at all?
Removed
"He thought Western countries could be persuaded to overlook Greece's human rights violations" How do we know what he thought?
That's what the source says:
Their hopes were stoked up skillfully by the Greek Foreign Minister Panagiotis Pipinelis, the architect of the Greek position. He was a career diplomat, politician, former Prime Minister, diehard monarchist and an authoritarian chauvinist who was well connected in the international right-wing political and intellectual elites of the time. He viewed the world in absolute realist, almost cynical, terms, and had calculated quite astutely that the Cold War and Mediterranean volatility had upgraded Greece's importance to the West to such a degree that its allies would turn a blind eye to any infractions by the dictatorship... He feared that a Greek withdrawal or expulsion would not end the pressure on the regime, but that attacks against it would redouble.
Also in regard to the quote above, I know you go into it further below, but was this due to NATO considerations? If so, could be mentioned even that early in the article, as you also go into the motivations of the Scandinavians countries, etc.
The source doesn't explicitly mention NATO.
"because torture was forbidden and must be stopped" It seems a bit odd with past and presence tense there, how about "had to be stopped"?
"The report makes ten proposals for remedying the human rights violations in Greece; the first eight deal with conditions of detention, control of police and independence of the judiciary while the last two recommend allowing a free press and free elections" Why suddenly present tense?
I thought it was the recommended tense for the contents of still extant published materials according to MOS:TENSE. If I'm wrong, then I can change it.
"or release the suspect. (The time limit on such extrajudicial detention was abolished by Royal Decree 280.)[95]" Thisis the first time I've seen parenthesis used outside a sentence, after a full stop. Is that correct? Isn't it just a distinct sentence then?
Looks good, added one comment above, and I was wondering if anything could be said about how this case influenced future cases, if there are specific examples?
This is discussed in "Effect on ECHR jurisprudence" section. I looked for more info on specific cases, but couldn't find it. (t · c) buidhe06:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with the caveat that I'm certainly no expert in law, but the article certainly was interesting and engaging, even though it could easily have ended up dry and hard to read. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These tactics soon became the target of criticism in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but Greece justified them as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15 of the ECHR. Repetition of "justified". Perhaps "These tactics soon became the target of criticism in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but Greece claimed they were necessary as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15 of the ECHR."
Done
alleging violations of most of the articles in the ECHR, which protect individual rights: I would tweak this but I'm not quite sure of the intention. Do you mean that the violations were of most of those articles in the EHCR that protect individual rights? Or that the violation was of most of the articles in the ECHR, which is a convention that protects human rights? I think it's the former, but it's not clear as worded. And looking further down the article I see that's correct.
Tweaked
The second case is described in the lead as only for Article 3 violations, but per the body other violations were included.
Reworded
Lawyers working for the foreign ministries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark mostly pushed the case forward. If the Netherlands was not active, what does "mostly" mean here? Isn't this an empty statement? Or were lawyers from non-applicant countries involved?
I'm trying to avoid original research. The source says,
The men who would see this case through were in the main lawyers working in the legal departments of the Foreign Ministeries of the three governments... The Scandinavians, in particular the Swedes, were of all the member states probably the least susceptible to economic, military, and diplomatic pressures. That these pressures were not negligible is demonstrated by the Netherlands, which after bringing an application, withdrew from active participation in the case.
As one British official stated, the Wilson government ... If this is reliably the view of the Wilson government, I'd drop the introductory clause; if not, I wouldn't use "As", which implies it is indeed Wilson's view.
According to the source, these are the exact words of one British official, although they represented the view of the Wilson government. Since it's not clear in the source whether it is an official statement, I prefer to leave it as is.
The 1960 Turkish precedent is interesting; I don't know if the details belong in this article, but why did the Turks get a pass? If the cases are not comparable enough to give the details that's fine.
I have looked, but actually can't find more details on this. I believe it's because Turkey held elections in 1961; despite the coup, it was not intended to be a long-term dictatorship the way Greece was.
Its interviews were held without either party present: one party is the Greeks, but who is the other party? If it's the ECHR, who was doing the interviewing? Similarly for without the presence of either party later in that section.
I believe the "other party" refers to representatives of the plaintiff countries, but that's not explicitly specified.
In the "Investigation" section there are four references to the Commission; should some of these perhaps refer to the Subcommission? It seems it was the Subcommission that held the hearings.
Good catch! I've fixed some, in other cases it does refers to the Commission in general.
On the question of Article 3, to which over 300 pages of the report is devoted, it examines 30 alleged cases of...: "it" doesn't have a referent. Perhaps "The report devotes over 300 pages to Article 3, alleging 30 cases of..."
Done
When quoting O'Donoghue, do we need to mention Ireland v. United Kingdom? It seems a red herring; I think we can just say that O'Donoghue said this later, implying a different context.
Done
the margin of appreciation on this question: I don't know what this means. I see it's referred to later as a doctrine, but there's no link or explanation.
The first time that margin of appreciation is mentioned, the article states "margin of appreciation (latitude of governments to implement the Convention as they see fit)". I've rewritten the sentence to hopefully be less confusing.
Can the two instances of "as of 2018" be updated to 2019 or 2020? If there are no usable sources for this, that's fine.
I managed to find a 2019 source for the point about emergencies, for the other point, I think it is self evident (also verifiable to CoE website) that no other country has left the ECHR in the last two years, so I changed it to 2020.
My sense of what is British English and what is American English is polluted after decades on each side of the pond, but I think "combatted" is British and "favor" is American.
It's supposed to be American English so I reworded the sentence with "combatted".
the United States ... interfered: is there a less POV word than "interfered" we could use here? Presumably a US diplomat of the day would not have called it interference.
Changed to "intervened".
However, Western European countries used the case to deflect domestic criticism of their relations with the junta and redirect calls for Greece to be ejected from NATO: I don't follow this. Do these Western European countries include the UK, West Germany, and France, listed earlier, or does this refer to the smaller countries, or both? And we haven't said enough about any of these countries' relations with the junta to be able to understand the middle clause. I think the last clause means that there were popular calls in some of these countries for Greece to be ejected from NATO, but the countries (now presumably referring to the three large countries) tried to redirect that popular sentiment into support for the ECHR case. If so it could be clearer.
I think that's what the source means, but unfortunately, the source is not more explicit. It does refer to the larger West European countries so I clarified that.
Since we've said the larger countries are the ones that wanted to keep Greece in NATO I think this is enough to explain the "domestic criticism" point, but if we can't explain what "redirect" means I don't think we should include it. If the source can't reasonably be read any other way than as I suggested above I think it's OK to go ahead and clarify here, but if you think it could be interpreted in more than one way I'd cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded for clarity.
Van der Stoel presented his report ... and recommendation of expulsion: this makes it sound as though the recommendation was separate from the report, rather than included in the report; is that right? If not I suggest making it "with its recommendation of expulsion".
Done
I see both "inhuman" and "inhumane" twoards the end of the article; just checking: are these uses are intentionally different, and not typos?
Fixed to use "inhuman" consistently, as it should be.
"against the Greek junta". Was the case brought against the Greek junta, or against the state of Greece?
Reworded
"On 21 April 1967, right-wing army officers staged a military coup and used mass arrests, purges and censorship to suppress their opposition." I am guessing that this happened in Greece?
Clarified
"Greece justified them as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15". Is it possible to avoid using "justified" twice in the same sentence.
Reworded
"a Subcommission held in camera hearings". Lower case s? If not. why?
I was trying to use the same format as the sources, which capitalize official Council of Europe institutions.
If we followed the sources then we would have a lot of capitals. Probably for every mention of any military rank or weapon for a start. I think that the MoS trumps RSs.
Infobox: is there a reason for the order in which the judges are listed?
Same order as the Greek case report, p. 6
"Although the Council of Europe had considerable investigatory abilities, it had hardly any power of sanction;[16] its highest sanction is expulsion from the organization." "had ... had ... is" Why the change of tense?
Fixed
"On 24 April, the Parliamentary Assembly debated the Greek issue. The Greek representatives were not present at this meeting because the junta dissolved parliament and canceled their credentials." An uninformed reader may assume that the parliament the junta cancelled was the Parliamentary Assembly. Assuming that it was the Greek Parliament[?] why is this relevant to the Greek representatives to the PACE having their credentials cancelled?
Reworded for clarification. The source states that non-Greek representatives were concerned about their Greek colleagues, not knowing what happened to them.
"the Commission rolled all four cases together". Optional: find a more encyclopedic phrase.
done
"Lawyers working for the foreign ministries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark mostly pushed the case forward." I am not sure what, in context, this means. They pushed it forward politically? Or they just did what they were paid to do? (In which case why mention it.)
OK, removed.
"Citing the precedent of the 1960 Turkish coup d'état". What was this, and why didn't it apply in the Greek's case?
As stated above, I couldn't find more information on this. Can remove if you don't think it's helpful.
Meh! It sounds as if it should be in, but it does leave a reader scratching their head. I would vote, narrowly, for skipping it, but it is your nom and your call. I would not object if you left it in.
Removed
"it declared the case admissible". What does this mean and how does it fit into the ECHR process?
"Admissible" means that the application is not completely unfounded and therefore they will fully hear the case. Started a stub article on this process and added a link.
I really think that a half sentence of explanation in line is warranted. Your explanation above is good ...
Added
"but used delaying tactics by requesting a delay, which was always granted". Seems repetitive. Maybe 'but at each step of the process requested delays, which were always granted.'?
done
"and for his performance was rewarded with an appointment as ambassador to the United States". Perhaps end this sentence with 'in 19XX'?
done
"Although its proceedings were in camera, the Commission was affected by frequent leaks and journalists reported on its proceedings." I'm not sure about "affected". Why not 'Although its proceedings were in camera, they were frequently leaked and journalists reported on its proceedings.'?
done
"military officers such as Konstantinos Engolfopoulos". Could we have his rank and/or position?
Added
"For Article 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1, there was no violation". Should that be 'For Article 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1, the Commission found there was no violation'?
Done
"The remaining fourteen cases were blocked by Greek obstruction; of these cases, two had "indications" of torture, seven were "prima facie cases", and eight had "strong indications" of torture." 2+7+8=17, not 14.
Correct, fixed the error.
"and threats to kill the victims. Besides overt, physical forms of torture" Er, but the previous two examples were already not physical torture.
Reworded
"The respondent governments argued that if EDA". 'the EDA'.
Done
"did not rise to the level of danger to justify derogation." Maybe 'did not rise to a level of danger such as to justify derogation.' or similar?
Done
"the declaration of the government that there was an emergency". Perhaps 'the declaration of the Greek government that there was an emergency'?
In that case, it was the United Kingdom's declaration that there was an emergency in British Cyprus.
In which case, perhaps insert 'UK'.
Done
"the government's margin of appreciation to declare an emergency" What is a "margin of appreciation"?
Margin of appreciation is glossed the first time it is mentioned, in "first application" section. Would it help to add a footnote to all uses of this technical term?
Apologies. Comes of reviewing over several days - I had forgotten that you had already covered it. IMO, no; but if you think differently, fine.
Section "Article 15": should the last paragraph not be in the following section?
This is covered in the official report as "issues arising under Article 15", because the commissioners are considering Articles 17 and 18 in conjunction with Article 15.
Perhaps a translation of "ex post facto" somewhere? Possibly a footnote.
added gloss
"However, the larger Western European countries used the case to deflect domestic criticism of their relations with the junta and redirect calls for Greece to be ejected from NATO." Optional: this could possibly be rephrased a little more clearly.
It now has been.
Image caption: "As Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Max van der Stoel holds a press conference after returning from Greece, 1 September 1974". Optional: 'As Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Max van der Stoel, also the Parliamentary Assembly appointed rapporteur, holds a press conference after returning from Greece, 1 September 1974'?
At this point he was no longer the Parliamentary Assembly rapporteur.
I which case I am not sure about the "As". But leave it, I am quibbling here.
I wouldn't want to push this, but it seems odd that Cedric Thornberry also being a practising human rights lawyer is not mentioned.
Now mentioned
"Note Verbale". Why the upper case initial letters?
uncapped
"Becket states that it "came from Greece itself ..." Shouldn't that be 'stated'?
done
"the report, transmitted on 18 November 1969". "transmitted" seems an odd usage here, is it a technical term?
I believe so, at least, it's the word used by the sources.
"By this time, these states were the only ones to oppose Greece's expulsion". Optional: "to oppose" → 'opposing'.
done
"dropping its support for the junta in the Council process". Possibly "in" → 'during'?
I meant that it was no longer supporting Greece in the Council of Europe (as opposed to eg. NATO), not that it dropped support during the process.
"the case was struck". "struck" is US English; possibly a bracketed explanation?
According to Cambridge Dictionary[43] it is used in both US and UK English as past tense of "strike". I don't know that clarification would be helpful here.
That made me laugh. I understand the grammar, as in "the junta struck them off the list of witnesses". It is its usage to mean 'to dismiss a legal case' which doesn't travel well outside the US. I suppose that most readers will work it out from context.
"when the responsible state cared about its reputation and was cooperative". It may be better to just say "was cooperative" and leave out possible reasons.
According to Bates and Becket, the issue of reputation is a crucial one, because the main effect of condemnation from Council of Europe organs would be to reduce such a reputation: "Put simply, only so much could be achieved when the national authorities concerned were not jealous of their international human rights reputation..."
In which case perhaps link the two issues, as the RS does, rather than list as separate points. Eg, something like 'when the responsible state was cooperative because it was concerned for its reputation'.
Done
"could be leveraged to bring the regime around". Would 'could have been' be a better tense?
done
"As of 2020, no other country has denounced the ECHR or left the Council of Europe since." A natural reading of this would be to take "since" as 'since 2020'.
Removed
"an attempt to prove its intention for democratic reform". I am not sure that is grammatical.
Reworded
"In 1998, Prime Minister George Papandreou" → 'In 1998, the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou'.
Reworded
"found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition". I think that you mean either 'found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also absolutely prohibited' or 'found that the ban on inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition' or, in each case, similar.
Done
"It also helped to define the idea of "administrative practice" of systematic violations." I may be wrong on this, but that doesn't really work for me without a 'the' after "the idea of".
but Greece justified them as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15 of the ECHR. – "as justified" instead of "and justified"?
Reworded
Greece did not allow individual petitions to the Commission,[11][12][13] so the only way to hold the country accountable for violations was through an interstate case. – I'm not following; why can Greece forbid petitions, what are "individuals" here (countries?), and what is an interstate case (a case filed by at least two countries?). Maybe some more background here would be useful!
Reworded for more clarity and less jargon.
Every member... must accept – is the "..." supposed to indicate an omission from the quote? I think it should be […] then, with spaces.
The style I use consistently (no brackets) is recommended by MOS:ELLIPSIS.
Greece did not provide any reason for this derogation until 19 September, which the Commission considered very late. – What reason did they provide on 19 September?
I would expect citations to be in numerical order (e.g. credentials.[25][18][26] -> credentials.[18][25][26], lots of these throughout)
I think this is intentional because the reference in [25] is the main source for that particular sentence, while the rest is additional sources that further back up the main claim. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man it is actually the approach in academic sources. The only reason they don’t have to deal with the numbering order is because they don’t use sfn when they write on Microsoft Office, but “supra note” instead. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not spend much time keeping the order consistent, as I consider this to be an extremely minor cosmetic issue that is not worth the time to fix. (t · c) buidhe16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check image captions, fragments don't need full stops.
Fixed
The following terms are unclear to a non-expert reader:
Glossed most of these. I am not sure how to explain legal remedy and direct evidence. Hovering over the link gives a better explanation than what I could provide.
Doesn't change my support, I don't think we should be too rigid with these things (what to gloss can be a matter of taste). But that's also why I understand TRM feels wronged, which is being discussed elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Looking at the two remaining terms, "legal remedy" and "direct evidence", I don't think there's a need for anything inline. I don't think MOS:LINKSTYLE is usually interpreted as requiring this level of inline explanation; most editors expect links to do this work for some specialized terms, and in cases where an article is about a specialized area (law, in this case) I think a lay reader expects that further reading might be needed to understand everything. I still support promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points there from TRM. The ones outstanding seem to be:
legal remedy
prima facie
direct evidence
I see no issue with "legal remedy". Both legal and remedy are non-specialist and joining them does not create a specialist phrase or concept.
the objection to pima facie seems a reasonable point and its unexplained use is not IMO in line with the MoS. Of the two mentions, the first - which is a quote - could perhaps be recast in Wikipedia's voice? Or a short bracketed explanation added? In the second case it would seem straight forward to replace with an English word or expression. ('obviously'?) Possibly linked to prima facie.
direct evidence seems marginal as to whether it is plain English, and I think that the context - "Relying on direct evidence, the report did not cite the findings of third parties" - provides all of the information a non-specialist reader needs.
I am still supporting. Promotion should not depend on very minor points like these, and if the author disagrees on such insignificant and somewhat subjective issues I'm always happy to accept that decision. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing coord duties to review, mainly on prose, I've copyedited so obviously let me know any concerns there. Outstanding points:
I think we should generally attribute quotations inline so can we do that with Bates in the opening? I figure it's Bates himself but he could just as easily be quoting someone else.
Done
the Commission joined all four applications on 2 October -- Forgive me if I missed something but does this mean "joined in" or does it mean "merged"? If the latter then best be clear.
The Wilson government stated that it "did not believe it would be helpful in present circumstances to arraign Greece under the Human Rights Convention". -- Hidden text seems to be a direct quote from the government, whereas the visible quote could well be the author of the cited source. I'd suggest either use the direct quote by the government, paraphrase the cited source or (third best IMO) attribute the visible quote.
In fact, both are direct quotes from government officials: [44]
"the original objects of the revolution could not be subject to the control of the Commission" -- If this is the Greek junta speaking I'd probably say leave as is but if the author of the cited source then I'd suggest attributing or paraphrasing.
As stated in the source, this is a direct quote from the junta's legal argument submitted to the Commission.
Really sorry I did not get to this earlier, I managed to miss it entirely on my watchlist! I appreciate your copyedits and feedback. (t · c) buidhe18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth TRM struck his oppose and I've resolved the comments by Ian, so I would expect it's ready to be promoted. I believe you're the only coordinator who hasn't recused on this nomination. (t · c) buidhe07:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Possibly the most entertaining FA Cup final ever. Two teams going at each other pretty much from minute 1 to minute 120, and trust me, plenty of the tackles would have been yellow, if not red cards these days! Some great goals, an exhilarating match, a triumphant underdog, and if we're all honest, always lovely to see Glenn Hoddle lose. I commend this candidate to the house, along with Amakuru with whom this is a co-nom. All comments will be addressed as soon as practicable, as always. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to name the winner in the first sentence? Given how Google previews our articles with a short text, it might be better to state the winner early on.
I'm not so sure, it's the first I've heard of catering for Google searches, and it would somewhat fly in the face of just about every other article of its type I've ever seen or written. But also, when I Google it, there's an "infobox" on the right-hand side which says "Champion: Coventry City F.C." so I guess we already (inadvertently) have that covered! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
It was the 106th FA Cup final overall and was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup - could we put the bit about it being the FA Cup final before mentioning it was the 106th edition.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just personal preference, but the actual description of the match is a little bit too detailed in the lede for me.
Hmm, I think it's OK myself. This article is supposed to be about the match, that's it's subject and everything else is the "background". Also, it was a five-goal "thriller" and we're not really describing much more than the goals. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede seems to be info on what the event is (para 1), the match (para 2), and a short bit on both teams not playing in Europe (para 3) - I think we are missing a bit on the background, post-match and the legacy.
I feel things like Clive Allen's 49th goal, the pundits thinking it was a great final and there being music released for the teams are suitable inclusions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have expanded with the details you mention, and also a bit about the route to the final and the prediction of an exciting game. — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard format, e.g. at 2018 FA Cup Final. It is a bit confusing though, and the section seems to be trying to combine genuine Background (competition details and the season etc), and things related speciically to the match (choice of referee, clubs songs etc). The 2017 EFL Trophy Final article does follow this approach. Following your suggestion I have therefore split this into two, and will hopefully add some more stuff to both sections later on. If TRM doesn't like this approach maybe we can revert or discuss... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both clubs recorded songs to commemorate reaching the final. London musicians Chas & Dave released a song called "Hot Shot Tottenham!" which reached number 18 in the UK Singles Chart.[22] Coventry's single "Go For It" reached number 61.[23] - this is quite a small para in the middle of the section, could do with moving/merging. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text supported by the game itself on YouTube seems to be a violation of WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
For example:
"Three minutes later, a backpass from Coventry's Peake was chased down by Clive Allen, forcing Orgizovic to run from his area and make a hurried clearance which was intercepted by Hoddle. The Tottenham midfielder's shot was blocked by Peake whose pass to Ogrizovic was misplaced, allowing Clive Allen another chance which this time he struck into the side-netting." Source: 1987 FA Cup Final, 16 May 1987, 00:42:48–00:43:04
I can't tell from watching the YouTube video whether that's an accurate description. The sound is barely working for me; I don't know whether it's quiet for others too. I also don't know of any particular passage whether it's worth mentioning. Secondary sources are needed for these descriptions of the game. SarahSV(talk)21:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Which parts of the quote there couldn't be verified by "any educated person with access to the primary source"? I guess one could argue "hurried" is something which you would have to interpret from his movement, "misplaced" is something you'd have to infer from the fact that he didn't pass to his own team member, but otherwise I'm not sure what the issue is. Sounds quality is impeccable for me, by the way. This feels ominous though, and too much of a coincidence so I'll step aside and let my co-nominator take a look. If he decides we remove every element of interest which are pretty straight forward observations out of the match report, that's fine by me, I don't need those hours of my life back! Cheers for the interest. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind a drive-by comment from someone who has no involvement or investment in either football or FAC, and has come across this page sort of by accident. But is this not the same way we write plot summaries for articles about works of fiction? When writing an article about a film, for example, an editor will summarise what they see on the screen, which often involves some nuance, and we don't typically expect secondary sources to be used. Happy to be corrected if anyone feels this is not a good comparison. 97198 (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point actually, 97198, which I hadn't even considered. Take an article such as The Beautician and the Beast, which became an FA in the past 12 months. The plot summary has no sources at all, the presumption being that the film itself is the (primary) source for this. It contains snippets such as "Joy frequently clashes with Pochenko, who is disturbed by her independence and his inability to frighten her", something which presumably requires someone to watch a substantial portion of the film and really gain an understanding of what's going on. I would say that, if anything, our links to precise timings for when a particular event took place, which can be verified from a one-minute clip without even watching the whole match, is a step up from the verifiability of that line above. @SarahSV does this satisfy your concerns over this? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 97198 and Amakuru, a key part of WP:PRIMARY is that the material can be verified "without further, specialized knowledge". But you do need some familiarity with soccer terminology to know what you're looking at in that game, e.g.
Regis played a pass to Downs on the left wing, whose deep cross was palmed out by Clemence for a corner, which came to nothing. Three minutes later, Mitchell Thomas fouled Gynn deep in the Tottenham half: the resulting free kick was eventually cleared to Gynn who passed to Regis whose cross was cleared but the ball fell to Phillips and his snap-shot was deflected away.
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
To keep with the sfn display pattern of citations, I've altered the youtube ones so they link directly to the video in the biblio; feel free to revert if there is disagreement to this[reply]
Formatting
References
No issues here
Notes
Ref 5 has different formatting than the other refs, lowercased "archived" & "retrieved" & more commas instead of periods?
Normally I err against youtube refs, and when nominators insist I encourage timestamps. Timestamps seem to have already been included (thank you!) and if there are no other sources that effectively summarize the game, I agree with the use here because of the time stamp's increased verifiability.
Consistent inclusion of page numbers & timestamps, no issues here.
Both nominators have a history of FAs, so I've not checked web sources. Given the uniqueness of the mass yotube refs, I'll check some of these later and report back. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK—I watched the time that encompassed refs 35–44; only one issue, ref 39 appears to be the wrong time stamps. The play doesn't match up to what the text says (from what I could gather, as a non-soccer/football person). I suspect this may be because the same time stamp for ref 37 was accidentally used in 39. Also, for me, ref 17 still says the date of the article was "31 May 2018" on the article in question, not "1 June 2018" as the ref says in the text...? Aza24 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 39 is now fixed, as you noted, copy/paste error. Ref 17 clearly says "Archive: Coventry in FA Cup history 1 Jun 20181 Jun 2018 From the section FA Cup..." so 1 June 2018 is correct. Maybe there's a curious timezone issue thing going on but as this took place in the timezone from where I'm writing, I think we'll stick with it as-is. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
along with Tottenham who would have qualified for the 1987–88 UEFA Cup having finished third in the league --> I don't see this in the body, only here in the lead
City won 3–0 --> In the lead Coventry City is abbreviated as Coventry. I think the article should use only 1 way and not alternate. I find the continuous switch between City and Coventry quite jarring. (Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere and consensus is otherwise)
Yeah, good point. This probably reflects the fact that the article was written by two different people! I've amended it to use "Coventry" throughout. — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fourth round match --> I think it's fourth-round match
at Old Trafford --> okay, now I know where the game is played but still, we should not assume the reader does. So I would add the word away to this sentence
on 21 February --> a bit odd to only mention the date of the 5th round match. I can understand that full dates for every match mentioned might create clutter, but if only 1 date I'd give the date of the 3rd round, not 5th.
after fourteen minutes --> my understanding of MOS:NUM is forever hazy but if there is one thing I do feel fairly sure about is that it is not okay to say within the same article fourteen minutes and 69 minutes and 19 minutes. May I suggest you check the whole article on x minutes consistency?
Scunthorpe almost forced a replay in the final minute as Ray Clemence saved a Johnson header --> this may be just me, but the drama of "almost" is not well conveyed by the dry "as Ray Clemence saved a Johnson header". I'd write something along the lines of "Scunthorpe almost forced a replay in the final minute as Johnson's header nearly went in, but Ray Clemence saved"
I've reworded it a bit, since I don't actually know if Scunthorpe "almost" / "nearly" scored or not. The source says "in the last minute, former Scunthorpe player, Ray Clemence, had to save a header from Johnson to prevent a replay" so perhaps it was an easy save. I have amended to say he "had the chance" to force the replay. — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ossie --> this seems his nickname. I only know him as Osvaldo Ardiles, which is his article title. Any reason why nickname?
Hmm, assuming you're "in London" as your username suggests I'm actually surprised that you would only know him as Osvaldo, because personally I only ever knew him as Ossie, and that seems to be mostly how the UK sources call him both in modern times ([46][47][48]) and in the 1980s ([49]). Ossie has also led in book sources from 1985 onwards. It's possible he's better known as Osvaldo elsewhere in the world, but per MOS:TIES I think we should stick with this. — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1987 final was the last match of the 1986–87 FA Cup and the 106th final of the FA Cup, the world's oldest football cup competition --> this is a bit out of place. I would expect this to be the first sentence after the lead.
in the ninth minute levelled the score --> this does not match the Details section, where it says 8'. Some of the other goals line up but 63th and 96th minute also do not match
a backpass from Coventry's Peake --> Peake was just mentioned so that Coventry's bit is either not necessary or should be used in the previous sentence
Notwithstanding the nitpicking above, overall the prose is pleasant to read and flows well. The article has the right level of info, as per my interpretation of MOS:JARGON. For instance, it does not explain basic football concepts, but mostly simply links to the relevant articles (I would add a few links, I see no harm in linking to substitute, penalty kick, corner kick). It also nicely stays on topic and for instance does not retell the cup's history. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to secure a 4–3 win for Coventry.[10][9] --> I'm personally not bothered but in the past other FAC reviewers have insisted on keeping the reference numbers in order, so [9][10]
Yeah, I've always found that an odd one - I'd prefer it if the ordering reflected the ordering of the statements in the preceding sentence to make it easier to verify. I also don't care though, so I've flipped it as you suggest. — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the 96th minute, Rodger --> that repetition is not great. Rephrase?
Done. This was my bad, I accidentally changed 95th to 96th when I was adjusting the goal timings, not noticing that this was an unrelated 95th-minute incident. I've changed it to "five minutes into extra time", as I guess even "in the 95th... in the 96th..." could be a little jarring. — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
. How to formulate it then? "His year of birth is placed between 642 and 649"? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hawting talks about historical tradition and not Muslims in general. Modified to reflect that 
. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
,_1851.jpg)
Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Done — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drachm_of_Yazid_I,_676-677.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_932-2818.jpg){kind=link}