Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2020

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [1].

Dementia with Lewy bodies

edit
Nominator(s): SandyGeorgia and Colin°Talk

Who did not love Robin Williams? So, if you think you know what condition Robin Williams had when he died, there will be a quiz at the end of this article, where you will learn more new terms than you ever wanted to know. Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) has been a two-year collaboration involving medical editors working with FAC's own art cabal. Research and factoids chunked in by me; copyediting and prose smoothing mainly by Outriggr with considerable help from Ceoil and Yomangani; oversight, clarity and copyediting added by fellow medical editor, co-nom Colin; and medical feedback added from Adrian J. Hunter, Casliber, LeadSongDog and Doc James. They should all be co-noms! Sourcing is up to MEDRS standards, with the latest secondary reviews incorporated, and RexxS provided an accessibility review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (and two more things)

edit

Disclaimer: I've worked with SandyGeorgia on other articles, so I am not entirely disinterested in this FAC

  • File:PBB Protein APOE.jpg: I distinctly remember that this kind of image is freely licenced, but I am not sure if the licence given is the correct one.
  • I am not so sure if the haloperidol caption is endorsed by the source.
  • Ditto for the PET caption.
  • Regarding the Robin Williams image, did he have a case of Lewy body dementia or of Dementia with Lewy bodies? Sources sound like the former, but this is an article about the latter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-image) There is a "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2019" tag, is it an issue?
  • (Non-image) "Additional risk factors for rapid conversion of RBD to a synucleinopathy include impairments in color vision or the ability to smell, mild cognitive impairment, and abnormal dopaminergic imaging.[22]" is in a causes section, but isn't that really more a warning sign than a risk factor?

All images are well placed and seem pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good catches, Jo-Jo!
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Colin does speak images, and he might address the Protein APOE licensing question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "Molecular images from RCSB PDB Structure Summary pages are available under the same conditions" which "are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use". So that does sound like a release into PD, which is what the template says. Although they do say "Users of the data should attribute the original authors of that structural data.", which might sound like an attribution requirement, this isn't a feature of a copyright licence the way CC BY-SA is, and so, is a non-copyright restriction that applies to users of the databank website only (and which the uploader complied with: we do attribute the original authors). -- Colin°Talk 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced an attribution requirement would be considered a non-copyright restriction - seems more like a specialized license. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could all of you please translate for me? What do I need to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy: we don't agree ;-) . Bottom line is the image can be used either way, it's just a matter of whether the current tag is acceptable (Colin's position - Colin, please correct me if I've misinterpreted) or whether it ought to use something a bit more nuanced (my view). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued at talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved on talk; although that image was apparently deemed acceptable by Commons admins, Ajpolino has uploaded a new and better resolution image, which Colin has installed in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Support by Ceoil

edit

My contribution is mentioned above, though it wasn't much. This support is narrowly based on accessible writing and the article's overall clarity for laypersons and from the POV of family readers looking up post diagnosis. Not an easy goal if the article is still to be of value and integrity to experts, but having watched for a number of years as that balance was struck, am confident that it is achieved here without compromising meaning or precision. Note, all my many quibbles were dealt adequately, and with grace, on the talk page. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

edit

I am putting this here as a placeholder while I read the article. I note that the article appears to have skipped the GA stage, so I may bring up some points that would normally be considered before an article reaches FAC. For the information of the co-ordinator closing this discussion, I have no previous experience with medical articles, other than as a general reader. Hopefully I can provide an alternative perspective on the article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead section: I note there are some references in the lead section. In other articles I have read, the text is cited where it appears in the main body and the summary in the lead is left without citations. Is there a reason for doing it differently here?
  • See MOS:LEADCITE (The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.) In this case, while technically nothing in the lead required citation, and my preference would be to eliminate all lead citations, consensus on article talk was to cite hard data (numbers, dates), but to also cite the surprising (likely to be challenged?) fact that the use of antipsychotics can lead to death, and medication information. This was a compromise developed on talk after some contention about what to cite, where I disagree with citing leads. This is not my choice, but a matter of consensus, as the guideline specifies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placement of citations and notes: I notice throughout the article that some citations and footnotes are placed directly after a word, rather than after the next punctuation mark. Some of the examples in the article are covered by the dashes and parentheses exceptions, but others are not. See MOS:CITEPUNCT.
  • The article follows MOS:CITEPUNCT, which is ref placement after the text it is citing, and after punctuation where that occurs. You may be misreading CITEPUNCT? In the "olden days" of Wikipedia (when the citeref style and inline citations were new), people did not know whether to place ref tags before or after punctuation, so it was standardized to after (except for dashes), and we even had scripts to go around fixing them because people so often put punctuation after ref tags. CITEPUNCT doesn't say to always place ref tags after punctuation; it says to place ref tags after the text cited, but also after punctuation when that occurs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists (Core features & Supportive features sections): I'd suggest adding a citation after every bullet as that will make it easier to confirm each item is verifiable and identify if someone inserts an unsourced item on the list at a later stage.
  • Overlinking: Linking once in the lead, once in the article body and perhaps once in the infobox are the limit. I'll post below any examples I find that go beyond that.
  • In an article with many complex terms, such as this one, it is acceptable to occasionally relink in different sections. There should not be any more of this, and those few for complex words seemed necessary and warranted. (At least my co-writers, who were not medical editors, thought those few extra links were helpful for them.) MOS:REPEATLINK allows for this. I did remove one that was closer to the first occurrence;[5] but we have to remember the reader first (that's why guidelines aren't policy) and synucleinopathy is a big word! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dementia Cognitive Fluctuation Scale: Should this be a term that deserves its own article at some point? If so, I'd advise that you make it a red link. Normally, any term that an author thinks is important enough to capitalise but doesn't repeat again in the article, makes me think that it is an important topic that needs to be explained elsewhere. Alternatively, it could be something that should be a lower case term for the purpose of this article. If it isn't getting its own article and is stated here that it isn't a validated diagnosis tool, it may be useful to provide a little background. Who developed it, how old is it, how widely adopted is it?
  • In re-reading the sources with the intent to stubbify and link an article for the Scale, I decided to remove the text instead, because it is still a very rarely used test, and none of the newer reviews even mentioned it.[6] Differential diagnosis with Vascular dementia isn't that complicated, and didn't warrant its own section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: I'd suggest using {{notelist|32em}} so that your notes and references sections align. This will also clear out a large area of whitespace in your notes section.
  • Sources & References: The style is a little contradictory. In sources you have named one journal and then cited it in the reference section. All other journals are then named in the references. I'd suggest naming all journals in the sources and then citing them in the references. This will also have the benefit of shrinking your reference section as you have duplicated some sources, such as Gomperts SN (April 2016) and Goedert M (2017).
  • The one source listed is a book (not a journal article)-- the only book used-- so is listed separately as a general Source, so that page numbers can be cited in short form within References. The citation style is that books are listed separately, with page numbers in short-form citations. Since this confused you, it could confuse others, so I moved the Sources to Book sources, under the References, as I did at Tourette syndrome and other articles; I hope that is clearer? There are two different Goedert articles, and the two Gomperts listings are different (one is to a Table that is at a different URL). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I had thought it was a journal as it had a doi reference. The Gomperts link is identical but you have included a description of where to find the information in the title/link text; I'd advise using |at=Table 4-6 in the template if you aren't going to follow my suggestion below. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I hadn't realised the two fields would contradict each other. As per the discussion below, if the current citation style is being retained, my comment above is a bit of a moot point. Feel free to ignore it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: I am assuming the Ian G. McKeith of Newcastle University that is named in some references is the same Ian McKeith of Newcastle University named in other references and external links. If this can be confirmed, I'd suggest applying a consistent name throughout.
  • You also have "McKeith I, Fairbairn A, Perry R, Thompson P, Perry E (September 1992)" and "Connors MH, Quinto L, McKeith I, et al. (November 2017)". If you can confirm this is the same person then it would be good to use consistent naming in the article. This is a minor point though, so don't worry if you can't confirm it is the same person. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: A lot of calls are made to individual citations that cover quite a few pages. For example, the current citation 1 is called 56 times but is a document 12 pages long. Is it possible to break this citation down into more manageable chunks? This will allow easier verification as readers won't have to search through all 12 pages to find the supporting information. I'd raise the same issue for the other citations that have a large number of pages (Gomperts SN April 2016 appears to have 28 pages). The current method doesn't appear to meet the level of precision required by WP:CHALLENGE.
  • See the discussion at WT:FAC here, and let me know what you think. (Basically, if the need for page ranges on journal articles is held, every medical FA will need to be defeatured, and we will have no more medical FAs; this is just not standard practice in medical publishing.) The Gomperts article appears longer than the others because it is chock full of tables, that I rarely used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been mulling over how to respond to this the last couple of days but, unfortunately, I can't agree. You requested input from people outside of the medical field to provide an alternative perspective. From the perspective of a reader and editor of Wikipedia, we must be helpful to those who want to verify the information in our articles by directing them to relevant parts of a publication (pages, chapters, sections or paragraphs). Whether the medical profession choose to cite parts of a published document is not relevant here. We are not writing an article for medical professionals; we are writing a summary of a topic for a general audience and directing them to more detailed materials for further study. Whether other stuff exists on other articles is not relevant here. Using a more precise citation style doesn't automatically mean that you should remove FA status from other articles. That is a matter of consensus and is also related to the length of the journals being cited (if the journal article is only a few pages long, that would be a reasonable range for a general book citation). After careful thought, I won't be able to support this article that uses such an imprecise citation style with long journal articles, however, as you say it is the result of consensus, I won't object to promotion either. I will leave this note for you to consider and abstain from the decision if the current style remains. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, From Hill To Shore; this is precisely the kind of response that I can say was helpful from my FAC delegate days. It gives the Coords something upon which to base the decision. If you want to explore this further, we can take it to the talk page of this FAC-- that is, if you feel strongly about specific sources, or all of them. But since every medical article used this style-- yea, we'd be needing to re-do every single medical FA, and every single medical article. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the offer but I don't have the time in my personal life to try to convince an existing consensus of editors to change its mind. I'll probably flag this issue up again in future but it will be more of a passive argument; "I think there is a better way to do this but I am not going to stop you." From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @From Hill To Shore:, you converted me. It's more important that we have good reviewers at FAC, than it is to have an FA that subscribes to the odd way that medical articles have always been written without page ranges. Twelve hours in, and I am less than halfway finished converting to page numbers at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5. Bad timing for this, but I should be able to get this finished in a day or two. But I hope no one asks me to convert all the older medical FAs! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a lot to work through. I'll add more notes over the next few days. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore:, thanks for engaging! Is it easier for you if I answer and work on these parts now, or would you prefer I wait until you are done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way. Whatever works for you. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore:, thanks for the first batch: see my comments interspersed. (Feeling like a hypocrite because I used to scream about interspersed comments, but I found it too complicated to add all of mine below in one post-- hope you don't mind me chopping it up like this.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: No problem. Every review I have been involved with seems to follow a different style. I've added some follow up comments above. Unfortunately the imprecise citation style is a deal breaker for me here. As noted above, I have given this a lot of thought and decided that I will abstain from the !vote if the current style remains. I have registered my concern but I don't see that I should derail a promotion in the face of another consensus on style. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respect and appreciate that approach; you're a very good reviewer, by the way :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for breaking down the citations. I'll take another look at the article now. I like Seppi333's numbered review style; I think I'll borrow it for future reviews.

  1. Signs and symptoms: "Several areas of functioning[a] can be affected by Lewy pathology," I'd suggest moving footnote [a] to after the comma. The footnote is about the functions affected, so the whole clause is relevant. The current placing of the footnote breaks the flow of the narrative and you then have to read beyond the footnote to understand what it is related to.
    Done, [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reference review
edit
  1. Classification: "that is, it is characterized by degeneration of the central nervous system that worsens over time." has no citation.
  2. Classification: other than the part sentence above, all of the information in this section appears to be covered by the sources. All sources in this section are available online and have been verified.
  3. Signs and symptoms: Armstrong (2019), Tousi B (October 2017) Kosaka K (2017) are behind paywalls and I can't check them; specific pages or sections are cited though, so can be verified by others.
  4. Signs and symptoms: In footnote [a] "substantia nigra" is not mentioned by the online source, although the more generic "basal ganglia" is mentioned. Similarly, I can't spot a mention of hypothalamus. Are these covered by the source behind the paywall (Kosaka K)?
  5. Signs and symptoms: Current citation 20, "Donaghy PC et al. (2015), p. 262." needs to be changed to "Donaghy PC et al. (2015), p. 262, 264." as dizziness is not listed as a specific early symptom until the later page.
  6. Signs and symptoms: Current citation 7, 'Taylor JP et al. (2020), sec. "Sleep disturbances".' needs to be changed to 'Taylor JP et al. (2020), sec. "Noctural sleep disturbances".' Daytime sleepiness has a separate section.
  7. "Essential feature", "Core features" & "Fluctuating cognition, alertness or attention" sections: all clear.

I have quite a lot of the article to go through, so I'll add more in the coming days. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore:, yes, I too prefer numbers, so I don't have to chop your post, but can reference it. Here are the changes I made to accommodate your lists above: [10]
On 1, that is a repeat of the basic definitions (neurodegeneration is degeneration in nervous system and progressive is worsening over time-- citing that would be citing basic definitions that are given in the hyperlinks).
On 4, you are correct that hypothalamus came from Kosaka, so I moved that portion to that citation, and replace the more specific substantia nigra with the generalized basal ganglia, to maintain the general level of detail.
On 5, actually Donaghy 262 does mention and describe dizziness, but the better description of the whole bit of text is on 264, so I changed that citation from 262 to 264.
Item 6 presents a problem. I used the original journal (Lancet) publication, although I provide the courtesy URL from the author. The final publication combined those two sections (Noctural v Daytime) in to one section, named Sleep disturbances. I have added an explanatory note explaining the difference from the online courtesy link and the actual article, which is what I used to source, and removed the courtesy link from the citation to a separate note. (This was not a problem until I added page nos-- I hope this is a satisfactory resolution.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi From Hill To Shore, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for the ping. I had intended to review all of the references but my work has taken up too much time lately. I'm satisfied with everything I have checked up to this point so I will change this to support. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seppi

edit
  • Support promotion based upon my earlier pre-FAC read-through and the work Sandy did when actioning my feedback. I haven't read through the entirety of the current revision, but this article looks to be on par with other medical FAs that cover diseases. It's pretty clear that the current revision is the result of many hours of research and editing. Will go through it again this month and review/fix any issues with the MOS compliance and maybe review 1 or 2 of the other criteria while I'm at it.

@SandyGeorgia:: Thanks for making those changes. Attributing medical advice to a source might seem a bit pedantic; I just don't think Wikipedia itself should be telling people how to live their life.

A few random questions/suggestions following my read-through of several sections in the current version:

  1. The article mentions that a definitive diagnosis requires an autopsy, so I assume that entails some form of molecular diagnosis. I'm not sure what's involved in diagnosing it post-mortem, but couldn't a definitive diagnosis also be accomplished via a brain biopsy? I realize that isn't a common practice for most brain diseases since brain biopsies necessarily cause some minor brain damage.
    Hi, Seppi! Thanks for weighing in! I cannot recall seeing any mention of brain biopsy (while one is alive) as a method of diagnosis; that could be related to attention shifting (since 2017) to the exciting possibility of alpha-synuclein in skin biopsies as a biomarker. Your query did lead me, though, to find and fix an oversight. [11] If you are aware of any use of brain biopsy to determine LBDs, please point me at them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The article mentions that melatonin is used to help with sleep since a number of somnogenic drugs (e.g., benzos/diphenhydramine) are contraindicted. At the very end (Research directions section), the article mentions that widespread neuroinflammation occurs. Based upon your reading of the sources, does neuroinflammation play a central role in the disease pathophysiology or mediate some of the symptoms of the disorder? The reason I ask is that very high dose melatonin (e.g., 200 mg) has rather pronounced anti-inflammatory effects in the CNS and periphery (e.g., see [12]) via signaling cascades that it initiates through MT1/MT2 receptors (NB: those are GPCRs, so the mechanism involved is similar to how NIACR1 works, but differs from COX enzyme inhibition by NSAIDS and corticosteroids like cortisol binding to an anti-inflammatory nuclear receptor). Getting to my point: if neuroinflammation mediates disease progression or symptoms, it would probably be worthwhile to mention any preclinical research or clinical evidence involving the use of melatonin for that purpose.
    I can't find any mention of melatonin to that effect, Seppi, but searching for it is made complicated by the terminology of the LBDs, and also by the volume of information that comes up re melatonin and RBD. I suppose if anything significant about melatonin wrt the neuroinflammation response existed, it would have been mentioned in one of the reviews cited. If you have any suggestions or can find anything, please let me know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Assuming the cited sources are discussing the reuptake of dopamine by dopamine transporters (as opposed to the uptake/internalization of the dopamine transporter itself, e.g., as shown here), you might want to change all the phrases "dopamine transporter uptake" in the article to something like "dopamine transporter activity" (implies dopamine uptake), "dopamine reuptake", or "dopamine uptake by DATTooltip dopamine transporter" to avoid ambiguity.
    I thought I had covered that by linking on the first occurrence to DAT, here ... The indicative diagnostic biomarkers are: reduced dopamine transporter uptake ... all sources use those words exactly. I am not sure what other change you are suggesting as I do link to DAT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regarding this paragraph in the pathophysiology section: A proposed pathophysiology for RBD implicates neurons in the reticular formation that regulate REM sleep. RBD might appear decades earlier than other symptoms in the Lewy body dementias because these cells are affected before other brain regions.[10] The underlined phrase refers to the ascending reticular activating system; you might want to just link to that topic directly instead of reticular formation.
    Done, [13] thanks! (Will ping you when done with #2 and #3.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to action what I mentioned in 3 and 4 above, LMK. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seppi333:, thanks so much; responses interspersed above, awaiting further! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

edit

Hi, let me preface this by asking for forgiveness for my ignorance of all things medical. I'll review this mainly by looking at how understandable the article is to a lay audience. I think the article mostly does a remarkably good job of this, but I do have a few comments and questions:

  • I was a little confused by the "usual onset" item in the infobox. It says "After the age of 50, typically 76". I found this a little strange since "typical" is just a synonym for "usual". I understand from the body of the article that 76 is the median age. I would suggest changing this to "After the age of 50, median of 76" or leaving out the 76 part. I have another question on this: According to the body of the article, symptoms usually appear after the age of 50. Doesn't that mean that people will typically have had the disease at a younger age? Or is there not a meaningful distinction between onset of disease and onset of symptoms in this context? The "Essential features" section seems to imply that the disease typically begins before the age of fifty, but dementia symptoms only appear after.
  • I changed the infobox per your suggestion. And I removed the mention of age 50 from the Essential features section, because its appearance there, in the context of the timing of onset of dementia, was giving the wrong impression (glad you caught that!).[14] While it is now known that RBD can precede DLB by decades (indicating that Lewy bodies may be forming long before other symptoms appear), it was not intended to say that the disease is typically present before age 50. Now the 50 to 80 typical symptom onset is covered in Epidemiology. Onset of symptoms vs. onset of disease is tricky for a condition like DLB, because remember, DLB can only be definitively diagnosed by autopsy. We can't really know when "disease" onset. So, in the context of DLB, onset of symptoms refers to when the core features typically appear, and dementia (the essential feature) usually appears after other symptoms. I hope that by moving the 50 out of Essential features, your confusion is cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other core features are visual hallucinations; marked fluctuations in attention or alertness; and parkinsonism (slowness of movement, trouble walking, or rigidity)." Is there any reason for the semicolons? Wouldn't commas do?
  • "DLB is dementia that occurs with "some combination of fluctuating cognition, recurrent visual hallucinations, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD), and parkinsonism starting with or after the dementia diagnosis", according to Armstrong (2019)" Is there any particular reason for the quote and the attribution to Armstrong? Is this a controversial description? If not, wouldn't it be better to paraphrase it and state it in Wikipedia's voice?
  • I thought it was the most elegant summary I had seen, and I couldn't paraphrase it better myself. If it troubles you a lot, I'll give it a try, but I fear it won't be pretty :) There is so much going on with DLB that I thought Armstrong did a great job of getting it down to a sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the same questions about this sentence "According to the 2017 Fourth Consensus Report of the DLB Consortium, a dementia diagnosis is made after a "progressive cognitive decline of sufficient magnitude to interfere with normal social or occupational functions, or with usual daily activities". There are several additional quotes throughout the article I think should probably be paraphrased.
  • I think quoting vs paraphrasing is always a judgement call or a matter of personal stylistic preferences. I generally prefer as few quotes as possible, but I certainly wouldn't insist on anything. You're probably the best judge of whether the quotes that are left are the best way to express those things.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Essential features" section mainly compares DLB with Alzheimers, while in other sections the comparisons are mostly to Parkinson's. Is there a reason for this? Maybe I'm just overlooking something obvious.
  • The only essential feature is dementia, and DLB is most often confused with the better known Alzheimer's. The effect on memory with DLB is different from that with Alzheimer's. While the rest of the symptoms (non-memory related) have to be distinguished from other conditions. I think the confusion here was because of the section ordering; I moved the differences in memory between AD and DLB to the differential diagnosis section, which I hope helps resolve this. [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These core features were determined based on their "diagnostic specificity and the volume of good-quality evidence available" Could this be explained a little more? I really wasn't sure what this means.
  • Executive function is mentioned several times. Maybe this term could be briefly explained?
  • I'm hoping you'll take another look at the three suggestions for more explanation (heritability, parkinsonism and executive function) with several things in mind. Heritability was a bit of a mess, so I added a sentence there, but the parkinsonism and executive function articles already do good jobs at explaining those. This article is already almost 8,000 words, and to bring in those definitions might add unnecessary length and defeat the purpose of wikilinks. I understand your confusion about heritability because the article lead was so hard to follow, but I'm reluctant to add three more paragraphs to this article of definitions that are available via wikilinks. Please let me know what you think. If I am to add them here, I won't use the old sources in the current articles, so will have to do some research to find the latest MEDRS-sourced definitions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that readers will have widely varying levels of familiarity with the topic so making the article appealing to a broad audience is tricky. I personally prefer not to have to follow wikilinks when reading an article, but obviously articles can't explain everything tangentially related to their topics. I'll defer to you on whether these terms can be further explained without bloating up the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More of a personal opinion: I'm not a big fan of quote boxes in general unless they're used to present a really memorable quote that can't be incorporated into the prose. I'd probably remove both quote boxes in this article, but like I said that's just a personal opinion.
  • Generally, I agree. But those are two highly significant factors in DLB (one, the importance of educating physicians, patients and caregivers about the life-threatening consequences of anti-psychotics, and two, the game-changer in terms of diagnosis that polysomnography-verified RBD is); I hope you won't mind if these two are kept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parkisonism is linked three times in the body and once more in the lead. Also, my understanding of the article is that there is a distinction between Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism as a set of symptoms that are not specific to that disease. Is that correct? Maybe this could be made a little more explicit in the article?
  • Earlier copyeditors felt the extra links were warranted (because of the dense terminology in this article), but you're the second reviewer to mention this, so I have reduced the links.[20] Yes, parkinsonism is a thing unto itself, present in numerous different conditions. I feel like it's well covered at the parkinsonism article, and hope we can avoid deviating to cover all of that here. If you feel strongly about it, I will have to find a source once I have a better internet connection to work it in here, as I don't have access to the sources at the parkinsonism article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Visual hallucinations are defined by Pezzoli et al. as "well-formed images perceived without the presence of real stimuli". I've asked for a lot of additional explanations, but I think this one might be kind of unnecessary since that seems to be a description of what laypeople will think of when they hear "visual hallucinations".
  • "The heritability of DLB is thought to be around 30%." Could this be explained further? Does this mean that 30% of the children of a DLB patient will typically contract the disease eventually? Or what does this number mean? I've seen numbers like this before and always wondered what they mean exactly.
  • According to MOS, "Genes (but not proteins encoded by genes)" should be in italics. Is Apolipoprotein E a gene or a protein? According to the article that is linked in the article, it's the latter, but maybe I'm missing something. Also is there a reason to link "APOE" rather than "Apolipoprotein E"?
  • "Other risk factors for developing DLB include having an affected family member, being over the age of 50, and having REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD)" I have a few questions about this sentence. Isn't the first part ("include having an affected family member, being over the age of 50") already implied by the first part of the section? Is this saying that RBD is a cause of DLB rather than a sign of the disease?
  • Risk factors are things that increase one's chances of having a condition. So sometimes genetic (affected family member), over age of 50 (yes, this is redundant because we've already said it elsewhere, but we still have to list all the risk factors), and RBD because 94 to 98% of people with RBD progress to a synucleinopathy, such as DLB. The relationship between risk factors and causes isn't always clear, and can differ from one factor to another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additional risk factors for rapid conversion of RBD to a synucleinopathy include impairments in color vision or the ability to smell, mild cognitive impairment, and abnormal dopaminergic imaging" Again, these sound more like symptoms of the disease, rather than potential causes, but I may be misunderstanding something.
  • When the precise cause isn't known, we end up talking about risk factors that contribute to the chance of having a condition-- even if we don't know why. I'm not sure if that answers your question SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop here for now. I'll try to find the time to go through the rest of the article later. I hope these comments and questions are helpful and that you won't hold my ignorance against me.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri:, no apologies needed-- this is a very useful review, and most appreciated. It may take me a bit longer than usual to work through these as I am in the car on the long drive to the cabin, editing from an iPhone hotspot. And I forgot to bring the sources with me, so have to access each one from a slow connection :( I will ping you when I'm through all of these-- possibly not 'til tomorrow. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, I have a lot on my plate with work and other things, so I may be a bit slow to answer.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri:, I got through those, implemented many of your suggestions but not all, and left some answers to your question-- which may or may not help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. Your changes and responses are very helpful. I'm still a little confused about the last paragraph of the causes section. My understanding is that the first two paragraphs describe what leads to the formation of those protein deposits that cause LBD. The last paragraph (other than the age part) seems to describe symptoms that are effects of the disease and are therefore indicative of whether an individual has the disease. Couldn't, by the same token, all the symptoms in the preceding section be listed as risk factors since they are also indicative of someone having LBD? I guess what I'm hoping for is a clear-cut distinction between causes and effects, but maybe that kind of distinction doesn't make sense in this context.

This text from risk factor may help: Risk factors or determinants are correlational and not necessarily causal, because correlation does not prove causation. The genetic risk factor was already covered in the first para, so I removed it here, and re-jigged this paragraph thusly. Risk factors are things that determine an increased risk of having DLB. So of the things listed, that can be (rarely) genes, most likely age, and RBD because 94 to 98% of RBD progresses to a synucleinopathy. The reason all the other symptoms aren't risk factors is they can (and often are) associated with other conditions. There is no stand-alone evidence that fluctuating attention, for example, means one has or will get DLB-- one could have ADHD or depression or some other condition that yields fluctuating attention. Ditto for parkinsonism: one could have parkinsonism due to a large number of conditions, and DLB is not the main one-- meaning having parkinsonism is a symptom but not a symptom that has been shown to be highly correlated with the development of DLB. Likewise, visual hallucinations can be due to many other conditions, and having them (stand-alone) has not been shown to be highly predictive of DLB. Now, if one has ALL of the symptoms (or MANY of the symptoms), then those point to a diagnosis, but the only one alone that per se increases the risk of one developing DLB is REM sleep behavior disorder, as it has been demonstrated that about half of people with RBD will convert to DLB. I hope this makes sense; I don't think it's something that can be worked into the article any more than it already is, so I hope this suffices. (Still working on definitional things.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the rest of the article the same way I did the first sections:

  • I have two questions about the pathophysiology section: First, are acetylcholine-producing neurons and dopamine-producing neurons the only brain cells affected by LBD? Or are those just the only cells where the effect of LBD can be linked to specific symptoms? Second, about this sentence: "A proposed pathophysiology for RBD implicates neurons in the reticular formation that regulate REM sleep" Is this sentence saying that this theory proposes that LBD starts in the retical formation and then spreads to the rest of the brain? Or is it a brain-wide process that just happens to affect the reticular formation first?
  • I have to admit that most of the diagnosis section went over my head, but that probably can't be helped. I guess it's probably just a complicate technical matter that can't be easily explained to a layman. The only thing I can think of that might be helpful is explaining the term biomarkers (as opposed to symptoms), but that depends on whether this can be briefly explained without overburdening the article (like the terms we discussed before).
  • The second and third paragraphs of the criteria section only seems to repeat information from the symptoms section. I was thinking that maybe they could be removed. I guess it depends on how readers use the article. If they read the article from top to bottom those paragraphs may seem repetitive, but if they skip straight to this section because they're only interested in diagnosis repeating probably makes sense.
  • This is an artefact of WP:MEDMOS, resulting in repetition, which you rightfully note. But as you point out, some may go to specific sections only and only want that information. You rightfully point out repetition that has bothered me from the get-go, but there is a strong push in medical editing to conform strictly to MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised by "Laboratory testing can rule out conditions such as depression". I would've expected that depression would be diagnosed by psychological exams rather than lab tests. Neither of the two sources for that sentence seems to mention lab tests for depression, but I might be overlooking something.
  • "East Asia and Japan" struck me as a little strange, since Japan is part of East Asia.
  • "Only palliative care can be offered, as there are no medications that can slow, stop, or improve the course of the disease. No medications for DLB are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration as of 2019, although donepezil is licensed in Japan and the Philippines for the treatment of DLB" Is there a contradiction between those two sentences? Is donepezil just ineffective at treating with DLB? The article also mentions that donepezil is used in the UK. Wouldn't it makes sense to mention that here? Also, the article then mentions several medications that alleviate certain symptoms of LBD. Wouldn't that qualify as improving the course of the disease?
  • I think the confusion here is with the terms. "Slow, stop, or improve the course of the disease" means that, even if medications ameliorate the symptoms, the course of the disease is relentless progression towards death. That is what can't be improved. Does this help explain it better?
    Also, donepezil and many medications are used throughout the world, but off-label; they are licensed "for the purpose" of treating cognitive symptoms of DLB in Japan and the Phillipines, but nowhere else, even though they are used off-label universally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that I was a little underwhelmed by the Society and Culture section. It seems that it can be boiled down to two famous people possibly having had the disease. My thinking is that it could probably be condensed and incorporated into the history section, but I understand if you feel differently.
  • That is pretty much it, but the connection to Robin Williams is significant. The section names is one of those WP:MEDMOS things that I should probably not try to change, considering the environment in medical editing; I have found the MEDMOS sections to be particularly unsuited to the narrative in this article, but trying to change the sections would not likely end well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Overall, I think the article does a great job of explaining a difficult topic to people who might not be familiar with the field. I can't really comment on other aspects like accuracy, due weight, etc.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added this for biomarkers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added this on heritability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beefed up parkinsonism with this addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a basic definition of executive function with this addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri:, I think I've gotten everything now; here is a cumulative diff[25] of all of the changes per your suggestions (also specified individually above). Thank you so much for this detailed review, which must have taken you considerable time-- most appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. I enjoyed contributing to something that's a little outside my usual comfort zone. Your explanations and changes cleared up all the issues I noticed in the article (I did change one additional instance of "East Asia and Japan", I hope that works). Thanks for the extra work you put into inserting those additional explanations. I'm happy to support this FAC (with the caveat that I've only reviewed the accessibility of the article and to some extent the prose; I can't comment on accuracy, due weight, comprehensiveness, or other questions).--Carabinieri (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

edit

Staking out a section for myself --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a dream to read. The prose could easily feel ripped out of a textbook. These are just thoughts and comments.

Sourcing thoughts

  • I'm not used to vancover citations, but they
  • Sometimes papers are in the works cited and sometimes they are in the footnotes. Why aren't all of the papers in the works cited?
  • Lewy Body Dementia Association's briefs looks like tertiary sources to me
  • "LBDA Clarifies Autopsy Report on Comedian, Robin Williams" looks like a press release to me. I'm skeptical that it meets the high quality sources bar
  • Robbins 2016 feels like an overcite to me. The CNN article and Williams 2016 seem to do the job
  • "Nocturnal sleep disturbances" and "Excessive Daytime Sleepiness" combined on final publication shouldn't we be using the published version instead of the preprint?

Prose thoughts

  • I am used to iodine-123 or 123I but not 123iodine. Do the sources used the spelled out version with the superscript prefix?
  • The increased morbidity and mortality with antipsychotics is in Medication and Supportive features. This seems repetitive to me.
  • The falls paragraph in Caregiving feels choppy to me

Fantastic article. It was a joy to look over. Thank you for all of the hard work --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: thank you ever so much for engaging, and for the kind words about the prose. I get no prose credit (as mine is dreadful), and anything that is well written is credited to mostly Outriggr's copyedit dedication, but also to Ceoil, Colin and Yomangani, whose dedication to repairing my prose is most appreciated.
I only cited the works that needed to have page number detail. The others are listed directly because either the entire work is cited, or the work is so short it didn't need page number citations. If I move all of those to Works cited, we would merely end up with the same thing listed twice, which would just chunk up the page. I've seen other editors use this style, so hope it's OK.
On LBDA, yes, but notice the LBDA discussion of Robin Williams is only used to back up what other sources state (including Ian McKeith), so I feel like the LBDA is used appropriately for the content it is citing. My thinking on adding his wife's description is because of the confusing terminology throughout the Lewy Body dementias. We have the autopsy report using one term, the wife using another, and then Lewy body experts having to explain what each means. This is part of the problem with Lewy bodies, so I feel like it is worth going in to. It is also his wife's description that gives the facts needed for post-mortem diagnosis. That is, all of these different sources work together to explain what is tricky in any case, since DLB can't be diagnosed definitively when one is alive.
On the combined sleep issue, I did use the original publication, and cited to that. But when one looks at the courtesy copy online, it disagrees on that one section name, so I added an explanatory note. The alternative is to just leave off the courtesy link, which I don't think helps our readers.
On prose: yes, they do almost all use the preceding subscript 123.
Right you are on the duplication of info re antipsychotics: I have left a bit in Supportive features that explains why it's a supportive feature, eliminated some of the text and merged some of it to the Medication section.[26]
I merged the choppy falls paragraph with another, where it fits just as well. Thanks so much for the review; let me know please if these solutions do not satisfy. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [27].

1981 UEFA Cup Final

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've just promoted Ipswich's best season to FA, so it's only right now to accompany that with arguably their greatest triumph, a European victory for a tiny club managed by Bobby Robson (who he??). This is was given a good going over at WP:GAN by Harrias so hopefully whatever remains can be dealt with expeditiously. Thank you in advance for any attention you may be willing to give this article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Images & captions are pertinent and help the text.
  • Images licensed appropriately -
CC BY-SA 2.0/File:Cobbold Stand, Ipswich Town Football Club 8418.jpg,
CC0 1.0/File:Finale Ipswich Town tegen Standard Luik (2-0). Wark (rechts) maakt 1-0, Bestanddeelnr 931-6178 (cropped).jpg
however...
File:Olstadion.jpg - the source website...http://www.bmz.amsterdam.nl/adam/nl/omd/omd07a.html / http://www.bmz.amsterdam.nl is down so can't check the "Amsterdam Municipal Department for the Preservation and Restoration of Historic Buildings and Sites (bMA)" Attribution/licensure. Shearonink (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I've replaced it with a PD one. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

edit

If any of the links don't work for you, let me know, and I can ping you copies over by email if you think they will be useful. Harrias talk 10:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harrias, plenty to be getting on with! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias I've taken what I can from those reports. Most of the post-match reports dealt with the goals and not much else, mainly because there were so many of them! Have another look at your leisure and let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up
  • "..ranking below the UEFA Champions League." Should this be "European Cup", rather than UEFA Champions League, given the latter didn't exist in 1981?
  • "Butcher exploited AZ's renown weakness.." Should be "renowned".
  • "..scoring from the penalty spot after 30 minutes..", "Osman cut out Tol's breakaway chance on 30 minutes.." Both on 30 minutes? If we are certain on the order, but the reports have generalised both as being at 30 minutes, maybe just change to "shortly after" or similar.

Not much more from me. The lack of information on substitutes still bothers me; WP:FACR 1b requires the article to be comprehensive "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;". I think that I can accept that a list of unused substitutes is not a major fact, but it still feels like an obvious omission. Harrias talk 09:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias Addressed the above, but the unused substitutes simply aren't recorded in reliable sources. All contemporary sources simply list the used substitutes. I'll see what I can do, I've asked the club, I've asked the East Anglian Daily Times and I've asked a local statistician who knows all things ITFC. I may get an answer but I may not be able to source it! Cheers, let me know if there's anything else I can do secure your support. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias I've ordered the programmes for both legs which list the "selected squads" so once they're in I'll add that information. ITFC didn't reply, nor the EADT, but the stats man pointed me in the right direction. Is there anything else required while we wait for those to arrive? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias I've got both programmes, but I think they're pretty much listing the entire squads for each team and neither give any indication of any subs. ITFC themselves haven't responded to my question. I'm not sure where to go from here with this point. Can you let me know what you think? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame. As I said before, I think that I can accept that unused substitutes are not a major fact. For all I know, that season they decided any squad member could be used as a substitute, and it didn't really apply. Harrias talk 19:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment

edit

Hi there, please check the link for ref. 59 (just The Times acting up again). RetiredDuke (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RetiredDuke, I replaced it. No easy find in the archives. Cheers for the spot. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now....

Ipswich and AZ had faced each other twice before, in the two-legged first round of the 1978–79 European Cup Winners' Cup which the English club won 2–0 on aggregate. - I had to read this twice as I was expecting an "and...x" in the second clause..before I realised it was "two-legged". I think this could be reworded better ...but is very late here and I'm too tired to think of an alternative. Will sleep on this...
I made this "faced each other in two matches before, ..." The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise reads fine on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dweller

edit

Why was Robson's "future at Ipswich" "subject to debate"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because "bigger" clubs were after him. I'll try to find some more on this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I took the implication to be 'if I lose, I'm off because I'll be sacked'. It doesn't make sense your way anyway... if he won, he'd be even more in demand. What did he mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think he realised his ship would have sailed at Ipswich having lost everything that season but coming so close to a treble. He was certainly being tailed by Sunderland who were offering £1m over ten years (I've added that)... Ipswich would never have sacked Robson. If he was still alive, and if we had the same directors, he'd still be manager today. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking good. Unlike Mr Wark. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru

edit
Will also have a look at other sections later.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru cheers, looking forward to it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route to the final – Ipswich Town F.C.
 — Amakuru (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru cheers dude, done that lot. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru less main page fun-and-laughter section, more FAC review.... I'm waiting...........!! (PS just beat Cov 5–0 on FIFA so feeling pretty smug....!) The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, we were robbed. Dodgy ref I reckon. Will finish off the review tomorrow, sorry I got distracted by some silliness in that place you're not allowed to discuss.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And with that I've finished combing through the prose. Will check for sourcing, completeness and other miscellaneous points in a bit, but looking good so far.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru done and dusted, thanks. I've addressed/responded to all above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all looks good to me and I think it's basically complete. The only thing I thought of was that it could have some mention of the post-match celebrations which took place back in Ipswich when the team returned home. We see some detail on that at 1927_FA_Cup_Final#Post_match_and_aftermath, but I notice from your recent FA at 1978_FA_Cup_Final that there's no mention of the ticker-tape parade, so perhaps it's not essential. I'm happy to support on prose. If you want me to do a sourcing check as well then let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I took another look and found a source for the civic reception which flowed nicely into Robson's announcement to stay. Thanks for your support and comments, of course, and if you'd like to do a source check, that would also be amazing. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source check by Amakuru

edit
  • Ref formatting and general points. Numbers refer to this version.
    • [2] - Why is this "via www.theguardian.com", rather than just The Guardian as publisher?
    • [9] - typo "&nadsh;"
    • [15] - UEFA was linked in several previous refs (7, 8, 9, 11), but isn't in this one and subsequent. As a wise person once told me, "either link items the first time, every time, or no times". Check this for all refs and make it consistent.
    • [35] - I'd expect "van der Sluis" to start with a capital, like the beginning of sentences at Vincent van Gogh. Not sure if this is a proper MOS point, but if it is then consider changing it.
    • [40] and [43] - ditto for "de Deugd".
    • [64] title is missing
Otherwise it looks good. I'll do the spot checks next.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru lovely, done all those and found a couple of other issues while doing so, bonus. Cheers again, look forward to the spot checks, whenever you can. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru thanks, I think I've addressed the concerns above, let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. That's all from me then, I'm happy to support on sourcing - the few issues I found above were only minor things and generally everything checks out. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from NapHit

edit

That's all from me great work and an enjoyable read! NapHit (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit Awesome, thanks so much. I believe I've addressed everything, but don't hesitate to give me a shout if I missed something or there was anything else you noticed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now my nitpicking concerns have been addressed! If you could take a look at 2001 UEFA Cup Final, if you get the chance that would be great. Would greatly appreciate your comments there! NapHit (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I think we're done here now, unanimous support, prose checked, images checked, sources checked. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I daresay I'll get to this in the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, should we have a "Teams" citation/link per the recent 1978 FA Cup Final nom? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The teams are already contained in the "report" link. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Names yes, but couldn't see positions and countries of origin -- or did I miss something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that. Yes, I don't have a reference for those. I suppose they should go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ipswich are now referenced via 11v11.com, but those pages don't provide listings for AZ nationalities, nor do any of the contemporaneous newspaper sources. The positions are variously referenced across all the sources. Best and final offer. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have reliable sourcing for the nationalities of one side I wouldn't show them for the other side, just so things look consistent, but I'm not going to hold up promotion over that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [29].

Silesian Wars

edit
Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the fourth and last in a series I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century; this one is a summary and overview of the three about the individual wars. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the three previous articles have received in their recently concluded FACs. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image (copyright) review

edit

I reviewed the copyright status, etc. of the files used in the article. File:Map for the Silesian and Seven Years Wars.jpg currently has insufficient information to determine whether it is copyrighted. According to the page, it was published in 1905. While this would mean it is in the PD in the US, it may not be in the source country. "Charles Colbeck (editor)" is listed as the author. However, editing the book in which the map featured does not make him the copyright holder. In order to determine whether it is in the public domain, we should know who made the map. The text under the image suggests it may be Frederick William Longman, but I couldn't determine whether he's alive or from what country he is. (If he is from a country where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years, and we cannot determine his date of death, we may presume it is in the PD in 2025 - 120 years after creation.) --MrClog (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map is originally from the book "Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War" by Frederick William Longman (1881); I've added that information to the Commons page. The author was British (a member of the Longman publishing family), and the book was first published in Britain. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed around the license. It is currently set as assuming that the work is in the PD (published more than 120 years ago). However, if you know the date the author died, using commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired is strongly preferred. --MrClog (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great; if I can find that date, I'll update the license. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks here as though the author was at Oxford at the same time as a man born in 1844, making him probably within a few years of that birth year. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Longman died in 1908; his obituary was in the Times on 22 October 1908. I've updated the file information. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Comments by Truflip99

edit

Prose looks great. Some suggestions:

  • All three wars are generally considered to have ended in Prussian victory, and their territorial result was Austria's cession of the majority of Silesia to Prussia. -- quite a mouthful when you can just say "... Prussian victory and (resulted in) Austria's cession..." within comma is optional
The problem there is that all three wars are considered to have ended in Prussian victory, but only the first of the three resulted in the territorial cession (and that fact doesn't require any "consideration"). If you can see a way to simplify the syntax while keeping that distinction clear, I'll change it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Prussian victory of which the first resulted in" (it's just better to maintain parallel form)
I'm a fan of parallel form, too. However, "victory, of which" doesn't work; it would need to be "victories, of which". Do you think it should say all three ended in "Prussian victories"? That seems abnormal to me. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search of "ended in American victories" shows that this is not unheard of. And just looking at it from a purely grammatical pov, it's not wrong. --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding correctly that it's length that you're concerned about, then what about just cutting the word "territorial"? Can we trust the reader to infer that? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; the wording is weak. But yes, I would say that territorial can be omitted, but there's nothing wrong with keeping it either
Then I don't understand what problem you're wanting fixed. I don't know what constitutes "weak wording" to your ear. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself: only the first war resulted in territorial cession, yet the current wording states "their (as in, the wars') territorial result..."; so that means the current wording is wrong? I would settle with "All three wars are generally considered to have ended in Prussian victories, and the first resulted in Austria's cession..." -- nothing wrong with "victories" considering you use "defeats" in the outcome section... --truflip99 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • significantly damaged the House of Habsburg's prestige -- (greatly) undermined?
I don't feel super strongly about this, so if you do then I'll change it, but that doesn't seem like the right image to me. To "undermine" is to set something up for subsequent collapse or failure (by digging out its foundations), whereas here the damage wasn't in the future but already realized. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that
  • Austro-Prussian struggle, Austro-Prussian War, etc. -- en dashes here
Isn't it typical to use the en dash for joined nouns ("France–Germany relations") but a hyphen for joined adjectives ("Franco-Prussian War")? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems en dash is appropriate per MOS:ENBETWEEN
From that page: "Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I should have kept reading. You're right!

I'll look at Body in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silesia also lay -- lays? or laid?
"Lay" is the past tense of "lie", which is the intransitive (which is what's wanted here). We would say a hen "lays" or "laid" eggs (transitive). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair.
  • In 1603, Hohenzollern Elector Joachim III Frederick of Brandenburg also inherited -- I think you should make a distinction that this is a separate inheritance as the the Hohenzollerns have not inherited Liegnitz, Wohlau and Brieg yet (because the Piast Dynasty hasn't gone extinct)
Fair point. How about "separately inherited"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works.
  • In the Bohemian Revolt -- throw in a time reference here so readers can keep up with the timeline
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the Electors of Brandenburg continued to assert themselves as the legitimate rulers of Jägerndorf -- given all the names being used, I feel like it would be better to say the Hohenzollerns here
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the newly crowned Hohenzollern King Frederick II of Prussia formed designs on Silesia soon after succeeding to the Prussian throne -- redundant
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick judged that his dynasty's claims were credible, and he had inherited from his father a large and well trained Prussian army and a healthy royal treasury. -- I would swap these fragments: "Having inherited... Frederick judged..."
Using "having" that way implies that he judged his claims to be credible because he had inherited a strong army, but that's not what I'm saying; he thought his claims were legally sound regardless of whether he had the strength to press them. This is a list of two reasons why he thought pressing the issue was a good idea, and neither of the two is the cause or result of the other. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the wording isn't clear...
Er, in what respect? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the sentence is listing two reasons rather than a cause and effect
Sorry, I'm just not seeing how "<Statement>, and <statement>." is indicating causation to your ear, so I'm not sure how to fix it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reading it so many times and taking your explanation into consideration, I can't unread it now. So I guess I'll have to let this go.
  • in the recent Austro-Turkish War -- omit recent
"The Austro-Turkish War" is an ambiguous name, so it needs to be made clear that here we refer to the most recent in the series. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would just add the appropriate years then as in the wiki title; the word "recent" carries more weight towards the reader's present
Fair enough, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The European strategic situation was favourable for an attack on Austria, with Britain and France occupying each other's attentions and Russia in conflict with Sweden -- another parallel form needed: The European strategic situation looked favourable for an attack on Austria as Britain and France occupied each other's attentions and Russia fought a conflict with Sweden
"Occupying" really needs to stay in the progressive; the point isn't that Britain and France had occupied each other's attentions at some unspecified point in the past, but that they were occupying each other's attentions at that time. I've made the reference to Russia and Sweden parallel this, as well as adding a wikilink for context. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now
  • Bavaria and Saxony also had claims against Austria and might join in the attack -- this is stated like we're still awaiting the outcome
Yup, that's correct; Prussia struck the first blow, so when these calculations were being made the involvements of Bavaria and Saxony were still only future possibilities. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's worded like we still don't know the outcome today, there has to be a better word than "might"; "appeared ready to"?
Ah, fair enough. How about "seemed likely to join"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure
  • played the leading role -- played a leading role
The sources say that geostrategy played the leading role, as in, a role greater than that of any other factor. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and upon his death she duly became ruler of Austria, as well as of the Bohemian and Hungarian lands within the Habsburg Monarchy. -- split this into its own sentence
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • contested by several parties -- do we know which parties?
That's the content of the two immediately succeeding paragraphs: "Frederick ... Meanwhile, Prince-Elector Charles Albert of Bavaria and Prince-Elector Frederick Augustus II of Saxony ...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Separating them into a different section gives the illusion that you're talking about something else. That's okay in certain prompts, but I feel like you're making the reader work extra hard to get this information when you can just state it plainly and allow the next two paragraphs to expand upon it. Wikipedia is supposed to be all about effortless readability.
Okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which had never materialised -- omit had
The past perfect is more suitable than the simple past here, because I'm not saying that the Emperor's support did not materialize at the time Frederick William assented to the Sanction, but rather that it still had not materialized at the time of Frederick's decision to invade. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why not "had not yet"?
That's fine, too, if you prefer; done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • concern to prevent this outcome -- concerns
I don't understand. The desire to prevent encirclement by Saxony was a concern that motivated Prussia's attack; the desire was not concerns(?). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So say whose concern "his concern", "Prussia's concern"; ambiguity in this instance makes the reader want to prefer "concerns" --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Austria concentrated its forces against its other enemies and gained ground in the wider war, Frederick concluded that the Austrians did not intend to honour the Convention and concede territory in Silesia, so, to press Austria further, he repudiated the armistice and renewed offensive operations of his own. -- suggest splitting sentence
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austria agreed to cede to Prussia -- dup wikilink
I'm only seeing that link once in the article... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and on 11 December he issued an ultimatum to Maria Theresa demanding the cession of Silesia. --truflip99 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jägerndorf, Troppau, and Neisse -- in previous sentences, you don't use the comma before and. Pick a style
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prussia also agreed to take on some of Austria's debts, as well as committing to remain neutral -- to take on some debts and to remain neutral
Good point, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and soon after formalised in the Treaty of Berlin. -- and soon --> later
Okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--truflip99 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research regarding the use of commas to make sure I wasn't crazy, I found no consensus from style guides so I'll back off mostly. Just note that there are some instances where the consistency is questionable, but the task is too daunting for me to point out at this point except for some obvious ones...
  • "Quadruple Alliance" between Austria, Britain, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic. -- omit comma
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austria, Saxony, and Prussia -- here too.
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this, low supplies forced the Prussians vs. After Prussia's withdrawal the wider War of the Austrian Succession rolled on for another two years -- Less obvious but whatever, I'll let you decide. The general rule is you may omit the comma if the introductory clause is a short phrase, but both uses are present here
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prussia built new and expanded fortifications at strategic points in Silesia, and its artillery units began to be reequipped with heavier guns. -- why switch to passive on the second clause?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria Theresa initiated a wave of so-called Theresian reforms of Austria's administration and military and a review of its diplomatic policy. -- check grammar
Rewritten. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the realm's systems of taxation which funded a significant expansion of Austria's field armies -- why no comma?
Fixed, thanks. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May Prussian forces took great losses while driving back the Austrian defenders in the Battle of Prague and then besieged the city. -- awkward wording
Rewritten. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg." -- MOS:LQ
Ah, good catch, fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1761 saw little activity by the exhausted Prussian and Austrian forces -- probably precede this with "The year"
Okay, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter was himself overthrown and assassinated within months -- I don't think you need "himself" here as no one else seems to have been overthrown and assassinated, at least in the prose
Fair point, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • His debts to fortune (Russia's about-face after Elizabeth's death) -- not sure what this means...
It means that it was pretty fortunate for him that Elizabeth died and then Russia arbitrarily switched to his side in the war, against its own interests? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get it. Seems more poetic than encyclopedic, no? --truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be more clear with an "e.g." before "Russia's"? Feel free to propose something that seems more suitable to you. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I would say "His debts to Peter III"
I mean, sort of; the "fortune" part is the fact that Elizabeth died just then, as opposed to, say, a year later after Prussia was no more. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but as the prose states -- her death was a mere catalyst for Peter III's ascension, who actually pulled the troops. Also, to say it is fortunate that someone died is a tad in poor taste IMHO. --truflip99 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "mere catalyst"; if she doesn't die, he doesn't accede—that's pretty much how the "mono-" in "monarch" works. As for the latter, the text definitely doesn't say that her death was fortunate; it says that Frederick's success owed something to fortune, which my office dictionary defines as "accident; luck; the turns and courses of luck accompanying one's progress through life". If Fred had, say, had Elizabeth assassinated, then that would have been really taking destiny into his own hands, but, since he doesn't appear to have had anything directly to do with her death, that means that her death was, to him, an act of fortune (accident, luck). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it is, Liz died. Troops are still fighting. Pete wears crown. Had the option to keep troops fighting but chose to remove them. If we're going to attribute so and so to fortune, one can argue that fortune could have been that Pete happened to be pro-Prussia, or that Fred's troops survived long enough for the Russian events to take place, etc. Anyway, I'm not going to pursue this one detail further. Thanks for making all these other changes. Article looks fantastic. Throwing in my support. --truflip99 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diplomatic Revolution." -- MOS:LQ
Again, good catch. Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning with these steps, wide-ranging efforts to modernise the Habsburg Monarchy over the next half century grew out of Austria's defeat. -- That resulted in what?
...Modest success? Are you asking how successful the Theresian reforms were? That seems beyond the scope to me, since it's the decision to attempt reform that arose out of these wars. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way it ends is kind of a cliffhanger... is it not possible to extend the same sentence with the state of Austria in that next 50 years (hopefully with a link to another article)? --truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference to Josephinism. Does that help? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect!

That might be it from me. --truflip99 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I could find precious little to pick at when this was at ACR. Let's see if I can find enough now to be able to claim points for the WikiCup.

  • "As a youth, Frederick III had secretly agreed to this repossession in return for Leopold's payment of some of his debts" I had to read this several times to understand that "In his youth" means prior to his succession, despite its place in the paragraph. Given that this information is given out of chronological order - which I don't have a problem with - could it be made clearer that it was before Fredrick was king?
What about "As a young prince", rather than "As a youth?" -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
  • "Cavalry units of various weights armed with sabres and pistols were used for reconnaissance and shock tactics." 1. I don't think that "Cavalry units of various weights" communicates unless you already know what is meant. 2. To be picky, "units" aren't "armed"; 'equipped'? 3. "were used for ... shock tactics" isn't grammatical. (Suggest separate sentences on light and heavy cavalry. Not really sure where dragoons fit in.)
1) I've attempted to add some detail. 2) Really? One doesn't arm a unit, only a soldier? Changed. 3) "...for shock attacks", rather than "...for shock tactics"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1 & 2: that works. 2, in my understanding. To "arm" a non-person means to armour it.
  • "The Silesian Wars and most European wars of the eighteenth century were fought as" Optional: → 'The Silesian Wars, like most European wars of the eighteenth century, were fought as'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "give his vote as elector of Brandenburg in the imperial election" Perhaps clarify a little - 'give his vote as elector of Brandenburg in the imperial election to replace Charles as emperor'?
I've tried to add something along those lines. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and later formalised in the Treaty of Berlin" Optional: → ' and was later formalised in the Treaty of Berlin'.
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hoping together to seize Berlin" Maybe → 'hoping to seize Berlin together'? Actually, it probably works best if you just delete "together".
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the wider War of the Austrian Succession rolled on for another two years" I am not sure how encyclopedic "rolled on" is. Especially in relation to a war.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Prussia built new and expanded fortifications at strategic points in Silesia" → 'Prussia built new and expanded existing fortifications at strategic points in Silesia'?
What about removing "new": "Prussia built and expanded fortifications ..."? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking.
  • As I commented at ACR, we have victories which are "major"; "substantial"; and "solid". And defeats "decisively" (three times); "decisive" (once); and major. IMO the prose would be improved if most, or even all, of these were simply victories or defeats.
Some battles actually are more important than others in the course of a conflict, and there is a spectrum of possible outcomes, from going entirely one side's way (e.g. Rossbach) to breaking about even (e.g. Mollwitz). If you can think of better ways to convey this information, I'm open to suggestions. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't in principle disagree. Although I would rather express their importance by explaining the effects; but understand the constraints within a summary article like this. What jumps out is the four decisive(ly)s, two in the same paragraph. ('heavy'?)
Well, let's see: Pfaffenhofen ended Bavaria's involvement in the wars; Hohenfriedberg ended the Austrian attempt to recover Silesia in 2SW; Rossbach ended France's involvement in 3SW; Leuthen played a role in 3SW analogous to Hohenfriedberg in 2SW, ending serious efforts by Austria to occupy Silesia. The articles on these battles tend to describe them in their lead sections as "decisive" (including ones that are FAs). I've cut the word from the description of Kunersdorf in the image caption, since, though it was tactically quite decisive, strategically it failed to decide the war (the "Miracle"). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just counted the number of "heavy" or "heavily" defeats in First Punic War, currently at ACR, and decided that I should shut up!
  • "with intermittent skirmishing in Saxony through the end of the year" Optional: this is American English to the point that it may not make sense to many non-North Americans. Maybe 'with intermittent skirmishing in Saxony until the end of the year'?
Oh! What, "through the end"? Really! What about "throughout the remainder of the year"? "Until" seems to me to indicate that it ended at that time, which is not the case here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really. Now you have me intrigued. If we can't use until because that incorrectly implies that the fighting had ended by the end of the year, in what ways do "through" or "throughout the remainder" not have the same implication?
If anything "throughout the remainder" is worse. I think of my English as being reasonably cosmopolitan, but if I came across that cold, I would be guessing its meaning from context.
Huh! Haha okay, as to your question ("in what ways do 'through' or 'throughout the remainder' not have the same implication?"), in my dialect(?) to go "through" something is to go from one side to the other and beyond ("Over the river and through the wood, to Grandmother's house we go"), so if the fighting continues "through" the end of the year, then it goes from before that to after that. If that doesn't read to a non-North American, then we'll have to change it, but to something that (in European English) indicates continuity from before to after and beyond. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I strongly suspect that all of that would be completely lost on a non-NA reader. If I were writing this, which I'm not, I would say 'with intermittent skirmishing continuing in Saxony into the next year' or similar.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marking Prussia's rise to the status of a new European great power" "new" seems redundant.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Outcomes": "The small kingdom secured some 35,000 square kilometres (14,000 sq mi) of new territory and around a million new subjects, greatly enhancing its resources and prestige." Suggest deleting this, as the next paragraph expands "The kingdom had gained control of extensive new lands in Glatz and Silesia,[35] a region both populous and densely industrialised that would contribute substantial manpower and taxes to the Prussian state. Geostrategically, Silesia also gave Prussia a threatening position with respect to Saxony and Austria and a strong defence against encirclement by Poland.[2] Frederick's personal reputation was enormously enhanced by his successes in the wars".
The first paragraph introduces and summarizes the ideas that the subsequent subheadings expand upon. Isn't this typical Wikipedia structure, given that readers sometimes tend to read only the beginnings of things? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Thought that I had responded to this. No. Not in my experience nor practice. Information in the lead is expanded on within the main article. I have not - so far as I can recall - come across the same approach being used within a section. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the excise on grains" I think that "grains" should lose the "s".
"Grains" seems to be a pretty common usage; the point is that there was an excise on the various grains grown and consumed in that place and time, e.g. wheat, rye, barley, spelt, oats, millet... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. In UK English in this context the plural of grain is grain; if it is grains in US English, then fine - I have learnt something.
Well, but, I'm trying to have this series be written in European English, so, fair enough; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which led to significant increases in state revenues" Maybe 'which led to a significant increase in state revenues'?
Making it plural maybe makes clear that the increase didn't happen just once, all at once? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. I tried hard to find more structural or thematic issues to complain about, but to no avail. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just "decisively" and "through" left, but I am supporting anyway. This is a masterful piece of work and a fitting capstone to the series. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this at GAN, along with the three individual war articles, and this one again at Milhist ACR, so I may be too close to the material to come up much in the way of substantive points, but all I can see mostly nitpicking:

Lead
  • were a series of three wars
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • should Silesia link to Lands of the Bohemian Crown? This would also help with understanding why Ferdinand I was in charge there
Hrm... I quite like linking both Lands of the Bohemian Crown and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) together when summarizing Maria Theresa's inheritance a few graphs later, but I see your point. I wonder if it could be made more clear by editing or expanding the parenthesis; "Silesia's feudal overlord"? Would a link to Feudalism in the Holy Roman Empire help? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Protestantism
Good idea, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body

In general, I think it would help understanding if you didn't pipe geopolitical entities at first mention, for example:

  • Brandenburg should be Margraviate of Brandenburg
  • Bohemia should be Kingdom of Bohemia
  • Moravia should be Margraviate of Moravia
  • Bavaria should be Electorate of Bavaria
  • Saxony should be Electorate of Saxony
Interesting idea! I've tried some of this, and will look at applying it to the others in the series. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff:

  • suggest initial cap for realpolitik (as in the lead), as it is a German noun
Good catch, fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Rhineland for Rhenish, as it is obscure
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Austria's recovering Silesia"
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "King George II"
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Treaty of Dresden, Maria Theresa"
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prompting a diplomatic reordering"? It seems to me that "signifying" would be better here?
I see your point. How about "completing"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "once again chose to strike first.[64] On 29 August 1756" the colon adds unneeded complexity when the sentence would be better off split
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Did I miss the source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

The sources are of high quality and reliable. The issue of the age of Carlyle has been discussed in previous ACR's of this series, and there is a consensus that it remains an important detailed source on the subject. I have conducted citation spotchecks on several articles in this series during reviews at GAN and Milhist ACR, and they have all checked out. Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [30].

Murder of William de Cantilupe

edit
Nominator(s): ——SN54129 18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting, "Murder of a Watermelon",(©Drmies, [31]) also known as "The Cook, the Chamberlain, the Wife and her Lover", a medieval murder mystery that Christie would be pleased with. In this case, almost literally, the butler did do it.
Although it's amusing to joke about it 600 years later, it's a bit of a sordid story really—as I suppose, actually, it would be today. On a lighter note, this received a thorough GA review recently from the Lady Ealdgyth, of this parish, so as they say, any remaining errors are my own. Looking forward to straightforward comments and criticism: although a relatively short article, some of the legal machinery seems may seem byzantine, so a non-expert opinion would be welcome.
Stay safe everyone, and good luck. ——SN54129 18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention—remissly, I apologize—it received a thorough GA review by Ealdgyth, who was kind enough to travel many centuries forward through time to do so :) serial # 15:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Everything else looks fine licence and source wise. Use is OK too and ALT is OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJE; I've removed them as not being worth the doubtless lengthy debate that would ensue otherwise  :) out of curiosity, what if I had taken the photograph? I ask because, although I didn't, I could at some point in the future (although now much further into the future than expected!) ——SN54129 18:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd need to give the (pro forma, as it's obviously PD) licence for the object and select a licence for the photograph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the object would be PD, but the photo would be "own work"? ——SN54129 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A writ of supersedeas was granted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Source review (coming)

  • I'm a bit worried by the heavy reliance on a handful of sources. In particular, page 54 from Bellamy 1973 is cited 12 times, p. lxxii from Sillem 1936 16 times, same with Platts 1985 (also re Pedersen 2016b). I don't have time to do spotchecks for CP now, but tomorrow I will. Looking forward to reading the entire article through, it definitely looks … curious. Eisfbnore (会話) 13:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eisfbnore: Naturally you will find that reliance, per the requirement to comprehensiveness. Here, "being reliant" on four sources is synonymous utilising on the gamut of sources. ——SN54129 13:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's nearly three weeks, and my erstwhile source reviewer hasn't edited for the last seven days. I wonder if SchroCat would mind taking over the source review? Apologies for the ping—I know you've semi-retired from FAC due to all-pervading, semi-permenant arsehattery in recent times, but perhaps as a one off—? serial # 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SC's SR
  • Eisfbnore's concern regarding the reliance on a limited of sources. Although there are some that appear frequently (Bellamy, Sillem, Platts and Pedersen being the key ones), there is nothing intrinsically wrong in such a concentration, as long as these are the best sources to use in respect of the information they are seeking to support. In this case all four sources are certainly reliable, and all appear to be sound. Spot checks were made on some of the citations to see if the information could be better sourced, but without finding anything superior to those used.
  • Reliability. The sources are all reliable for the information they supporting.(Forgot to complete this bit earlier, even though I'd done the work) - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks were made on information supported through sources available online: all the information was supported and no examples of close paraphrasing were located.
  • Additional sources. Searches have been made as far as possible for any sources that may have been missed, but nothing new was found that is better than the sources used.
  • Formatting: nearly all consistently done and in line with the MoS. The only wrinkles are:
    • You have some located to "London: Public Record Office" and others to "London: PRO", "Kew: PRO, The National Archives" or "Kew: The National Archives". All can be located to London, and I'm not about "PRO, The National Archives": my recollection was that it is one or the other – four organisations were merged to form The National Archives at the same time, so there was no overlap. PRO should be given as Public Record Office
Check. I think I've caught all these; Kew is now in London, no short-formed PROs, everything cited to HMSO. Does that cover each of your concerns for this section? (In case I've misunderstood you.)
    • Check the US states. Pick a format from CT or D.C.
No periods. Or whatever they call them!
    • Arnold 1987, pp. 83–84: You have Arnold showing as the editor of the work. Did he write the information on these pages? You may need to tweak to show it a little more cleanly.
Ah, this is slightly tricky: obviously, its a selection of records, so a primary source (except for Arnold's introduction, which I don't use). So pp 83–84 is a document. But Arnold provides a substantial gloss by way of introducing each record, which is what I'm using here, so I have credited Arnold rather than the King's Bench Roll.

Let me know when you're sorted looking at these. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat; can you look at what I've done. serial # 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good. Pass the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that SchroCat, glad I did right by that. On a lighter note, it occurs to me that you missed a trick titling your section; SC's SR to SN's BS has a certain scansion :) serial # 16:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
The Mystery of the Murdered Melon
edit
  • "The usual suspects in such cases were felons and petty criminals." Optional: This seems a bit random in the lead to me. Suggest deleting from the lead.
Yeah, got shot.
  • "Multiple people were indicted for the crime, although only two were later executed for it." Is "later" necessary?
No, gone.
  • "although the case had long-term consequences. Although no motive"
Rm second.
  • "a long-established Lincolnshire family" It seems a little odd that you then go on to state that 2 of their 3 "principal estates" were in Nottinghamshire. And later that "family's main residence" was in Nottinghamshire. This is not a (necessarily) actionable comment.
Yeah, well caught; I've tweaked the sentence, hopefully, to cover Notts/Derbys too.
  • "a young man of 30 at the time of his death" "young" seems PoV. Suggest deleting and allowing readers to decide for themselves what being 30 years old means.
Done.
  • "Richard Gyse, the squire" "the" seems odd in this context.
Perhaps; I guess he only had one. Removed.
  • What (if anything) does "minutely-planned" mean?
Umm, "in great detail"? See my go-to style guide, The Jakarta Post (para 11), for example.
OK. I guess WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I'll just lump it.
  • "sat on the various indictments" A reader may take "sat on" to mean 'unnecessarily delayed'. wikt:sit on
  • "each offered dates varying from 13 February to 11 April 1375" I don't think that you mean that they each offered.
Ah. Removed.
  • Is there a link for "sessions of the peace"?
Of course, that'll be the 1/4 Sessions.
  • Optional: I am not, personally, a fan of the multiplicity of one-paragraph sub sections.
I know what you mean, and me neither, normally. But without them, it was a nightmare of people related to each other, people accusing and being accused, cases moving here there and everywhere...
  • "although he has also been described as something of a "loose cannon"." By whom?
Pedersen, and noted why.
  • Link "accessory"; Wiktionary link "instigator".
Both good, done.
  • Link "aiding and abetting" - both in the lead and the article.
Done.
  • "The juries presenting to the peace commission" And a "peace commission" is?
Wot the JPs headed. But removed it—here's enough bloody sessions and commissions already.
  • "to accuse the whole household of different crimes." This is a little confusing. Perhaps "different" → 'various'?
Thanks!
  • "Maud accused sixteen men and women, for her husband's murder" Suggest 'Maud accused sixteen men and women of her husband's murder'? No comma.
Cheers, that was a hangover from where it originally said "appealed...for", rather than "accused...of".
  • "Lincolnshire county Court" → 'County'.
Done.
  • "Pedersen argues that, "given her almost certain complicity in the murder it must have come as a surprise to the two assassins, William’s squire, Robert Gyse, and Roger the Cook, that Maud named them as the murderers"." A complex sentence. Perhaps 'Pedersen argues that, "given her almost certain complicity in the murder it must have come as a surprise to the two assassins – William’s squire, Robert Gyse, and Roger the Cook – that Maud named them as the murderers".'?
That does read better, but this is a direct quote?
Damn!
  • "Conversely, Bellamy suggests ... " I don't get "Conversely", suggest deleting.
Gonversely.
Don't give up the day job.
My comedy career's in furlough ;)
  • "The court of King's Bench" You sure about that lower case c? And isn't it the King's Bench?
Well, the terms are interchangeable; I went with just "CoKB" rather than "CotKB" because our article on the thing is at the former rather than the latter.
  • "Maud's appeal from June" What appeal? What was she appealing for? Or against? (*Rhetorical question alert*)
Uuugh, changed to "Maud's June allegations".
  • " Whereas the juries which presented to the peace commission" It may help a reader to insert 'their conclusions' or similar.
Done.
  • "When the case was eventually heard, it was not as murder, but as petty treason" I think that a further explanation of this at this point, in at least as much detail as in the lead, would be appropriate. (And pull forward the sentence on it from the following paragraph.)
Right. I moved the line up about the first time it was used, etc., since 1351?
  • "All of which, suggests Sillem, to observers this" You need a word before "to". 'suggested' is the obvious choice, but ...
...but I already use "suggests". Swap out for "argues".
  • "he was additionally charged with murder, as had Maud." Either "had" → 'was'; or "had Maud" to 'Maud had been'.
..."as Maud had been".
  • "were by outlawed as felons"?
Your brevity leaves me at a loss  :) but have linked outlaw, felon, and added a footnote as to the legal mechanics of each?
To be less terse, delete "by".
Must've been blind. Cheers! So in fact, you wanted to lose to letters, and I added ~40 words!
  • "He was then not tried for another six months. Then ... " Delete the first "then"?
Done.
  • "he was released nisi prius" The link is not very helpful; could we have an in line explanation?
Indeed: added a pretty comprehensive footnote .
  • "before Paynel's term as sheriff had expired, he was acquitted" Is it known when either of these things happened?
No secondary source for his acquittal, but generally shrieval terms equated to the legal year, so the end of Sept → beginning of Oct, although not precisely the 30th/1st. Clarified this; the reader will doubtless draw the conclusion that it was sometime in the summer.
  • "Furthermore, he also presented a letter" From who?
The new King as well as the old. A bit tricky this; I haven't got a source that says in so many words why he did this, but *OR TIME*, it was pretty common to request reiteration of grants, pardons etc., from an incoming regime of those granted under the previous, as it (was intended to) prevented any legal difficulties in the face of a disputed claim.
  • "sedicioni precogitale...interfecerunt et murdraverunt ("killed and murdered")" Could we have a full translation?
Well yes; per Captain Bligh, 'tis my own so ye know it to be a good one. But it's a bit ORish.
That's fine. Yours are better than most RSs.
  • "hanged and drawn" 'drawn and hanged' is more usual. (And represents the chronology.)
Done.
  • "and their families, suggests Pedersen, "looked after"." This reads as if this is the only part of this sentence which Pederson suggests.
Right, expanded.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "But others motives are more obscure" → 'But the others' motives are more obscure'.
Check.
  • "all—including Paynel—were all acquitted" Too many alls.
Tweaked.
  • "the infamy the case had engineered" I don't think that "engineered" is the right word. 'engendered'?
Poo brain at me there. Cheers!
  • "Their marriage was to be short-lived, however," Why?
Don't actually know, I'm afraid, except that he's dead (a very primary source shows me that he was dead, but doesn't say precisely when or how. Or why, for that matter).
  • "There being no remaining male heirs, the de Cantilupe estates were broken up between two senior branches of the family, represented by the de Cantilupe brothers' cousins, William, Lord de la Zouche and John Hastings, who was then a minor" This sentence would fit more naturally immediately after "On his death de Cantilupe was the last of his line, and the family died out."
Excellent point, moved.
  • Note 12: "and taken refuge in their master's house." 'had taken'.
Done.
  • Note 14 contains either a surplus comma or a missing figure.
Removed the space and comma.
  • Note 15: "JPs" And they would be?
Well,

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gog the Mild for looking over this. I always appreciate your reviews, as they kick things off nicely. Apologies for being so belated on this one, but what with one thing and another I had forgotten this. Talking about FACs yesterday reminded me though; better late than never, hopefully. Take care! serial# 16:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. And, in the current circumstances, neither am I.
All good stuff. A couple of thoughts above.
  • Your diagram in Notes really messes up the display. Move it into the main article? Or at least put a {{-}} under it.
Good catch the clear template; I originally put it in the body, but it looked out of place a little, considering the footnote explains NP in greater detail.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again GtM. Have clarified some of my balls-ups further :) serial # 11:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

edit

Will be in batches, I'm afraid, but hope to get it done over the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The Note, at the very beginning of the lead, jars visually for me. Could it drop to the start of Background?
Fair point, moved.
  • "Saint Thomas de Cantilupe" - I don't know the MoS for saints, but St Thomas de Cantilupe looks "better" to my eyes, but ignore me if the convention is to spell it in full. Actually, looking at the Category:English RC saints, the convention seems not to have Saint at all.
Actually, I think you're right!
  • "as well as his entire household" - the "his" threw me, given we've two other guys interposing. Perhaps, "as well as de Cantilupe's entire household"?
Done.
  • "Maud's husband was frequently absent" - this threw me. We mean William. So, "for many years; it is possible that Maud was conducting an affair with Kydale, during her husband's frequent absences on service in France"?
Thanks a lot, used! (And can I thank you in advance for all the suggestions you have carefuly thought out for me in the following, and the which I have shamelessly stolen?!)
  • " with de Cantilupe's wife, their neighbour, the cook and her lover, with a mixture of motives including love and revenge" - and here I got totally lost, although I can see what you're trying to do. The cook's lover! Perhaps - "with de Cantilupe's wife, her lover, the cook and their neighbor"?
Done, although using the Anglicised neighbour  :)
Background
  • "They were also a major landholder the Midlands" - typo, "They were also a major landholder in the Midlands".
Done.
  • "Not only were they lords of the realm" - I am likely showing my ignorance of the period, but they were lords of where? From the family tree, they look like baronets, who aren't peers?
In the early days of what was becoming the English peerage—i.e. when gt-gt-gt-gt-grandad de Cantiloup was raised to it, many baronies were created by writs of summons, which meant they were summoned as "Lord XYZ" without necessarily having been endowed, hence baronies by writ rather than endowment. Although for what it's worth—and to confuse the thing further—various ancestors were called Dominus Ravensthorpe.
  • "main residence was Greasley Castle, Nottinghamshire" - this is a duplink, taking me to the same page as Greasley in the para. above.
Delinked.
  • Caption under John of Gaunt "both Willima de Cantilupe and his local rival, Sir Ralph Paynel was retained" - unless he's had a sex change, I think Willima de Cantilupe is a typo. And I think it should be "were retained".
Heh  :) check.
Death of de Cantilupe
  • "they "dried out with heated-up water" - appreciate that this is a contemporary quote, so may be unclear in itself, but I'm not quite getting whether they dried/washed themselves or the body? Both presumably would have been pretty bloody. And does the quote need a source, or is it in Pedersen?
I've tweaked the sentence: "they washed his corpse "with heated-up water..."" is more clear? And I've directly cited the quote just to be sure.
Escape
  • "Paynel's having been summoned a number of times to answer allegations of excess" - excess of what? Lechery/gluttony/poor behaviour? Are the sources any clearer?
I'm afraid they're annoyingly imprecise: "excesses" is te word Pedersen uses, and it turns out that's the word the original writs used! So although I can't draw any conclusions, I've added a footnte quoting from the primary sources showing what they said, if not why they said it.
Indictments, trials and convictions
  • "under the direction of William's wife, Maud Nevill" - I appreciate it'll be one of those medieval variants, but in the family tree, her father's Sir Philip Nevil, with a single "l", while in Household, he's got a double l and an e, Neville. We should probably be internally consistent.
Good spot, I think I caught them all, there were a few.
Sessions of the Peace
  • "They established few details of the crime, but were the first juries to accuse the whole household of various crimes" - the double "crime" confused me. Particularly as there's really one crime, the murder, and various charges, aiding and abetting/conspiracy etc. Perhaps, "They established few details of the crime, but were the first juries to level charges against the whole household"? Or something similar.
Stolen again.
King's Bench sessions
  • "the accusations against 15 members of de Cantilupe's household, Maud herself and an important local figure such as Sir Ralph Paynel was an exceptional occurrence" - I think we've got a plural/singular clash. Perhaps, "the accusations against 15 members of de Cantilupe's household, Maud herself and an important local figure such as Sir Ralph Paynel were exceptional"?
Ditto  :)
  • "tradiciose, false et sediciose, seditacione precogitata: Treason, lies and sedition, seditious aforethought" - should Treason be capitalised?
I thought there was a MOS thing about capitalising after a colon? Perhaps not; lower-cased.
  • "Maud withdrew her appeal" - you are better acquainted with medieval legalese than I, but was it an "appeal"? I thought, from the paragraph above, it was more by way of an accusation/charge? Oddly, Gog seems to have raised this above. Has it been changed and changed back?
I've got no idea what's going on! I wish I'd never used the word in the first place now. But the source did, so did: it's this, #6 (obsolete) version, to appeal someone=to accuse them.
Kydale, Paynel and Lovel
  • "adjudge Maud's guilt or innocence" - "adjudge" is a bit archaic. "decide/determine"?
Agree.
  • "right up to his death in 1383".[14]|group=note}}" - something's awry with the note here.
Somewhere lost the {{refn|
  • "Furthermore, he also presented a letter from the dead Edward III—dated the 8th of the same month—which instructed the hearing justices to obey the terms of Edward's pardon" - Not quite getting this. Bate also has a letter from the dead Edward III, which is/contains a pardon? Perhaps, "Furthermore, he presented a second pardon, dated the 8th of the same month, from the late king, Edward III"?
Stole.
Motive
  • "it is possible that Maud and Kydale had become friendly in his absence" - "friendly seems a little coy, as you've talked of "romantic involvement" and "an affair" earlier. Perhaps, "become close/begun an affair" or some such?
Better than my first choice of "it is possible that, by then, Kydale had begun giving Maud one"  ;)
Historiography
  • "She highlighted how the case not only demonstrated contemporary approaches to crime and petty treason but also provides a wealth of information" - past tense / past tense / present tense. "provided"?
Provided.
Notes
  • Diagram - I'm with Gog, something needs to be done!
I think Gog's template has sorted it, and see my explanation to him for the reasons?
  • Note 20 - "on the rarity for a woman to be appealed"? "imprisoned"?
Uugh! Accused, see above :)
  • Note 23 - "as the Paynels and de Cantilupe's" - don't think we need the apostrophe.
Done.
  • Note 28 - "such as the de Cantlupes" - but I do think we need an "i", de Cantilupes".
Sources
  • Order - generally alphabetic. Any reason why the HMSOs aren't grouped together.
Cheers, alphabetised.
  • Pedersen - F. for his 2000 volume, F. J. G. for the other two.
Done.

That's my nit-picky run-through. A gripping tale indeed, which I'll be pleased to support when you've had a chance to review the above. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for looking in KJP1, appreciate it! I've taken in all your suggestions in a couple of sweeps; I don't think there was anything that wasn't helpful or went unused. Thank you! serial # 13:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "De Cantilupe's murder was the first since the passing of the Statute of Treasons of 1351, which codified the murder of a husband by his wife—or by his servants—as petty treason." I have read this several times and I still cannot make sense of it. It says that there were no murders in England between 1351 and 1375, which cannot be true. If the comma after 1351 were removed, I would take it to mean that it was the first of several murders which codified the murder of a husband by his wife, which does not make sense to me.
Ha! Thanks for this. Absolutely rotten sentence. I've tweaked it, and vut it in two; hopefuly makes some sense now.
  • "Multiple people were indicted for the crime, although only two were executed for it." I think you should say here how many were convicted as well as executed.
Done (although its the same number); also added who was charged but outlawed.
  • "No motive has been established for de Cantilupe's killing, historians consider it most likely that responsibility rested with de Cantilupe's wife". This is ungrammatical. I think you need either a semicolon or an extra word after "killing".
Comma'd.
  • "They were also a major landholder in the Midlands" "They" requires plural "landholders".
Done.
  • "as both dates given are a week before and after the Feast of the Annunciation" They cannot have been both before and after. Do you mean that one was before and the other after? But then they would be two weeks apart, and you give dates for the murder one week apart.
True. What was meant was that each Friday preceded and followed the Annunciation. See what I mean? I'm still not too happy with it, as it goes.
  • "It was probably the maid, Lovel, who gave Cooke and Gyse access to the house" So Cooke and Gyse were members of the household but not allowed in the house? Clarification would be helpful.
  • Pederson does not seem to me logical on the household's guilt. On his timescale most of the household may not have known about the murder because they were in bed asleep, but you have to go by the sources.
That's a good point. I guess he thinks that the household wasn't a big one, and so that all those he names as being involved were either boiling water, carrying it, opening doors or killing the man!
  • "Between the peace session in the summer and the King's Bench in autumn, Maud accused sixteen men and women of her husband's murder, in the Lincolnshire County Court on 25 June." This is confusing. In the previous paragraph you say above that the case came up on 25 June without referring to a peace session and you do not refer to the autumn session until the next paragraph. Here you refer to an intermediate session on the same day as the first one.
Yes, indeed, it read as though there were three courts. I've clarified that it was on the summer (June) appearance that Maud was both accused at and made her accusations.
  • "under the 1352 act" Elsewhere you refer to it as the 1351 act.
Typo, fixed.
  • "Their marriage was to be short-lived" I would say because Kydale died in 1381.
Of course, done, plus source.
  • "with the assistance of a young lover" This is not following Sillem, as you say, but suggesting a young lover in the household.
I know what you mean. "Following Silliem" is sourced to Pedersen; I think he means generally, rather than in every detail. So, of course, Rawcliffe changing the lover to a household man rather than the sheriff should be accounted for, but can I say "following Silliem generally, although the sources are confused as to details"? (With no source?)
  • You are inconsistent whether Roger was a cook or his surname was Cooke. If both, you should clarify.
Err. Silliem calls him the "botiller", but Pedersen calls him "Roger the Shrubber Cook"?
  • Richard Gyse, squire. Squire would normally imply a young man of good family training to be a knight. Is nothing known of him?
Nothing whatsoever.
  • This is an interesting article, but sometimes confusing. There seems to be a good deal of speculation without evidence by historians, but as I say above, you have to go by the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly, the sources stink, Dudley Miles. All the more reason, though, for thanking you for looking in on this and helping out. Can you see what I've done, and let me know wot you dis/approve of. ——Serial # 16:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, you sometimes refer to the second killer as Robert Cooke, sometimes as Roger the Cook. You need to be consistent.
H'mm; "the Cooke" appears in a quotation, so I can't change that; howver, I clarified when he first gets mentioned that—yes!—he was actually the cook as well (and relegated Silliems's opinion wrt botiller to parentheses).
Well: I wouldn't call it a very different theory (still Maud+household=dead husband), but I've added a line indicating that the lack of evidence as to most of the individual's' roles means that there are variations upon the theme. Rawcliffe, for example, suggests that Maud's lover was within the household—and so not Kydale—and that: (then block quote).
What say you, Dudley Miles? ——Serial # 15:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still confusion over names. One suspect is named variously as "Robert (sometimes Coke), the cook", "Roger the Cook", "Cooke", "Cook", and "the cook". Gyse is sometimes Richard and sometimes Robert. The chamberlain (not Gyse) is named in the lead as a main suspect but not thereafter. You need to sort out the names as readers cannot know who you are talking about. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see where I've written Robert (sometimes Coke), the cook"? Was that an old version?
His name was Cooke (now standardised), but his profession was "the cook".
No, Gyse was Robert on a single occasion and that was within a quote. That was Pedersen confusing the two himself. Sources eh. Anyway, I redux'd the quote so as to eliminate any need to embarrass him.
Yeah, the chamberlain is now swapped out for the squire; the confusion probably stems from the fact that the Chamberlain was one of those subsequently charged with A&A.
Glad that's all sorted, Dudley Miles; by the way, any reason we're not indenting? This is all really much the same discussion. All the best! ——Serial # 17:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should have clarified. "sometimes Coke" was in a note, not the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi, admittedly I didn't dig very far but it wasn't obvious to me where all the info in the Relationship between de Cantilupe/Paynel/Kydale hierarchy, names and death dates, was cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: yes it was a bit "spot the ball" wasn't it  :) it was inside Cantilupe's own (red) box. The problem is that if you put the ref outside the table, it floats around at bottom left. So I put it in the section heading. But I don't think MOS is going to like that either...anyway, see this discussion for background. ——Serial # 14:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it doesn't look too pretty but unless you can think of something worthwhile to write as a sentence under the heading with the note at the end of it... Anyway I'll leave for you to decide, I won't hold up promotion over it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [32].

Lionel Matthews

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another instalment in my series on South Australian Victoria and George Cross recipients. Matthews was decorated during the WWII Malayan campaign, and was captured at Singapore. He then established an intelligence network within the Sandakan POW camp, which facilitated escapes among other things. He was eventually betrayed, tortured and finally executed, after he refused to give up any information about his network. He was posthumously awarded the George Cross for his gallant and distinguished service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • You are not consistent in whether you put "Australian Capital Territory" after "Canberra" in the bibliography.
  • Do you mean to give a city for The News or is "South Australia" good enough?
  • If the book in "Further reading" is about Matthews, and it's the only book about Matthews I see, then why do you not use it as a source?
That's it. Otherwise the sources seem of appropriate quality and are properly cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Wehwalt. Just one query. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • Lionel Colin Matthews, GC, MC (15 August 1912 – 2 March 1944) Shouldn't it be "Captain Lionel Colin Matthews, GC, MC (15 August 1912 – 2 March 1944)"?
  • Link or pipe World War II, Singapore, Japanese to the Empire of Japan, 2/29th Battalion.
  • officer of the 27th Brigade during the Malayan Campaign --> "officer of the 27th Brigade during the Malayan campaign"
  • sent to the Sandakan POW camp in British North Borneo Maybe add "occupied" before British? It looks a little bit misleading why he was sent to an Allied country as POW.
  • On 26 December 1935 he married (Lorna) Myrtle Lane Why is Lorna between the bracket?
  • working as a packer. In 1937–38, Lionel --> "working as a packer. In 1937–1938, Lionel"
  • The 8th Division Signals embarked aboard the RMS Queen Mary for Singapore Maybe introduce her?
  • The 27th Brigade was then committed to the Malayan Campaign following --> "The 27th Brigade was then committed to the Malayan campaign following"
  • linked to several key figures including Dr J. P. Taylor, an Australian Per MOS:DOCTOR
  • make contact with Filipino resistance fighters Link Filipino resistance?
  • Matthews had gained the trust of the Governor of North Borneo and who is he?
  • four Chinese members of Matthews' intelligence --> "four Chinese members of Matthews's intelligence"
  • Matthews' body was exhumed and reinterred in the Labuan War Cemetery --> "Matthews's body was exhumed and reinterred in the Labuan War Cemetery"
  • Matthews' older brother Geoffrey commanded the 9th Battalion in the latter --> "his older brother Geoffrey commanded the 9th Battalion in the latter"
  • Matthews' Military Cross was received by his nine-year-old son --> "Matthews's Military Cross was received by his nine-year-old son"
  • @Peacemaker67: I disagree, it maybe is optional to use but in the Apostrophe's article many sources "recommend" to use an extra s. Unless the singular noun (this case a given name) is too awkward to say or too difficult to pronounce. The name "Matthews" isn't hard to pronounce unless you see it as awkward (even though "Matthews" is a normal English name) to not give it an extra s. I think normal English names should use an extra s while names from let's say Greek or other foreign languages or from Classical era which are too awkward to look at or are too hard to pronounce shouldn't have an extra s. I also realised most of the exceptions and examples are names from the Classical era. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree CPA-5, as the requirement for an extra s is not made out in Australian grammar rules. The relevant rule is that "names consisting of more than one syllable only take the apostrophe", page 86 of the Commonwealth Style Guide. There are a number of conflicting rules regarding this, and either is acceptable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matthews' George Cross, Military Cross and service medals --> "His George Cross, Military Cross and service medals"
  • No, just some bad reading moments.
  • The police passed them information, maps, a revolver, radio parts and medical supplies Is it not "their" or is it meant to be "the"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review as always, CPA-5. I reckon I've addressed all your points. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, I think I've addressed all your additional comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit
  • In the infobox, shouldn't the branch be Australian Army? Also suggest adding 27th Brigade as the unit with which he served.
  • "In 1937–38, Lionel...": suggest "From 1937 to 1938, Lionel..."
  • "All intelligence that was gathered was passed to Matthews and organised.": It is not clear to me how the intelligence was organised; for distribution?
  • "Matthews had gained the trust of...": This sentence uses Matthews twice. Suggest starting it with "Having gained the trust of...."

This is a pretty tight article, minimal issues found. I assume you don't use Matthews (in further reading) as he isn't an independent source. It is a shame there isn't more on his activities during the fighting in Malaya and Singapore but that is not surprising seeing as he was a relatively junior officer. I have Brune's book on Singapore and had a quick look for Matthews in the index but he isn't mentioned. Zawed (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked my sources on the Malayan campaign and the fall of Singapore, and he didn't get a mention (in the indexes at least). I haven't used David Matthews because of the fact that he is Lionel's son (not independent of the subject per RS), even though he is a retired journalist and the book isn't overly hagiographical beyond what independent sources say about Matthews. It is also unclear if it is actually self-published, as Seaview do both legit publishing and self-publishing. But I think it is worth including for anyone who is interested. Thanks for taking a look, Zawed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
  • "File:Matthews-VX24587-crop.jpg": the source doesn't work for me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unsecure url which can throw up a warning message, but I've just replaced the url with a better one, should work now. You just have to click through to page three. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My PC, phone, iPad and laptop all get the same warning message, with no option - that I can find - to override it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tracked down the image the hard way and have replaced the link. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "the brigade moved to Jemaluang,[7] as the 8th Division under Major General Gordon Bennett". The comma looks wrong to me here.
  • "The 27th Brigade was then committed to the Malayan campaign following the Japanese invasion of Malaya in December 1941, although the initial stages of the fighting were in the north, away from the Australians' area of responsibility."The order of statements seems wrong here. Maybe something like "In December 1941 the Japanese invaded Malaya, and the 27th Brigade was committed to the Allied resistance in the Malayan campaign, although the initial stages of the fighting were in the north, away from the Australians' area of responsibility."
  • "the brigade temporarily assumed command of several British units" Surely only a person not an organisation can assume command?
  • " nearly 1,500 Australian prisoners-of-war (POW)" (POWs)?
  • "The Japanese transferred the civilian internees from Berhala Island to the Batu Lintang camp near Kuching in Sarawak in January 1943." Why is this relevant?
  • "Throughout their confinement, Matthews had encouraged the other suspects, and had refused to divulge any information about their activities." The citation below says associates rather than suspects. Were other people involved who were not arrested and did Matthews' fellow prisoners also stand firm under torture?
  • "impertability" Typo?
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi PM, I only have a couple of typos and suggestion to make...

  • Lionel and Lorna had one child, Lionel David.[3] - as you call him only David in last para, treat as you did for Myrtle, ie brackets around Lionel? (or 'known as David')
  • Major General Gordon Bennett. - Major general (Australia) (or was it not adopted at that time?)
  • mortar fire and serial bombardment - typo aerial
  • intelligence that was gathered was passed - could drop "that was" to avoid 2 x "was"
  • that was gathered was passed to Matthews and collated. - then collated? ie Matthews are Wells etc collated it?
  • and, with the departure of the internees - perhaps insert civilian again here for clarity
  • Matthews' body was exhumed and reinterred in the Labuan War Cemetery in the same year. - "same year" not clear here, perhaps move this sentence in front of "As well as the Military Cross..." (if it means 1944)
  • optimism and impertability [sic] were - can't we just fix it to 'imperturbability' as MoS allows? (as you did for Phillipines). Imho, the sic doesn't help understand what word it should have been.
  • Refs Cowley Australian capital Territory - cap C

That's it, thanks, JennyOz (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look, JennyOz! All done I think. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support. Thanks for another telling of such a fine Australian. JennyOz (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one is travelling well, can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & support by Pendright

edit

Greetings, PM! Shortly, I expect to add my two-cents worth. Pendright (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • After the war he was posthumously awarded the George Cross in recognition of his gallant and distinguished services while a POW in Japanese hands
  • "After the war" seems to fit the definition of a introductory phrase
  • Do you mean it needs a comma?
<>Yes, it’s what I meant but did not say – sorry! On the assumption that you agree, I’ve added the comma - undo if you feel otherwise. Pendright (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

  • In his spare time he was assistant scoutmaster at 1st Kensington Sea Scouts from 1931, excelled at swimming, and was a handy amateur boxer.
  • "he was assistant scoutmaster": an article is needed betwen was and assistant, either specific or nonspecific?
  • Consdier adding the word and after "1931," and remove the comma after swinmming.
  • In 1930 he enlisted in the part-time Militia and served with the 10th Battalion, then transferred to the Royal Australian Naval Reserve and trained as a signalman.
  • Militia - does not seem to fit as a proper noun?
Okay - Pendright (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a semicolon after Battalion in place of the comma.

World War II:

  • He transferred from the Militia to the all-volunteer ...
Militia - same as above
As above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malayan ... :

  • ... due to growing concerns about war with Japan.
Add "the" between about and war
went with "possible war with Japan" as there was no war at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Japanese advance continued and eventually the 27th Brigade withdrew to Simpang Renggam through Yong Peng and Ayer Hitam.
Add a comma after continued
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the end of January the Allied forces were withdrawn to Singapore and defensive preparations began to repel a Japanese assault across the Johore Strait.
Add a comma after Sngapore
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Singapore:

  • After the Malayan campaign, the 27th Brigade took part in the defence of Singapore, initially defending the Causeway area.
Consider this: After the Malayan campaign, the 27th Brigade initially took part in the defence of Singapore by defending the Causeway area.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial Japanese assault began on the night of 8/9 February, and fell largely on the 22nd Brigade's sector, where two Japanese divisions landed during the Battle of Sarimbun Beach.
Because initially was used in the previous sentence, you might wish to use first instead of inital here?
deleted it instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner of war:

  • Once they arrived, Matthews set up a complex intelligence-gathering network, linked to several key figures including J. P. Taylor, an Australian doctor in charge of the local hospital, as well as Europeans interned on nearby Berhala Island.
If the comma after network were replaced with that it would seem to complete the thought. And a semicolon after figures would join the independent clauses.
Elegant, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
  • Having gained the trust of the Governor of North Borneo, Robert Smith, who had been interned nearby and, with the departure of the civilian internees, Matthews was placed in effective command of the British North Borneo Constabulary despite being a POW.
At 41 words, many might consider this a long sentence. That said, deleting the comma after and would seems to improve the flow of the phrase, or perhaps you would consider tweaking it a bit?
Have tweaked it, see whether you think I've improved it?
Okay - Pendright (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, Pendright. You always improve my prose and punctuation in particular. A couple of queries above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I'm happy to support this FA nmination. BTW, I do appreciate your kind words. Regards - Pendright (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [33].

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

edit
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final was the first time that England won the Women's World Cup outside of England. It was one of England's best-ever women's teams: Claire Taylor went on to become the first woman to be named one of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year shortly thereafter. The article underwent a FAC back in 2015 when Mkativerata raised a number of concerns about the prose being "impenetrable" and about comprehensiveness. I have worked through the article, adding information which I think now makes it a comprehensive summary of the match, while hopefully making it more accessible at the same time. As always, I appreciate any and all input. Harrias talk 14:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

edit

This is about as cavalier, indeed brazen, a submission as I've seen at FAC. The article is all but unchanged since its last unsuccessful FAC five years ago. Please compare. What change there is has followed a snow-job performed in the hours of the same late morning leading up to the submission. If this is not disrespecting the FAC process, I don't know what is. I won't bother with picking apart the prose of the lead, for I imagine it was already examined five years ago.

This submission is a non-starter. I respectfully suggest that the nominator withdraw it, ponder the point of it, work on it for a few months, and resubmit. @FAC coordinators: you tell us to cite chapter and verse in each actionable sentence, inexorably, but when does a submission become a parody of the process, a waste of community time? I was going to start this review by saying, "I don't know that much about cricket." But such a submission doesn't require such an apology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. On that basis that you've clearly ignored WP:AGF and WP:NPA, I'll ignore WP:NPA too. Fuck off. I started making the changes in response to Mkativerata during the review, but it got archived before that user could revisit. If, as you say, "I imagine it was already examined five years ago" then the diff you need would be this one; from the start of the review, not the end of it. Even if the only changes made were those yesterday morning, what difference does that make; I believe that they address the concerns raised. But you've made up your mind, so just carry on without reading it, you clearly know what it says anyway. Harrias talk 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had read the article when I posted my oppose; I've read the article again. The lead, for example, is not a summary of the article main body that is appropriate in respect of extent or distinctive features. There was nothing in the lead as it appeared to me on 16 April, or for that matter, as it appears just now, about the long section Route to the final, or the sections Build up and Aftermath. At 1452 words, those sections constitute 60% of the main body. A disproportionate lead would be fine; this lead is exclusionary, i.e. characterized by exclusion. You say I should compare the article to what it was at the time of the submission. Well please compare the lead Except for a few Wikilinks, a few citations, there is no difference in the two versions; none really in the prose. Please go back three years more and compare today's version with that of April 2012. The lead has barely changed. I could help you improve the prose, but the history of the article does not look promising. A reviewer can help if there is some history of progress. There is scant in the lead, as I see it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to provide some actionable comments here or are you just committed to trying to destroy this FAC? I'm not seeing any tangible benefit from your comments right now, nothing that actively relates to things that can be improved in the article. We're here to make Wikipedia a better place, not just destroy people who are trying to do so, with whom you clearly disagree. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is more actionable than to point out that the lead needs to be rewritten to reflect the main body, in both relative extent and characteristic features? Please don't attribute malevolent motives to me. When a lead has sat unchanged for eight years, and the article is again nominated at FAC a reviewer has to ask why and to judge what it bodes for the article. There are other people, who work very hard on their articles, for very long, whose articles are also competing for a conscientious reviewer's attention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

Of the 51 sources in today's version, 44 date to 2009 or earlier. I will shortly post reliable sources, many scholarly, published since, which should be included in the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my references: Talk:2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final#F&f's references (Moved to the article talk page, per WT:FAC discussion) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, right now, the article is not comprehensive. It fails 1(b). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC) PS Another reason why the article fails 1(b) is that it has insufficient context. Some of my sources address this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're obviously in 'throw-shit-at-the-wall-and-see-how-much-sticks' mode here (as usual). I've not gone through all these, but I've looked at a few and can either find only passing reference to the final not worthy of inclusion, or nothing at all (although the access through GoogleBooks and Amazon's 'Look Inside' feature don't give access to all pages). It would help if the 'reviewer' included page numbers to support his claims, and as I'm not sure about the encyclopaedic nature of the sources I looked at, a line or two of what they consider to be valid and encyclopaedic information that should be included - 1(b) does not mean every source has to be used. At least one of the sources is self-published, so not reliable anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's soon time to eliminate this regrettable intrusion in a process which a number of others are actually taking seriously rather than just making inappropriate scatter gun approaches in an attempt to justify an initial unacceptable outburst. It's tragic to see it unfolding. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It had nothing to do with people, but with reviews. Those were descriptors of reviews. Those words mean ostentatious; mock, illusory, without real significance; they are applied to reviews. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I have incorporated more information from the sources you have provided. While it was never my intention to bring a half-baked nomination to FAC, that is clearly what I did, and I apologise for both that and my initial reaction to your comments. I have not included as much information as you perhaps want; I think some of it would be better included in either the Women's Cricket World Cup or 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup articles. That said, the additional information unequivocally improves the article and makes it a much more comprehensive summary of the match in question. I would be interested in any further feedback you might now have, if you are willing to have another look over the article. Harrias talk 14:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. It may take me a few days. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it the once over. It's looking good. Happy to offer support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a one-off venture back to FA land for me. It's clear some reviewers still have no clue what they should be doing or how to approach a review, let alone how to take their head out of their backside and act like a human being to others. Such second rate behaviour by sub-standard reviewers should be ignored by the co-ords. Harrias, you have my sympathy for having a troll be the first visitor to the review. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from TRM

edit

I'll be judging the article on its merits. Such a pity that the tone has already been so deeply soured by Fowler&Fowler whose submission above speaks much more to themselves rather than the quality of the article which is what we are here to examine. Comments coming ASAP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe ) 07:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments (I'll probably include this as part of my WikiCup submission by the way, I'm obliged to note that for some reason.)
  • " Women's Cricket World Cup, the ninth Women's Cricket World Cup." repetitive.
  • "for a total of 166" no real need for "a total of".
  • "score steadily.[1] " the only ref in the lead, it's anomalous.
  • "of the match ... of the match." repetitive.
  • "was named player of the match after replacing the injured Jenny Gunn just minutes before the start of the match." pedantic perhaps, but she was named POTM for her bowling exploits, not after replacing Gunn...
  • I see what you mean; how is "was named player of the match having replaced the injured Jenny Gunn just minutes before the game started." (It might not really be an improvement, but hopefully it provides more clarity? Harrias talk 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup was the ninth Women's Cricket World Cup." again, repetitive.
  • "between 7 and 22 March" in Australia. Various locations?
  • "a second downpour finished the match" well it more caused the match to be abandoned, right?
  • "to Cricinfo, the" you use ESPNcricinfo in the references...
  • Yes, I ummed and ahhed about this. At the time, it was Cricinfo, but now it is ESPNcricinfo. It is now hosted and published by ESPNcricinfo, so that seemed appropriate to use as the publisher details, but Jenny Roesler worked for Cricinfo at the time. I've nothing against changing it, but that's why it is like it is. Harrias talk 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a big win" sounds a little POV. Perhaps find a nice quote for something like "convincing"? Or use the present source which says they "were dominant throughout the contest but for a short period at the start"... Ah, I see you use dominated. Um, just not convinced(!) by "big" as encyclopedic.
  • "unbeaten" could be linked to not out.
  • To a non-expert, it might be worth detailing what "Super Sixes" are.
  • "of the result in their final match" perhaps reiterate it w as the "final Super Sixes match"?
  • "In their second match, New Zealand.." I think there'd be no harm in reiterating that they'd lost their first Super Sixes match to England. Especially if the format may be unknown or confusing to the readers.
  • Just a thought, you don't seem to mention the venues of any of these matches? You could.....
  • "6 sixes and 19 fours." boundary overlinked.
  • I disagree, to a layperson, a six and four are distinct things, either of which might require a link. Someone might think, "Oh, I know what a four is, but what is a six? I can't click on it?" Unlikely maybe, but I don't think we lose anything by linking them both. Harrias talk 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final was a repeat of the 1993 final," final repeated.
  • "feat in 2000, while England were winners in both 1973 and 1993." could link those finals.
  • "the group stage" the Super Sixes. Is it clear that the two are synonymous? (I'll stop going on about that now).
  • "who had previously been omitted from the side" I think that's self-evident from the fact she replaced someone?
  • " but has never " as of 2020?
  • "in front of 2,300 people" in front of a crowd of 2,300"?
  • Player of the Tournament is capitalised but team of the tournament isn't?
  • Ref 47 needs en-dash, not hyphen.

That's my lot on a first review. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Okay, I have had an initial run through, let me know what you think. The Super Sixes explanation in particular might need a little refinement! Harrias talk 13:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite content with your changes (I did switch two of the three "progress" for "qualify" and "advance" for some sparkle) but otherwise it's all good. I'll take a last look tomorrow for anything else, but good work. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The final was a repeat of the 1993 tournament - you're just meaning here the same two teams met as in the 1993 final? Better to word it more like that if so as "repeat" carries a more global similarity...

Otherwise reads soundly and impresses as comprehensive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I'm not a really a fan of cricket but I'll give it a try.

  • The 2009 tournament included eight teams I don't think the year is needed if we know it's already mentioned once.
  • suggested England and New Zealand No links for both countries' teams?
  • Haidee Tiffen, the captain of New Zealand Link of New Zealand isn't necessary.
  • Link runs, centuries and overs if possible?
  • According to Cricinfo, the West Indian reply "was devoid of momentum" Unlink "Cricinfo" and link the first time mentioned "Cricinfo".
  • reported to the International Cricket Council (ICC) as being potentially illegal "illegal" is a strange word to use in the sport world?
  • remaining team progressed into the Super Sixes Why has this upper cases?
  • restricting England to just fourteen runs from her ten overs Why not using the number 14? I barely saw one number before the word "runs" written fully?
  • Not Build-up?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for the review, I think I have dealt with each of your points. I have made a number of other changes to the article, so do let me know if there is anything else. Harrias talk 19:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Just checking if you've got anything more? Harrias talk 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • conference for the final. A reporter for the BBC Introduce BBC.
  • Our article is located "BBC", not "British Broadcasting Company", and much like CNN, it is better known by the initialism than the full name, so I have not made a change. Harrias talk 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • broadcast on the radio; ABC and the BBC provided joint coverage Same as above with ABC and BBC is here overlinked.

@Harrias: That's anything I've found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks, and responded. Harrias talk 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I have done a little copy editing which you will wish to check.

Background
  • Could we be told of the frequency of the event?
So how about something like "The inaugural Women's Cricket World Cup took place in XXXX and there had been ZZ editions prior to 2009"? Which I note you have already done.
  • "The 2009 tournament included eight teams" How were the eight selected?
  • Optional: Possibly a little more on the development and state of women's cricket to and at the time? And perhaps on the origin of the Women's World Cup? Just a sentence or two would help.
  • Could it be explained somewhere that the tournament was a series of one-day matches of xx overs per side?
Ha! Yes. The "statements of the bleeding obvious" are the ones no one bothers to write.
How do you feel about this statement from the source to be enough to cover it: "having won the 50-over World Cup in Australia just three months earlier"? It's a little weak, but about as good as I can find right now. Harrias talk 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the best the sources have, then it will do.
Route to the final
  • "with Australia 13 runs short by the Duckworth–Lewis method" I think that a very brief (please!) explanation of D-L is called for here.
  • "South Africa struggled in their chase" and scored how many?
  • "bowling action was reported to the International Cricket Council (ICC) as being potentially illegal" I suspect that this may puzzle non-aficionados, so maybe link "potentially illegal" to Bowling (cricket)#The bowling action?
  • "England won the match easily, bowling India out for 169; with Gunn and Holly Colvin each taking three wickets, and unbeaten half-centuries from both Atkins and Claire Taylor." Maybe relook at this sentence? It jars a little, and "and unbeaten half-centuries from both Atkins and Claire Taylor" seems a bit 'tacked on'.
Good.
  • "After the initial league stage, the bottom team from each group was eliminated" Might we be told which they were?
  • "granting themselves a 223 run victory" "granting"! Really? Perhaps 'giving'?
Build up
  • I would like to see a little more, not necessarily in this section, on non-local coverage. Was the match televised? In which countries? Ditto radio. Do we have information on the number of reporters at the actual match? Any not from the countries of the teams competing? You get the idea.
Fine.
Match
  • "with some degree of a recovery" I appreciate the search for variation in language but this sounds a bit tortured.
  • "England's middle order suffered their own collapse against the opposition spin bowlers Doolan and Mason, their scoring rate slowing significantly from 4.78 runs per over at the end of the fourteenth over to 3.58 twenty overs later." Either a full stop or semi colon after "Mason", or an 'and' before "their".
  • "though she did not actually hit the ball." Non-fans are definitely going to be scratching their heads at this. Why was she given out if she didn't hit the ball. How is it known for certain that this was the case? A footnote perhaps?
Fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
  • "The ICC awarded England US$45,000 for their cup win" This reads as if it were an unexpected gratuity. Would something like 'England received the US$45,000 prize for winning the tournament' read better?
  • Link twelfth woman.
  • "the first team of either gender to be champions in all three cricketing formats" Perhaps a brief explanation, if only a footnote, of how they became test champions. Optional: An explanation of why no men's team had managed this in 165 years of international cricket.
    • Looking back at this, I'm not keen on it. Described England as Test champions is a stretch. Basically on they and Australia even played it; on the basis of having won the last Test between the pair, can we really call them Test champions? (The source does, but...) I'll probably take this out, but I want to mull on it. Harrias talk 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that that may happen.
Removed this. Harrias talk 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "was a one-day cricket match" Of which of the two forms covered by the link?
  • Otherwise the lead looks fine to me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: An array of replies await your further feedback. I know a couple are not yet done, but I am expecting follow-ups on some of the others, so might as well give myself more time to get going on any further tweaks. Harrias talk 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Ping me when you're ready. Meanwhile:
  • "who had initially not been included in the England team" Maybe 'in the England starting lineup/eleven'?
  • "there was still a growing gap between the top four teams" I'm not sure that "still" is necessary.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Some more responses. Nearly there (I hope), just got a query on the sourcing for the 50-overs thing. Harrias talk 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Let me know when/if you get anything on the number of overs. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Okay, added now. Harrias talk 13:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A nice piece of work. Covers all the criteria, and is an informative and flowing read. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

I knew very little about this topic coming into it, and would like to offer the following comments:

  • Referring to a sport tournament as an "edition" sounds odd. Is this standard usage?
  • "Another large win, over Pakistan, guaranteed England finished as group winners." - the grammar is a bit off here
  • "Despite conditions conducive to swing bowling" - can you note what these conditions were? (the state of the ground and/or the weather?)
  • "provided their side with some degree of a recovery" - this seems needlessly imprecise
  • " The New Zealand Herald criticised the batting as being "indifferent",[38] but Richards credited England for their "tight bowling and fielding" to restrict New Zealand." - is the "but" here necessary? Both of these opinions could be correct.
  • "against the opposition spin bowlers Doolan and Mason" - "opposition" seems surplus here
  • Given that economy class is linked, business class should be as well.
    • I was avoiding it per MOS:LINKQUOTE: "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after." I figured the link to economy class would provide enough context. I can add it if you really think that it is necessary. Harrias talk 19:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the English vice-captain not initially selected to play?: this seems unusual Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing specific. I gather from some quotes they just picked the best team, and she wasn't in it, but I would feel uneasy including that without a source that specifically mentions it. Harrias talk 19:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough - the level of detail is pretty good given the amount of coverage Women's cricket received in this era (it gets modestly OK coverage in the Australian media now, but that's a new development) Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I have responded to each point above, let me know what you think. Harrias talk 19:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my comments are now addressed, but I'd suggest sorting out the issue noted above with linking economy and business class flights as you best see fit. I'm very pleased to support this fine article as a result. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

I haven't been too near here recently, but I just wanted to chip in here with a few points. Regarding the oppose of Fowler&fowler, I cannot see that "The article is all but unchanged since its last unsuccessful FAC five years ago", whatever the reviewer's opinion of such a nomination, is based on WP:WIAFA. The second reason to oppose based on the lead seems more reasonable, albeit easily fixed. On the third reason, sourcing, that is a non-starter I'm afraid. The sources listed may well be academic, but they are not about the 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final. Perhaps they would be appropriate in an article on women's cricket, or even on the whole 2009 tournament. But not necessarily here. Peter Davies, for example, writes almost exclusively about local recreational cricket; that has no relevance for this match. Not for the first time, F&F seems to want an article to be something that it is not: this is about one match, not women's cricket in general. The only valid argument I could make here is that we could perhaps have more on the reaction – we have a little on the celebrations, but could there be more? For example, did this win lead to increased participation in women's cricket in England? How did the public react to it?

Otherwise, the sourcing looks pretty good to me, and contains most of what I would expect (with the caveat that I'm not too knowledgable about women's cricket). I do wonder if there is anything more recent we could use? Have there been any retrospectives? Or discussions of it in interviews? I've a vague notion that Sarah Taylor might have talked about it fairly recently. Also, and I may be misremembering, did any of the team get honours for winning the tournament? I know a few of them like Charlotte Edwards have received honours, but I can't remember which wins it was for!

Two other points. It's quite good to have "non-cricketers" reviewing this because the match section could potentially be impenetrable to non-specialists (I don't know if it is or not because it makes perfect sense to me!) and at the very least I wonder if we could split the paragraphs to make them shorter. Having said that, it is a paragraph for each innings, which may be the best way to do it. Second, very minor, point: we call Isa Guha a spin bowler, which she wasn't. I haven't really looked at the prose, and this shouldn't be considered a full review, but I have no major concerns about this one. Sarastro (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks all for the comments; Sunday is a family day, so I'm unlikely to get to anything until tomorrow at the earliest. Fowler&fowler, you are right about the lead; I am notoriously bad at writing leads. In my defence for the minimal changes made to it, there was no specific criticism of the lead in the first review (other than a minor point that it was repetitive), so it wasn't an area that I looked too closely at when working through the comments from the first review. I concur with SchroCat and Sarastro1 that most of the sources you have listed give little more than a passing reference to either the 2009 World Cup, or the final itself. That said, Duncan was a glaring omission (I have that book on my shelf), and I will have a look through each of them (some of them I have looked through already) to check if they have any pertinent information. Harrias talk 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::Gee what a surprise, the pageant pile-on, or the CPR pile-on, can't decide which. If nothing else, this time, the article will have more than two reviewers, Harrias. I thank you for being more responsive to my review than most above. I will soon add quotes from all those books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I really hope we are still focusing on the article. I see your quotes, and note that not all of them relate to this match. But I'll be honest, I don't wish to get involved in another draining back-and-forth; I'd be appreciative if you could strike any comments not connected to the article that you have made on this page (including the one directly above which I assume refers to me). I am very close to taking this to WT:FAC and requesting some kind of restriction against you as this is not a sustainable way to go about things, but I'm not sure I have the energy to do so. Sarastro (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about you. I didn't realize it was in your section. I thought I was replying to Harrias. As for you, you are not accurate about the sources I am compiling. They are very much relevant to the background and the context. Not everything in the article has to be sourced precisely to the day of the final. If you do that you get nothing but poorly written ESPN articles, without bylines, written by the cub reporters and general staff, which comprise 24 of the 51 citations in the article. I will move the remarks above to my section. As for your threat to take me to WT:FAC, you are welcome to do so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've been here before about background and context. I would respectfully suggest that these might be relevant for an article on the whole tournament, not for an article on one match. No-one said anything about "everything in the article has to be sourced precisely to the day of the final". Incidentally, your rather marvellously arrogant "poorly written ESPN articles, without bylines, written by the cub reporters and general staff" has just dismissed the main cricket reporting website out there; that's the place where the main cricket writers tend to hang out, perhaps more so than on newspapers. And the site that is hugely respected throughout the world. There are literally no better sources for cricket articles. But I'm sure you know that as you have researched so exhaustively. Oh look, now I'm getting personal as well... Thank you for permission to take you to WT:FAC, that is very kind. I'm currently compiling some evidence, and shall decide what to do with it later. Sarastro (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that much about cricket. But if the "main cricket writers" tend to "hang out" there, where are the articles by these writers? Why do the Cricinfo articles credit only "Cricinfo staff?" Why are the sportswriters being added slowly only to my list above, not to the article? See my Times list above. If you are compiling evidence. Please scour the article for intemperate language, not to mention personal attacks (e.g. "fuck off," "head up the backside, "blow smoke up your own sanctimonious backside," "second-rate behaviour substandard reviewers," etc etc) by others as well. I can compile evidence too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS Featured Article Criterion 1 (b) says, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" How is the 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final being placed in context? The criterion says nowhere that finals of sports tournaments have special dispensations to have short two-paragraph leads that do not need to reflect article content and to get away with token references to how the final came to be the final, or how the teams came to be in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Background and Route to the Final sections both provide adequate context for this one, single match. Too much more would be bloating for the sake it. Many of the suggested additions from the suggested sources have nothing to do with this match, or with the context (even when broadly construed). That's why we have the article 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup. Context is one thing, but shovelling in any reference to the tournament (as opposed to this single match) would be grounds for an Oppose.

The lead. This is an entirely separate point to 1b, and the two should not be conflated. The nom has already stated that they will be re-working the lead, so there is no need to keep commenting on it, particularly in a skewed context. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SchroCat Thank you for offering a new warrant for the claim that the article satisfies FAC criterion 1 (b). As you know, warrants have to be qualified by evidence. As for the evidence, please compare this page with the Featured Article 2003 Cricket World Cup Final whose pre-match and post-match sections are fully 600 words more luxuriant. The first section there is a summary of History of the Cricket World Cup, which the new warrant seems to be eschewing. Please also read the FA's 2017 [34] promotion. Contrast that with this FAC's first [35] and note Ian Rose's closing note of : "Closing comment -- I note Mkativerata's offer to revisit the oppose but even then we would not have the level of support required to keep this review open after running more than six weeks. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)" I am uncertain if Harrias contacted Mkativerata about the off-FAC work. Perhaps s/he can clarify with evidence thereof. Please also note the diff comparing the states of the article on March 28, 2015, and April 03, 2020 just before the onset (in Wiki page history) of the few hours of energetic edits that prefaced the second nomination. I do see that "England won by four wickets" was added to the infobox argument, "result:" but I am hard-pressed to find any full sentences (the smallest units of grammar) having been added to the article's text in the interim, which by then had constituted upward of five years. All this is very confusing to me, and at the very least calls for a new warrant, a novel general principle, to which reviewers can refer when reviewing. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New warrant? WTF are you on about? (and please, don't bother answering - I'm not interested in the slightest about you inventing something that has no place at FAC)
You may like the 600 words of luxurient padding on the 2003 final article: I find the more efficient use of prose here covers the main points rather well. Opinions will, of course, differ, but some of the material you are pressing to be included is laughable (and it's not the first time we've seen you try to bloat out an article with something that is not germane.
Personally speaking, I don't give a toss what has happened in the article's history (seriously - what on earth is even vaguely important about it at all?) I tend to judge an article on its merits as it has been presented for the FAC. I've seen you whine about previous FACs before - all to no end. No-one gives a toss about how an article gets here, as long as the nominator has worked on it and can deal with the comments: it's here. Deal with what is here, not the history of it. You are here to judge an article based on WP:WIAFA, not some specious made up rubbish about the article's history. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Warrant (rhetoric), please read the Toulmin method; alternatively, you could consult, The Craft of Research. I hope this helps. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate for the hard of understanding: "please, don't bother answering - I'm not interested in the slightest about you inventing something that has no place at FAC". Again, you come up with something that has no place in an FAC review. Stick to WP:WIAFA and stop trying to reinvent the process to your own preference yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

So here we are again -- snide comments mixed with potentially actionable suggestions, making it hard to decide where to collapse text. It would be great of course if everyone could redact their own unpleasantness. Anyway I'm going to try something:

  • All those who've registered explicit support or opposition for the article, pls refrain from any further comments for the moment. So Fowler&fowler, SchroCat, TRM, Cassianto, just take a break now.
  • Let the nominator deal with the comments by Gog the Mild, Nick-D, Casliber, CPA-5 and Sarastro1. He can also deal with F&F's actionable comments and if Harrias needs clarification on any of those he can ping F&F and F&F can respond specifically to the query.
  • Once Harrias has made his way through the outstanding comments we can see about making it a free-for-all again, with the admonishment that everyone pls deal with comments, not editors.

If anyone I've asked to take a break feels the need to discuss it with me, I'd prefer it on my talk page than here, as long as that doesn't become a venue for further review. Really though, the best acknowledgement of this would be to see those who've declared their positions move onto other things for the moment. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and of high quality for the topic. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add relevant content to the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. Links to websites all work. The referencing is clearly and consistently formatted. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to all be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [36].

2001 UEFA Cup Final

edit
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the most entertaining cup finals in recent times. A match that looked like a formality for Liverpool beforehand, turned out to be much more difficult. I feel this article is very close to featured standard and I'm opening it up to the scrutiny of the community to decide whether this is the case. NapHit (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias talk 17:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall point: the article varies whether it uses the singular or plural for teams; switching between "Liverpool was" and "Liverpool were" (and for other teams). Make sure it is consistent throughout.
Route to the final (Liverpool)
  • "Liverpool qualified for the UEFA Cup by finishing fourth in the 1999–2000 FA Premier League." This is unreferenced.
  • "The first leg was held at Rapid's home ground Stadionul Giuleşti-Valentin Stănescu, Liverpool won 1–0, Nick Barmby scored the winning goal." This doesn't flow at all, it just sounds like three independent statements that happen to be in the same sentence.
  • "Two further goals in the second half by Barmby and Michael Owen, before a late Liberec goal ensured Liverpool won.." This needs a comma after "Liberec goal", otherwise it sounds like that goal helped to ensure Liverpool's win.
  • "The victory ensured Liverpool won the tie 4–2 on aggregate to progress to the fourth round." Unreferenced.
  • "Roma scored in the 70th minute to take the lead, they now needed.." Replace "they now" with "and".
  • "..with Danny Murphy and Michael Owen scoring.." Rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing.
  • Link "Gary McAllister".

More to follow. Harrias talk 21:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far Harrias, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Still aware of this, but got sidetracked, and now having a busy weekend. Will probably be Monday before I get back to it, sorry. Harrias talk 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final (Alavés)
  • "However, the second leg was more entertaining" This POV needs attribution.
  • "The second leg held at Rosenborg's ground the Lerkendal Stadion." Missing a word.
  • "..with Rosenborg scoring.." Rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing.
  • "..after Álvaro Recoba scored twice and Christian Vieri scored." This would work better as "..after Álvaro Recoba scored twice and Christian Vieri once."
  • "Alavés fought back to equalise in the 73rd minute after goals from Óscar Téllez and Iván Alonso securing a 3–3 draw." The tenses are odd here: it either needs to be "..Alonso, securing.." or "..Alonso secured.."
Match
  • "..won in February defeating.." Add a comma before "defeating".
  • "They entered the match with the opportunity to win an unprecedented Treble." This needs a citation.
  • Per our article, "Treble" shouldn't be capitalised.
  • "Remarkably, the club had been.." Rephrase to remove "remarkably" per WP:PEACOCK.
  • "..league system 11 years ago." "ago" implies since now; try "previous" or "before".
  • Explain what a "4–4–2 formation" is.
  • Reference #26, "UEFA Cup Final: Alavés vs. Liverpool". Sports Illustrated. Reuters. 16 May 2001. Retrieved 21 April 2011. isn't working for me, can you check it?
I've got an issue with this ref as well. I've tried to archive it, but the Wayback machine doesn't seem to be working for me. I can't find another source to confirm what's in that paragraph, it was covered by the Sports Illustrated one. I'll try again later, but if I can't archive the source, I'll have to remove the paragraph as it won't be sourced. NapHit (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
tried again today, no luck. I've removed this paragraph as a result. NapHit (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "the toss", and "kicked off" to appropriate pages.
  • No need to keep writing names out in full (Gary McAllister, Michael Owen, Stéphane Henchoz etc).
  • "Alavés first opportunity.." Need an apostrophe.
  • Wikilink "challenge", "yellow card", "penalty area" and "wing-back" to appropriate pages.
  • Still issues with were/was: "Alavés were almost level.." "..Liverpool was awarded a penalty."
  • No need to keep writing "Michael Owen" out in full.
  • "..and Moreno's went straight through the Liverpool wall and into the goal past Westerveld." Seems to be missing a word.
  • "..while Alavés substituted goalscorer, Javi Moreno, with Pablo." This doesn't make grammatical sense as it is; maybe something like "..while Alavés substituted one of their goalscorers, Javi Moreno, for Pablo."
  • "..after Hamann was adjudged to have brought Magno down, but the Brazilian was subsequently booked for diving." Was a penalty initially given, and the overturned? Because otherwise, I don't see that "Hamann was adjudged" is correct.
  • "With two minutes remaining, Liverpool goalkeeper Sander Westerveld conceded a corner." Can more context be provided? I assume he saved a shot by putting it wide?
  • Wikilink "offside".
  • As above, per our article, "treble" isn't capitalised.
  • Is there a reference for the kits?
The report link underneath the scores should cover this. It links to the UEFA page for the catch which has a video of the match clearly showing what kits were worn. NapHit (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
  • "..with Alan Hansen declaring.." Rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing. Also explain who Alan Hansen is.
  • "Liverpool manager Gérard Houllier.." To avoid a false title, change to "The Liverpool..." (Same for "Alavés manager José Manuel Esnal.." later.)
  • "..long time — and that is.." Don't use a spaced emdash: either remove the spaces, or switch to an endash. Twice in the next quote too.
  • "..with Trevor Brooking stating.." Rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing. Also explain who Trevor Brooking is.

That's it for the moment. Overall a well-written article, with mostly nit-picking points from me. I intend to claim WikiCup points for this review. Also, if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C./archive1, any thoughts you might have would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 08:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Harrias. I've addressed all your comments and have responded to a couple of them above. I'll try and look at 9–0 match tonight. NapHit (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

That's about it from me. Harrias talk 13:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra comments Harrias, I've gone through and taken out those links you mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. NapHit (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for the comment. I can't find a reference for the claim, so I removed it. The only reference I could find was one that points out that the final was held there, but doesn't explicitly say it was the first European final held at the ground. NapHit (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

edit
  • "It represented the first European final they reached since", seems an odd way to put it. Why not simply, It was the first European final...?
  • "banned from Europe" > banned from European competition.
  • Probably worth mentioning in the second paragraph of the lead that the knockout ties were played over two legs, otherwise it sounds like Alaves beat Kaiserslautern 9-2 in a single game.
  • "Liverpool completed a Treble of Football League Cup, FA Cup and UEFA Cup", a little clunky perhaps. How about, a treble consisting of the Football League Cup..."?
  • The end of the second paragraph in Liverpool road to the final could use a source.
The ref at the end of the second paragraph references the sentence prior too. I could try and source another ref if needs be. NapHit (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two Michael Owen second-half goals" > two goals by Owen in the second half?
  • "Roma was unable to score", change to singular when the article has used plural up until now.

A few things from the first third of the article. I'll hopefully get around to more as soon as possible but it's something to get started with for now. Kosack (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Kosack, I've addressed all your points. NapHit (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things from the rest of the article

  • "The second leg saw more goals with seven goals scored between the two teams", more goals doesn't really work here because there were none in the first leg. Could probably drop the second use of goals to avoid close repetition.
  • "Alavés scored a further two goals in the second half, with Rosenborg scoring a late goal to win the match 3–1 and progress to the fourth round", this sentence makes it sound more like Rosenborg advanced rather than Alaves to me.
  • "their first season in European courtesy", doesn't quite work.
  • Could probably mention who Liverpool defeated in the FA Cup final given we have the info for the League Cup.
  • I don't think semi-professional needs capitalising.
  • There's a stray quote mark in Cruyff's pre-match Comments, just before "But we have some really good players".
  • Capitalise UEFA in Karmona's quote.
  • Steven Gerrard can be dropped to simply Gerrard in the first half and the link can be dropped.
  • Smicer is mentioned for the first time in the second half, add his full name and link.
  • "Liverpool was awarded a free-kick", use of singular which is in contrast to the rest of the article.
  • Add full name and link for Fowler in the second half, that's his first mention in the main body.
  • "give Liverpool a 4–3 with 18 minutes", something missing here.
  • Add full name and link for Magno in the second half.
  • No need to use Gerrard's full name in extra time, he's mentioned numerous times by now.

That's about all I can pick out I think. Kosack (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra comments Kosack. I've gone through and addressed all of them. NapHit (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit

Looking over this, prose looks okay at first glance - queries below:

  • I don't see where the location of the cup final is discussed in the body. Also how was the location (in Germany) decided?
I've added a sentence stating where the final was held. It will have been decided by UEFA in some form or another. Unfortunately, sources from this period regarding these decisions is sparse and I can't seem to find one explaining the outcome of how Dortmund was chosen. NapHit (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsequent match was won 4–0 by Liverpool to secure their place in the 2001–02 UEFA Champions League - does that mean the Charlton match or the one after that? If the former, maybe rewrite to reduce repetition - "Liverpool triumphed/won 4–0 to secure their place in the 2001–02 UEFA Champions League" or somesuch.
  • ...as they won 2–0 courtesy of two goals Owen in the second-half - grammar?

Otherwise looking on track.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Casliber. I've addressed your comments and left you a reply on one of them. NapHit (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been a source review yet, need one to be done. NapHit (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Something I notice immediately looking at the sources is that they all newspaper or web sources, despite the availability of book sources on the topic. Why is this? Has a survey been done of scholarly/book publications to ensure comprehensiveness?
I only have one book which goes into a little detail about the match. I've included a few bits from it. I don't think there is a wealth of books on the topic itself. With sports events, it's easier to source from the internet, especially regarding football matches, as they give a play by play account of the match, which is a more comprehensive account of the match than you would get in a book. NapHit (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that's true. For example this book has a chapter on the match. Web sources certainly will have a detailed play-by-play, but that doesn't mean other source types have nothing to offer. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that the book has a chapter on the match, it's not an altogether long one. Nor, does it mention anything that is not already in the article. I'm not disagreeing about books having something to add. I used one of my own books to add some more info in. What I'm saying is I only have access to limited books, most of which were published before this final. From the searches I've done online, there isn't much detail of the final in those books. NapHit (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2 doesn't need a work title, it's covered by the publisher name
Fixed. NapHit (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN23: don't see a credit to The Observer in the source?
The Observer is the Sunday version of The Guardian hence why the website is the guardian. As the article was published on a Sunday it will have been published under The observer. I've changed it to The Guardian anyway, as this isn't clear from the web link. NapHit (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of sources rsssf use for the information on their site. NapHit (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the note at the top of that page suggested the main source is user-collected data. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the majority of the information comes from the books and sources listed. The organisation, RSSSF, has its own page here on Wikipedia and one of the references on that page shows it is mentioned in a football book as a source of information. I think this confers that the site is reliable. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book you mention itself seems questionable - I'm not able to verify the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RSSSF also used as a source in this book - National Pastime . Alos used as a source by The Guardian here NapHit (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Nikkimaria, I've responded above. NapHit (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - how are your thoughts on images and sources? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine. Last point is still pending on the source review, and if possible I'd like some input from others on the first point. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get to be pesky ... @Nikkimaria: any progress? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: As above I'd prefer to get more input on my first point, but I'm not opposing over it. Third is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the source for the formations diagram in the Details subsection?—indopug (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered by the link titled 'Teams' underneath the score in the details section, Indopug. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This generally designates players as midfielder, forward etc but our diagram specifically positions them on the left, right or centre. (There is also an inconsistency: the team list has Gerrard at RM but the diagram has him as a CM)—indopug (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked the image against the BBC broadcast of the final, which can be found here and the image appears to be wrong. The BBC has Gerrard listed on the right as the teams list show. I've removed the image as a result and may ask the original uploader to create a new one to rectify this. NapHit (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi, under Details, it's not clear to me where all the info on the players, e.g. their positions and countries of origin, is sourced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, the two links under the scoreline, titled Report and Teams, reference the info on the players. I can add them to the references section if that helps rather than having as a link under the score. NapHit (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, don't know how I missed those. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [37].

Alpine newt

edit
Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown has its advantages: I now have time and, after a longer absence, came back to Wikipedia! The alpine newt is one of Europe's most common newt species and also one of the most beautiful... Looking forward to your feedback! Tylototriton (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
Thanks, FunkMonk, feels good to be back (though I admit I'd love to go outside and see those newts, they must be breeding right now)! Tylototriton (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still could alone, no? Or are you under complete lockdown? FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strict lockdown with distance limit for walks where I am, unfortunately. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably happy to not be disturbed these days anyway, if we have to put a positive spin on it! FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's true! Tylototriton (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence needs a source: "The western populations of the nominate subspecies I. a. alpestris, together with the Cantabrian I. a. cyreni and the Apennine I. a. apuana form one group, while the eastern populations of I. a. alpestris are genetically closer to the Greek I. a. veluchiensis."
Done (moved ref from sentence before). Tylototriton (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any photos of eggs?
Only one, not the best quality, on Commons. Have added it, can't seem to find a better free photo anywhere. Tylototriton (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two free photos on Flickr seem good[38][39], maybe a double image under description (or the taxobox)? The current image under description is kind of low quality up close, but still interesting, so could maybe be moved to the empty habitat section?
Thanks for having a look! I just think they might be a bit misleading, they seem to be newts in aquatic phase photographed on land. Tylototriton (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, the taxonomy and evolution sections would come first, and subspecies would be covered under taxonomy.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image sunder Paedomorphy are kind of sandwiching the text, which is discouraged, could they maybe be staggered, both be right aligned, or similar?
Done, stacked them all on the right. Tylototriton (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the genus article Ichthyosaura should be merged here, since it seems dubious the only other species belongs in it?
As long as the fossil species nominally belongs to Ichthyosaura and thus there are two species, I think it's justified to have an article for it. Tylototriton (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the subspecies might also be split off, so when the time comes, the article will come in handy. FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, the fossil relative should probably be mentioned here.
It's mentioned under Evolution, otherwise I think the nomenclature section should focus on the species and not the genus. Tylototriton (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I think evolution should come after taxonomy for logical continuity, that's where I looked for the info, and where it usually is discussed. Seems pretty disjointed now, talking about populations and their split in one place, only to have to read half the article to get the rest of the related info. FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved up the Evolution section up, as you suggested. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laurenti thought that males, females and larvae were different species." Did he name them all?
Yes – I've added the names now. Tylototriton (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as monotypic genus Mesotriton in 2004 By who? And specify if it was a genetic study.
Added the authors now and also added separate references for the phylogenetics. Tylototriton (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe give full name as with the other authors? FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Only a bit worried I'm introducing too many redlinks now. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All names don't have to be linked, though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to go back to last names only (saves some space) and removed some author links. Tylototriton (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't it be "the monotypic genus Mesotriton"?
Done.
  • Give the meaning of the generic names if possible.
Added a sentence for the current name Ichthyosaura. Tylototriton (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems all synonyms are not listed in the taxobox.
I thought the ~80 known synonyms listed in Frost et al. were a bit overkill for a taxobox, so I gave only the basionym and the two combinations found in recent literature. Tylototriton (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot, yeah. If you do wan to include them for completeness, you can collapse the synonym list, like for example at red rail. FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – but to be honest, I prefer not having to format 80 species names ;) Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Handbook of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Europe (2003)" By who?
Replaced book title with author names. Tylototriton (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the images under description should be right aligned or staggered?
Right-aligned them. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roček" Full name?
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "premature in Amphibian Species of the World" Author and date?
Author and year given now (but removed title for brevity). Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subspecies I. alpestris cyreni" This is lsited under alternative classifications, but isn't it identical to the standard classification? Likewise with "Subspecies I. alpestris alpestris".
This whole section is complicated, as the current subspecies don't completely match the lineages and the proposed species. Rafaelli's subspecies alpestris is only part of the current alpestris. I've tried to restructure the section and the table, hope it's all a bit clearer now. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems it might have major ramifications for this article if the subspecies are split off? Are we prepared for this, or will the article disintegrate?
Most of the article would probably still apply to the nominate subspecies. Don't think it would be too much work to split this. Guess people are working on a population genetic study and hybrid zones, that's what's really missing to nail this down, like for the crested newts. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to a molecular clock estimate." By who?
Author added. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and laterally compressed" Maybe use a term more familiar to most readers, sideways or form side to side?
Changed to "sideways". Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wider heads that those" Than?
Yep, fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any of the introductions been because these newts are known to have lived in said areas?
The source doesn't give more detail unfortunately. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More distant introductions have occurred to Great Britain, mainly England but also Scotland,[17] and New Zealand.[18]" Do we know how or why?
Again, the sources don't say if these were accidental escapes or planned introductions. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At higher altitude, maturity is reached only after 9-11 years, and the newts can grow up to 30 years old." Do we know why?
I guess it's just a matter of everything being slowed down under colder temperatures. Sources don't say that explicitly though. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Life and behaviour" Maybe lifecycle and behaviour? Life seems very general. Or the more common behaviour and ecology?
Went for "Lifecycle and behaviour" – I've used "Ecology" before but it's still a little technical for most readers I think. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Juvenile hibernating in dead wood" Is this an eft then? maybe best to be consistent in terminology? You also sya juenile other places instead of eft.
Usage of "eft" should be consistent now. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Experiments suggested that" Suggest?
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has usually several fathers" Usually has would sound more natural.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Larvae are 7–11 mm long" Conversion?
Are measurements below one inch common? Not so familiar with the imperial usage, is there any guidance? Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ok as is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more info on the physical differences between subspecies?
What I get from my reading is that there are no consistent morphological differences. I can add some tendencies if that's useful. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think it interesting, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, added a paragraph under Description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amphibian eggs and larvae, including the same species" of the same species?
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spiders or isopod" And instead of or?
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and secrete a milky substance." Of what function?
Source doesn't say. Added another ref about traces of tetrodotoxin. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formerly Triturus alpestris and Mesotriton alpestris" I don't think listing synonyms in the intro is needed, unless if you specifically mention why they were named.
Agree and removed them. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paedomorphic adults, which keep their gills and stay aquatic, are common" That's not the impression I get from reading the article body though, it seems to be more common than in other newts, but then only in the southern range. Could be consolidated better.
Changed this to "occur in the southern range". Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have started to diverge" I think you could cut the "have", this tense looks odd for something that append millions of years ago.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "classified at Least Concern" As?
Fixed typo. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Added another image in the meantime (defense position). Tylototriton (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks nice to me now, maybe put the eft hibernating in wood up under habitat so you can shift the rest of the images below up, now the last image collides with the references and creates white space. Or a few of the images could be left aligned to free up more space. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Tried to move up some images now and stagger them, but I guess this is also screen dependent (I use a rather small one...). Tylototriton (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • In the infobox it should be "present" not "recent" and Miocene should be linked
Done for "present", but the Geological range template gives me an error if I link Miocene. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant lead photo
Agree! Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The larvae grow up to 5 cm (2.0 in) before metamorphosing into terrestrial efts. Paedomorphic adults, which keep their gills and stay aquatic, occur in the south of the range." I find this unclear. The newt article says that eft is a juvenile phase, so does the newt go through two metamorphases or is an eft an immature adult? (You clarify this below, but it should be clear in the lead.) The reference to "terrestial" efts implies that the larvae phase is aquatic, but it would be helpful to spell this out. You also need to spell out the transition to adulthood, not just one aquatic variant. I suggest something like (if correct) "The aquatic larvae grow up to 5 cm (2.0 in) before metamorphosing into terrestrial juvenile efts after [period of time]. The efts then mature into adults at the age of [x], but some adults in the south of the range are paedomorphic, keeping their gills and staying aquatic."
Reworded now as "The aquatic larvae grow up to 5 cm (2.0 in) in around three months before metamorphosing into terrestrial juvenile efts, which mature into adults at around three years. In the southern range, the newts sometimes do not metamorphose but keep their gills and stay aquatic as paedomorphic adults." I want to make clear that paedomorphic adults do not metamorphose. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also eft redirects to newt and therefore duplicates the link to newt above.
I prefer to keep that link for clarity, since eft is a more narrow concept, even if it's treated in the same article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Populations of the alpine newt started to diverge around 20 million years ago." Is it known when the species first evolved?
Telling when a species emerged is pretty complicated, since we don't know about earlier, extinct lineages. This population divergence gives the minimum age. The divergence of the sister species, Ichthyosaura randeckensis could give a maximum age, but it's debated whether it actually is the sister species. So this minimum age (estimate) is all we have. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Austrian zoologist Laurenti" You should give his full name at first mention.
See comments above, I finally settled on using only last names. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After this genus was found to contain several unrelated lineages based on genetic evidence," This is ambiguous. Maybe "When genetic evidence showed that the genus contained several unrelated lineages,"
Reworded as suggested. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, but it seems remarkable that the sub-species separated 20 million years ago. This predates the separation of the great and lesser apes, and implies that we are more closely related to gibbons than the sub-species of alpine newts are to each other.
Indeed! These are probably several species, and I guess they will be recognised over the next few years, as has happened already with the smooth newt and the crested newt. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amphibian eggs and larvae, including of the same species, are also eaten." Does this mean of their own species? This should be clarified.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dudley! Tylototriton (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

edit
  • Nice to see this here – amphibians are a rare sight at FAC! Only a few quibbles:
Thanks for reviewing! Tylototriton (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ichthyosaura", Greek for "fish lizard", refers to a nymph-like creature in classical mythology. – Can this be more specific? Does it refer to a specific figure, or a category of creatures, and if yes, which?
There's no more detail than this in the cited source unfortunately, nor in the original mention of Ichthyosaura by Sonnini & Latreille. Tylototriton (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several authors argued that the ancient lineages of the alpine newt might represent cryptic species.[3][16] Four species were therefore distinguished by Raffaëlli in 2018 – The "therefore" implies a logical followup, but I'm confused why they distinguish only four species based on five ancient lineages?
The five lineages correspond to the four current subspecies, of which one includes two lineages. The proposed four new species split one of the current subspecies (alpestris) in two species but retain two subspecies/lineages (western alpestris and cyreni) as one species. Yes, it's complicated, I hoped the table would clarify this? Tylototriton (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populations from Vlasina Lake in Serbia have mitochondrial DNA that is distinct from all other populations and may represent a ghost lineage inherited from a now extinct ancestor population. – The ancestor population can not possibly have gone extinct, otherwise this species would not exist anymore. Also, this part of the sentence doesn't say much since all populations have ancestor populations.
The reasoning is that this ancestral population went extinct after its mitochondrial DNA had introgressed into the gene pool of other populations that still have descendants today. mtDNA introgression is common between close newt species, e.g. the Carpathian newt has the smooth newt's mtDNA but its nuclear DNA (and morphology) are clearly distinct. Tylototriton (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand what the ghost lineage would be here; a ghost lineage cannot be inherited. If a little more is added it might get more comprehensible, but decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to clarify, hope it makes more sense now: "Populations from Vlasina Lake in Serbia have mitochondrial DNA that is distinct from and more ancient than that of all other populations; it may have been inherited from a now extinct "ghost" population." Tylototriton (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe worth to add body weight, as this is an important biological factor.
Done. Not a very common info in books on newts, but luckily there's a detailed monograph about this species. Tylototriton (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paedomorphy (or neoteny) – those are not the same. Neoteny is a form of paedomorphy.
In the newt literature, the two seem to be used interchangeably. I've removed the parentheses with neoteny however for consistency. Tylototriton (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it would be good to add a bit more on those introduced populations in the UK and New Zealand. When were they introduced, what areas do they occupy now in which numbers, and "eradication was recommended" in New Zealand – why exactly? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also comment from FunkMonk above. I've added some more detail on the New Zealand populations. Tylototriton (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Am I missing the source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwigs is copyvio clear
  • References look reliable and represent a mix of peer-reviewed journal articles and books. Consistently formatted.
  • FN 16 - used 6 times. text in article consistent with source (though in source author concedes as a one-liner at the bottom that the species could be split into two rather than four for a more conservative apporach but not a big deal)
  • FN 21 - used twice. text in article consistent with source
  • FN 22 - used twice. text in article consistent with source

Overall all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [40].

Stucky (fandom)

edit
Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the "ship" of Captain America and Bucky Barnes, fictional characters that appear in media produced by Marvel Comics. The article covers an overview of the characters' mutual history as it relates to the fandom, analysis of the fandom drawn from media and academic sources, and the response to the fandom by relevant individuals associated with the characters.

I wrote this article because I wanted to write an encyclopedic article about a topic that, on its face, is extremely "unencyclopedic". I attempted to avoid fancruft as much as possible, focusing the majority of the article on analysis of Stucky as phenomenon in fandom (though some plot and character context is necessary to establish why it is a phenomenon in the first place). The article has successfully passed GA and DYK reviews, and I am hopeful that it's ready for FA status. Morgan695 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
Resolved comments

I am probably one of the few people on this planet that has never watched a single MCU movie, but I always appreciate some good slash fiction lol. Below are my suggestions:

  • This could just be me so take this with a grain of salt, but I am uncertain about the the first sentence. It just seems a little too wordy to me. Would something like, "Stucky, also Steve/Bucky or Bucky/Steve is the ship name given to the slash pairing of Marvel Comics characters Steve Rogers (Captain America) and Bucky Barnes (the Winter Soldier)", be more concise? Again, this is just a suggestion so it is really up to you, but it was something that I kept returning to when reading the lead.
  • I think this sentence, "Though Rogers and Barnes have appeared in media dating to the 1940s, fan works depicting a romantic or sexual relationship between the characters grew substantially in popularity in the 2010s following appearances by Rogers and Barnes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), where the characters' (canonically platonic) relationship forms a major cross-film plot element.", is rather long and cumbersome. I would suggest the following to trim it a little:
    • I would replace "following appearances by Rogers and Barnes in the" with "following their appearances in the" as it is already clear who is being referenced from context.
    • This part, "where the characters' (canonically platonic) relationship forms a", seems particularly cumbersome to me. Would something like "where their friendship forms a" as that still conveys that it is platonic while being somewhat more concise.
    • Is "cross-film" really necessary in the phrase "a major cross-film plot element"? I understand the intention as presumably their relationship is important in multiple films. I am uncertain if it is needed here, particularly since the sentence references to the MCU franchise as a whole and not a singular film.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but what is the difference between "critics" and "commentators" as used in this part: "Critics and commentators have used the popularity of Stucky in fandom to remark on a range of topics,"
  • I would use the full characters' names whenever they first appear in the body of the article. So I would include Rogers and Barnes' full names in the first sentence of the "Marvel Comics" subsection. It is also a little strange that Captain America gets linked twice, in the "See also" part and in the prose, while Bucky Barnes only gets linked in the "See also" part. I'd link Barnes in the prose and remove the "See also" part under the "Marvel Comics" subsection completely as the links in the prose should be enough.
  • For this part, "is strictly platonic, and is not depicted as overtly sexual or romantic", I would remove "overtly" as it does imply, at least to me, that their relationship is being intentionally portrayed as sexual or romantic through subtext à la Xena: Warrior Princess. Unless that is the case, then it can be kept of course.
  • I have received the following note consistently during FACs. I have been told to avoid the "with X verb-ing" structure, like "personal bond, with some critics likening their relationship". I do not have a strong position on it either way, but I still wanted to bring this to your attention.
  • I am not an expert on ALT text, but for the images in the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" subsection, I would add more than just the actors' names.
  • I would move the ship link from this part, "The popularity of Stucky as a ship in fandom rose substantially following the introduction", to this earlier part, "in pre-social media shipping fandom of the early 2000s, Rogers", since items should be linked on their first appearance. If you are nervous about Wikipedia:SEAOFBLUE, then I would not think social media needs a link as it has entered common knowledge.
  • Who "says" the following: (Rogers' and Barnes' relationship has been called the "emotional cornerstone")? I would clarify this in the prose.
  • I think this part, "where Barnes' memory of Rogers causes him to overcome his conditioning as a brainwashed assassin", may be somewhat jarring to an unfamiliar reader as it was not previously established that the Winter Solider was a brainwashed assassin. I would try to add something to this part, "the character is brought back from supposed death as the Winter Soldier", to clarify that to someone like me who has not read or seen anything Marvel-related.
  • Should WWII be spelled out as World War II in this part, "escalating from disobeying orders in WWII"? I would look at the military history FAs to get a better understanding for this as again, I am not an exert on this at all.

I think you have done a wonderful job with this article, and it is great to see this type of topic being represented in the FAC space. I have gotten through the lead and "Overview" section, but I promise to add my comments about the rest of the article by the end of the week. Apologies for the delay. I just want to make sure I read through the article thoroughly. I hope my comments are helpful and have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments. I have resolved all except for the introductory sentence, which I have kept as-is for now. Most of these were just simple copy tweaks, but I rephrased the "emotional cornerstone" sentence to better align with the source. Re: the difference between critics and commentators, it's an arbitrary distinction and probably one that can be removed if you feel strongly about it, but I feel like in a pop culture context "critics" typically reads as "professional reviewers", when I wanted to convey that not just critics but academic scholars, media sources, etc. have also remarked on Stucky. Morgan695 (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to my comments so far. I am still uncertain about the introductory sentence and the distinction between critics and commentators, but I will leave both up to other editors as I could just be over-thinking it. I will look over the rest of the article shortly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but aside from the Gwenpool Strikes Back moment included in the lead, are there any other times where people believe Marvel references Stucky in the comics or any other related media?
  • Another clarification question, but why are the citations for the first sentence of the "#GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend" staggered out in such a manner? My primary concern is that it somewhat hinders readability.
  • I would include the year that Frozen was first released.
  • I would remove the LGBT link in this part, with the lack of LGBT characters in media properties owned by Disney, and put it up here, a sociological text by LGBT historian George Chauncey, as that is the first time the acronym appears in the article.
  • I think this part, which has been quoted by outlets the context of their coverage of Stucky., is missing a word. I would add "in" between "outlets" and "the".
This is what I have noticed from my first read-through of the article. I am only focusing on the prose as I will leave anything regarding the sources/citations and the images (beyond just the ALT text) to more experienced editors. I will read through the article again to see if there's anything I overlooked. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated your suggestions. To my knowledge, Stucky has not been referenced in Marvel canon beyond the referenced Gwenpool Strikes Back moment. Morgan695 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tone down some of the quote usage in the "Response" section. For instance, in this part (describing the characters as "each other's soulmate."), I would remove the quote and replace it with soulmates. In other instances, I would paraphrase this quote "have had a crush on Steve Rogers at some point in the past.", and I think "a love story," can be paraphrased as well.

This is my last point. Once it is addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changes have been incorporated. I left the "had a crush" passage as a quote because it's informal language that I feel reads better as a quote, but I cut down on quotes elsewhere so hopefully the passage reads better. Morgan695 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience. I am still uncertain if the "had a crush" quote is entirely necessary, but it is a small point. It does not hold back my support and other editors may have differing opinions on it. Either way, I support this for promotion following my review of the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

edit

Source review by Buidhe

edit
  • Metro is listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP.
  • The Metro source is used only to confirm that the tweet was made by Jess Salerno; all other info cited is substantiated by the Kotaku source. Hopefully that's an acceptable use.
  • What makes outerplaces.com or comicbook.com RS?
  • Removed Outer Places link, as the cited passage is substantiated by the IO9 source. I couldn't find specific guidance for comicbook.com at Wikiproject Comics, but it is the comic book content wing of Gamespot, which is considered a reliable source by Wikiproject Video Games.
  • I don't see where on that page it says it's administered by Tumblr.

Comment by Indopug

edit

Comment "ship name given to the slash pairing of" contains terminology that is unknown by the lay reader. The sentence needs to be replaced by one that explains the concept entirely in common English, especially since it's the first sentence.—indopug (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

edit

I'm sorry this doesn't have more reviews.

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*File:Gwenpool Stucky Panel.png: archive the source.
  • You have a fair use rational for the fair use file, so you can add |image has rationale=yes to the template.
  • and Bucky Barnes maybe use his full name (ie "James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes") in the lead.
  • Caption for the lead file is not a complete sentence, doesn't need a period.
  • References need work. On reference 6 for instance I'm not sure if you're citing to pages 1 and 8, or page 18
  • The Coker source is listed as such because it doesn't have pages, only section numbers. "1.8" is referring to section 1.8 in the article. Replaced with |loc= tag
  • It's generally done where if you're only citing one page of a work use p. instead of pp.
  • See above. Sorry, misread the statement. Fixed now.
  • where the character is brought back from supposed death why are you using "supposed"?
  • His death was "supposed" in that he did not actually die, but was revealed to have been gravely wounded and captured by enemies. From a plot perspective, it was not a strict "revival from the dead" through magic or some other deus ex machina.
"brought back from apparent death" → "brought back from his previous apparent death", if that is the case. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the relationship between Rogers and Barnes is strictly platonic, and is not depicted as sexual or romantic I'm not familiar with Batman and Robin but based on the context I'm assuming they had a sexual relationship in the comics? If his book argues the Batman and Robin are in a homosexual relationship based on context then wouldn't it be true they aren't in a sexual relationship in the comics? Then what makes them different?
  • Batman and Robin are not gay. I mentioned this to acknowledge that the idea of hero-and-sidekick relationships being interpreted as having a homoerotic dimension is one that has some cultural salience – Batman and Robin, Super Friends, The Ambiguously Gay Duo – but that Rogers and Barnes are not canonically homosexual. Hopefully the change re: "discredited" above clarifies this.
  • Regardless, Rogers and Barnes are consistently depicted in-canon not sure you need "regardless"
Why do you need "regardless"? Therapyisgood (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comparably less time is spent on developing their relationship maybe just "on their relationship"
  • Sam Wilson (Falcon) as he assumes the mantle of Captain America not having seen the movies I'm not sure what this means, "assume the mantle" is a bit idiomatic.
  • Replaced with "title"; it is literal in this instance, as a character who is not Steve Rogers is assuming the role/title/mantle of Captain America.
  • depictions of Rogers' and Barnes' domestic life in 1940s New York – largely unexplored in canonical source material – maybe cut "largely unexplored in canonical source material"
  • I think it should be kept, as part of what I'm trying to communicate is that fan works generally depict material that is not depicted in canonical material, and Rogers' and Barnes' domestic life is a significant aspect of that. Am open to ways to rephrase the sentence, though.
  • In lieu of canonical material than can be drawn from, these particular works which works? In lieu → Without
  • sociological text by LGBT historian link LGBT
  • is noted by whom?
  • Rephrased.
  • his narratives whose narratives?
  • In this regard, Stucky as a phenomenon in shipping you've already linked "shipping", no need to do so again.
  • making Stucky among the most popular ships on the website I'm not sure you can say this by just linking to the primary source. You need a secondary source saying this.
  • Rephrased.
  • While the hashtag was ostensibly organized around fans do you have a source for this?
  • Screen Crush source discusses how the hashtags were used both by shipping fans, and as a means to discuss LGBT characters in Disney properties ("The desire to see these two characters kiss it out is a valid reaction to the lack of LGBTQ representation in Disney movies. Maybe if we had a few openly gay characters in the MCU and Star Wars, people wouldn’t have to content themselves with fan-fic and memes.")
  • an argument infamously made not sure we need "infamously"
  • Replaced with "discredited" and citation. Seduction of the Innocent is infamous in the most literal sense, in that it is both thoroughly debunked and widely popular, but I think both words work.
"Discredited" is a loaded word, I think you need more citations if you're going to say "discredited" (I was thinking three to five). which asserted "asserted" is also a word to watch. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Asserted" I still find "asserted" troubling. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: Replaced with "argued". Morgan695 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this and I've reverted it back to "asserted", not just to remove the repeat wording of "argue" but to comply with WP:FRINGE. I appreciate your rigor here, but Seduction of the Innocent is bunk (and very famously so), and I don't want to include any language that implies it has credibility. Morgan695 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support knew it needed another look over. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from The Squirrel Conspiracy

edit

I do not believe that File:Gwenpool Stucky Panel.png meets non-free content criteria #8. The scene, which is not itself discussed anywhere outside of the thumbnail, is supposed to illustrate Marvel acknowledging the existence of the ship. This is done more than adequately by prose alone in the "Response" section, and on top of that, the text in the image is unreadable due to the image size, so whatever message it's supposed to convey, it isn't doing.

If featured articles are supposed to represent the best that this project has to offer, they need to - in my opinion - follow the NFCC most stringently. Right now, because of the presence of this image and the lack of in-article prose to justify its inclusion, I don't think that the article meets criteria 3 of WP:FA?. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: If the image does indeed not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, and that is your sole objection to the article not meeting FA status, I am open to having a discussion around its removal. Pinging Nikkimaria to weigh in, as they previously did an image review for the article. Morgan695 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgan695: I have no intention of participating in the FAC process except for around the file namespace. Getting articles up to FA level is not my wheelhouse; the file namespace is. As I did previously with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C./archive1, once the image concern is addressed, I'll strike my oppose and replace it with "Comment". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: That's fine. I will defer to @Nikkimaria:'s judgement, as judging from other FACs, they are better versed in image use guidelines than I am. Morgan695 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the image is justifiable in this case, but NFCC evaluation is by its nature a subjective assessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, Nikkimaria. For now I'll elect to keep the image in the article, but will return to this discussion if it becomes a sticking point once it comes time to promote/not promote the article. Morgan695 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's acceptable. There are some nuances a reader can pick up from the panels that would be hard to convey concisely in prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Since everything in the lead should be in the body, how about a short subsection in "Background" that covers what shipping is? I think two or three sentences would be enough. Not much more is needed than you have in the lead, though you could introduce the noun "ship" as well, since you use it lower down. You might not need "Stucky is an example of slash, a genre of fan works that focus on same-sex characters" in the lead if you put some information in the background section.
  • Expanded to define slash, and noted "ship" as an alternate word for shipping,
  • What's the point of mentioning Wertham? If Seduction of the Innocent had never been published, would "frequently interpreted as having a homoerotic subtext" still be true? If so, Wertham's just a historical footnote, and perhaps should be relegated to an actual note.
  • I think in an article about a gay relationship between a hero and sidekick, it would be a massive oversight to not mention Wertham. Per my comments to Therapyisgood above, the idea of hero-and-sidekick relationships as having a homoerotic dimension is one that has some cultural salience, and should be acknowledged.
    Sure, but it reads oddly to make a statement like "hero-and-sidekick relationships in comics are frequently interpreted as having a homoerotic subtext", which I know perfectly well is true, and then immediately point out that the argument was made in a discredited work. I think the article is compressing something you know to the point a reader new to the material will not understand what you're saying, and unpacking it a bit more would be useful. For example, do we now have a widespread awareness of possible homoerotic subtexts in hero-sidekick relationships because of Wertham? If so, the fact that his book is nonsense isn't the point; he's the one who brought the trope into mainstream awareness. I can see you would still want to say "discredited" or something like it, but the current phrasing is not helpful to a new reader. That's why I suggested putting the information about Wertham in a note, where it wouldn't interrupt the thought. A note saying "The suggestion that hero-and-sidekick relationships in comics have a homoerotic subtext was originally made by Frederick Wertham in his 1954 book Seduction of the Innocent. The book was part of his campaign against storylines in comics which he believed caused juvenile delinquency; his research has since been discredited". That separates the discrediting of his research from the introduction of the trope. I'm not insisting that you use a note in that way, but the current sentence structure seems wrong to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • Gavia Baker-Whitelaw of The Daily Dot notes: I'd avoid the use of "note" for anything other than direct statements of fact; it implies that what follows is definitely true. I think "argues" would work here. You also have J. Richard Stevens "noting" something further down; I'd make that "commenting" or something similar.
  • Done.
  • The way you present Joanna Robinson's comments makes it sound as if Sharon Carter was invented by Marvel to kill off the homoerotic interpretation of Rogers' and Barnes' relationship. I don't know the comics at all, but as far as I can tell Sharon Carter has been around for a long time as a love interest for Rogers, so I think it should be clearer to the reader that the film is inserting an already existing storyline rather than inventing something completely new.
  • Clarified Carter as being a character who is long established as a canonical love interest in the comics. At least in the films, Carter is a minor character whose romantic interest in Rogers comes somewhat out of left field, which was noted by multiple critics.
  • While Rogers and Barnes appear in both Infinity War and Endgame, comparably less time is spent on their relationship: suggest "Rogers and Barnes appear in the next two films, Infinity War and Endgame, but less time is spent on their relationship".
  • Done.
  • These online communities are typically majority female, in contrast to the majority male mainstream comics fandom: "Mostly" might read more naturally than "majority" in both cases here.
  • Done.
  • Without canonical material that can be drawn from, these particular works often maintain a high degree of historical fidelity: why "particular"? and I don't think the phrasing works here. Do you mean something like "Although there is no canonical material to draw from, these works are faithful to the real-world history of the gay subculture of 1940s New York"?
  • Rephrased section.
  • Stucky represents both the objectification and subjectification of Steve Rogers as character: I don't understand this.
  • Rearranged section. Basic point is that Stucky is on some level a case of people finding two characters attractive and wanting to see them have sex (objectification), but also a desire to explore Steve Rogers as a character (subjectification ). Let me know if the paragraph as it stands now makes sense.
  • The comments at the end of the second paragraph of "Analysis and impact" astonished me. In the early 1980s I dated a woman who ran Star Trek conventions and wrote K/S, and although I didn't do more than glance through the K/S zines she had, the "great transcendent love" was clearly only part of the focus -- there was a great deal of erotic or pornographic writing and art. So the idea that a slash ship is notable if it focuses on the homosexuality just amazes me; perhaps slash fiction has changed a lot since then? Page 96 of this source, for example, which is from 1997 (and I know it's just a master's thesis so it's not the best source out there) comments on there being "a strong commitment to sexually explicit writing". So the question I have for this FAC is: can you be sure that the commentary about this in the article reflects all the sources have to say?
  • The crux of the argument that Coker makes is that slash fiction works of the 1970s and 1980s did not engage with gay identity. Per Coker: It has only been in the last decade that fan writers have become more willing to label the characters of these stories gay, or at least bisexual; especially in the 1970s and 1980s, fans wanted to distance beloved characters from the stereotypes and even the identity of gayness. Instead, they depicted the men as sharing a great, transcendent love that eliminated the boundaries of gender. Indeed, it was an article of faith that neither man would have had same-sex sex prior to their romantic involvement with each other... So the issue is not about whether early slash works depicted sex or romance, which they did, but the way in which they depicted those things. I remember one of the arguments I was going to make if this article got AFD'd was that Stucky is notable as a phenomenon in fandom because it represents an evolution of how slash fandom deals with gay identity: the way that Kirk and Spock fanworks often depicted the characters as having the referenced "transcendent" love that defied labels and sexuality represented an unwillingness by fan creators to engage with gay identity, whereas Stucky fanworks often depict the characters as explicitly identifying as gay or bisexual, being confronted with homophobia, facing inner turmoil over their sexual identity, partaking in gay culture, etc.
    That does make sense, but your explanation here is clearer than what you have in the article. My reaction when I read your comments here was "Oh, so the older fiction didn't give the protagonists a gay identity", and from what I can recall that's absolutely correct. Would using a term like "identity" work in the article? The sentence that I think is intended to convey this is Stucky as a phenomenon in shipping is notable in that it devotes significant focus to the characters' imagined homosexuality or bisexuality. If I originally read that as referring to their sexual interactions, and not to the cultural or social positioning of the protagonists, then others are likely to as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • In the specific case of #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, The Hollywood Reporter noted that the campaign "highlights demographic shifts that have yet to be reflected in the texts audiences are responding to," in reference to the popularity of Stucky relative to the lack of LGBT characters in superhero films. This seems a bit wordy, given that much of what it says beyond the quote is already in or implied by the previous sentence. Unless I'm missing the point I think this could be attached to the previous sentence with a comma: '..., and noted that the #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend campaign "highlights demographic shifts that have yet to be reflected in the texts audiences are responding to".'
  • Rephrased a bit, but I feel like the quote loses some clarity without the "in reference to the popularity..." addendum.
  • Suggest changing the "Response" section title to "Marvel's response" to make it clearer what it covers.
  • Done.
  • it's great to see people argue about it what that relationship means: looks like an extra word got dropped into the quote? If this is the real quote a "[sic]" after "it what" might be worth it.
  • Corrected quote.
  • Not a big deal, but do we need all three of the comic-related "See also" links? I would have thought the first one covers the next two.

Generally this is very well-written and well-structured. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Initial response above. Morgan695 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Additional responses above. Morgan695 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I'm doing a copyedit, I kind of feel like the Gavia Baker-Whitelaw of The Daily Dot part makes more sense as "noted" rather than "argued," since she's just describing plot details. She is doing so in the context of applying canon to her own analysis of Stucky, but Rogers disobeying orders and then becoming an international fugitive for Barnes' sake are things that happen as plot, and aren't subjective analysis. Morgan695 (talk)
I reread the quote and if you want to change it back I'm fine with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well-done article. There's one unstruck point above which doesn't prevent me from supporting, but I'm going to restate it here since I think I failed to make my point clear above. In the lead, you define "shipping" and "slash". Everything in the lead is supposed to be in the body, but those definitions are only in the lead, and not in the body. I was suggesting that you create a new subsection in the body under "Background", perhaps called "Shipping", and put in a couple of sentences of explanation. If you were to do that, you might find it possible to reduce the need for explanations in the lead, which would be good. You could even avoid the unfamiliar terms in the lead completely, only introducing the terminology in the body, but I'm not sure that's the best approach. Anyway, that was what I meant to say; I don't think it's a big deal if you don't want to make that change, so I'm supporting regardless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [42].

2017 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Qualifying for the event featured both a maximum break, and the longest frame in snooker history (over two hours!). Mark Selby won his third world title, defeating four-time champion John Higgins in the final 18-15 winning £375,000. Selby was six frames behind at 10-4; the biggest deficit for a champion since the 1985 World Snooker Championship.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM

edit

I'll review this in due course, placeholder at the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Here we go (and this will be submitted to my WikiCup account):[reply]

This takes me to the Tournament summary. I will continue (hopefully) tomorrow! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next

That's it for the remainder. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Games of the world

edit

Comment I dislike the seeds in the first 2 rounds being in brackets. I think it is a little redundant and should be without. I think the footnote where if the defending champ is outside of the top 16 for seeding purposes is redundant in this case and should be removed. 15-minute tip replacement break. Probably reads better as a 15 minute break to replace the tip. Also think TV coverage (should be near where your setting everything up with prize money etc) and the prose of qualifying could be above the main draw stuff as it kind of gets lost. Games of the world (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the above, apart from the qualifying, which is always in this location. The prose in front of the qualifying section is for who could take part, whereas the summary of the qualifying is in the tournament summary section. See MOS:SNOOKER for more info. I have addressed the points in the article otherwise, thanks for taking a look Games of the world. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can see is this "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players.[5] Mark Selby was seeded first overall as the defending champion, while the remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on the latest world rankings, released after the penultimate event of the season, the China Open.[5]" Suggest a rephrase of this little section as latest is not specific to a time. Suggest either saying seeds set on x date or after the china open, with Mark Selby.... Games of the world (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Games of the world I have reworded this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Games of the world - could I consider this a support/oppose for this FAC? Thanks for taking a look for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was having a mini break. Support Decent clean article, well written, even before the copy editing below. Games of the world (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

edit

The article seems to me to be comprehensive, neutral, well-written and suitably referenced. I've got a couple of suggestions.

  • Format: "at the amateur championship." Link is to 2018 WSF Championship which is all good, but any reason not to use the WSF title in the article? There's a long-established English Amateur Championship that used to be seen as a stepping stone to the professional ranks.
  • Prize fund: might be worth a few words spelling out what the "rolling 147 prize" was about.
  • Quarter-finals: "predicted that he was now the favourite": You can't predict the present. I think the right phrasing would be something more like "opined that Selby was now the favourite"; "offered his assessment that Selby was now..."; or maybe "predicted that Selby was the most likely player to win."
  • Quarter-finals:"his subsequent clearance of 146" - only part of the break was subsequent to running out of position. Consider either omitting "subsequent" or saying something like "his consequent clearance of 146"
  • Quarter-finals: I know I tend to over-link, but consider linking "clearance" to the Cue Sports Glossary.
  • Semi-finals: "which was effectively a rematch of the previous year's final" - I think the word "effectively" could be deleted.
  • Semi-finals: " Higgins took leads of 5–3, 10–6, and 16–8 after each of the first three sessions,". How about "Higgins held the lead after the end of each of the first three sessions, at 5–3, 10–6, and at 16–8"? (There is undoubtedly a better was to phrase this, but he didn't have those three leads after each session.)
  • Final: "a repeat" - maybe "a rematch"? (Outcome was different.)

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rodney Baggins

edit
Overview intro section
First round

I've made quite a few changes to this section (hope you don't mind), but here are some outstanding points:

  • "Prior to the tournament Trump had proclaimed"... not sure about the word "proclaimed" – can you think of a better word, maybe "declared" or "announced"?
  • "Seven former world champions progressed to the second round:" – using just surnames in this list looks odd, especially as Shaun Murphy not yet been mentioned
  • "Xiao Guodong was the only first-round winner who had not previously won a match at the Crucible" – not sure about this sentence as it's not backed up by ref.38 and I think it might be original research!? It also has no context: maybe mention that he defeated 16th seed Ryan Day in his first round match 10–4? Mention that he made the first round in 2014 but lost to Ali Carter?
  • Mark Selby / Shaun Murphy / John Higgins matches are not mentioned – is it worth including who they defeated to progress to second round?
  • Kyren Wilson / Barry Hawkins / Mark Allen matches are not mentioned at all – is this because their matches were not notable?
Second round
  • "...with Stephen Maguire the only unseeded player to progress to the quarter-finals." I think this information is prematurely placed at the top of the section. It's also mentioned in the QF section ("Stephen Maguire, the only qualifier to reach the quarter-finals...") so are we maybe overstating it a bit? Suggest you could move it into the image caption: "Stephen Maguire was the only unseeded player to progress to the quarter-finals." as the caption is currently just repeating info word for word from body text (about him reaching his first World Championship quarter-final since 2012.)
Final
  • "In reaching the final, Higgins moved to second in the world rankings, behind Selby." – Would Higgins have been ranked second in any eventuality (whether he'd won OR lost the final)? If not, this should read: "As runner-up in the championship, Higgins moved to second in the world rankings, behind Selby."
Dates
  • Ref.33 (Calendar 2016/2017) doesn't confirm the first round took place between 15 and 20 April 2017. It just confirms the start date of the main competition, but individual stages are not specified in the list.
  • Do we need to source the dates of each round? First round 15 to 20 April 2017; Second round 20 & 24 April 2017; Quarter-finals 25 & 26 April 2017; Semi-finals 27 to 29 April 2017; Final 30 April & 1 May 2017.
References
  • Ref.1 just puts me through to British Newspaper Archive registration page
    • The article does mention the "professional snooker championship" but not that it is annual or even that 1927 was the first event. I'm sure a better online source is available. As a reserve option, the Billiards Association and Control Council Handbook for 1927-28 says "the Control Council is responsible for the promotion of the Professional Championship of English Billiards and has this year instituted a competition for the Professional Championship of Snooker which promises to become an annual event of the first importance." (p.51) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref.26. is pointing to Eleven Sports main page and the archive version provided doesn't mention 2017 WSC final at all
  • Ref.38 has wrong title, should be "World Snooker Championship 2017: Frame scores, complete results & highest break"
  • Ref.66 has no work alias, e.g. website=espn.co.uk
  • Ref.77. has title "Matches – World Snooker Live Scores" but it might be best to change to "Betfred World Championship Qualifiers" as it's not a live score page any more

Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney, anything further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee, I've had a good look through and these are my outstanding queries following on from previous comments:
  • In Overview, you've changed sentence to "the sport was played by those in the United Kingdom" which I'm not keen on. I quite like the wording used in the 2019 World Snooker Championship article: "the sport was popular in the British Isles", however we also need to be careful about the exact location – are we talking about the UK, Great Britain or maybe just England? What do the sources say about that? Maybe "the sport was popular in Great Britain" is the safest bet here?
  • I know you've changed things around a bit concerning the Stephen Maguire info in Second round section, but I actually have an issue with putting this clause in the first paragraph: "with Stephen Maguire the only unseeded player to progress to the quarter-finals" as it seems out of place chronologically and I see no reason to mention it until a bit later. Maybe lower down, try: "Stephen Maguire defeated Rory McLeod 13–3 with a session to spare, to reach his first World Championship quarter-final since 2012. Maguire was the only unseeded player to progress to the quarter-finals." — Then maybe you could combine the two mini-facts into the caption, something like: "Stephen Maguire reached the last eight for the first time since 2012, the only unseeded player to progress to the quarter-finals."
Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some further edits, Rodney Baggins Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee, looks good to me. Happy to support now! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodney, tks for checking refs above -- can I check if you're signing off on the reliability of the sources used? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, yes I'm satisfied that these are all reliable sources. The only one we had issues with was the first citation, which has now been changed to a Sheffield Star article; whilst it does back up the information presented, I'm aware that it's a daily tabloid so you might want to check its reputability. Other than that, everything's fine source-wise. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask (Lee or Rodney, I don't mind) where I'd find the sourcing for all the tables in the Qualifying section? It's not obvious to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full qualifying round results are given in this Sporting Life source: [43] I've added a couple of ref tags into the article for now, but the tables probably need a brief intro sentence to accommodate the tags so they're not just hanging there. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a good idea, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Rodney's already covered it Ian Rose. I'll do a slight bit of cleanup. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert anything you don't like.

  • I think "Highest televised break" is more logical than "Televised highest break".
  • I tried looking in the reference for the "Prize fund" section to see if the source used "Televised highest break", and as far as I can tell it doesn't give any information about the breaks, so I think another source is needed there.
  • There's some repetition between the "Format" section and the "Seeding and qualifying rounds" section. For example, do we need to be told twice that qualifiers had to win three best-of-19 matches?
    • Isn't it a little important to denote how many they would need to win when describing the rounds.
  • Up to you, but it might be worth mentioning that O'Sullivan's last-16 streak went one more year, so he passed Griffiths' record.
  • None of the five debutants, David Grace, Noppon Saengkham, Gary Wilson, Yan Bingtao, and Zhou Yuelong, made it to the second round. I don't think we need to name them; they were listed at the end of the previous section.
  • and predicted that he was now the favourite to win the championship: redundant: either "and said that he was now the favourite to win the championship" or "and predicted that he would win the championship".
  • The "modern era" is considered to be after the 1968–69 snooker season. Suggest making this "considered to begin with"; as written I read it as saying the modern era began the following season.
    • Done. 17:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not much wrong here; once these minor points are fixed I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Your changes look good. I took out the mention of the televised break of 146 in the lead too, assuming you just overlooked it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the bit about the prize money is the non-cited bit; winning the highest break is important, so I returned this. Thanks again for taking a look at this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have thought of that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [44].

1916 Texas hurricane

edit
Nominator(s): TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1910s were not a kind decade to the South Texas coast. Four hurricanes made landfall along the same 18-mile (30 km) section of coast (all in Kenedy County, Texas). The 1916 Texas hurricane tells the tale of the strongest among this onslaught—a quickly moving Category 4 hurricane that dealt a heavy blow to the region, as well as to Jamaica three days earlier. I believe that this article represents the most comprehensive summary on this storm available, and look forward to addressing your comments and suggested improvements. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Image check (figured I should review given my own FAC)

  • A Category 4 hurricane upon landfall in Texas, it was one of the strongest tropical cyclones in United States history. - eh was it? You mention that it was the strongest since 1886, but that's only 40 years. In the time since then, the US was hit by 4 C5 hurricanes, in addition to several other C4 hurricanes.
  • "No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds, and coconut and cocoa trees also sustained losses." - brilliant writing in the first half. The second half after the comma is rather lackluster - so why not split it into its own sentence? That reads stronger
  • "Railroads and other public utilities were disrupted across the region and widespread power outages left many areas in darkness." - this feels clunky. I feel like the last part about power outages could be added on after "across the region, with widespread power outages." Of course power outages leaves darkness
  • "Eight locations set 24-hour rainfall records and the deluge wrought havoc on military camps along the U.S.-Mexico border, forcing 30,000 garrisoned militiamen to evacuate." - I suggest splitting off the rainfall bit, and add Harlingen's rainfall total. That way the lead mentions winds, storm surge, and the rainfall total
  • The 1916 Texas hurricane "followed an average course for the type of August hurricanes that passes [sic] through the Yucatán Channel" - you need to attribute this quote
  • "It was the strongest hurricane in the 1916 Atlantic hurricane season." - I feel like this should be added when you mention the peak intensity, not at the beginning of the MH
  • "a vessel recorded 55-mph (89 km/h) winds" - why the dash? Ditto later w "75-mph (121 km/h)" in Texas section. Is that a thing?
  • What was the basis for the peak intensity?
  • "Weakening ensued as the storm quickly progressed farther inland through South and into West Texas" - the grammar feels weird, having South capitalized. I think you can cut "through South", so it would read "progressed farther inland and into West Texas". JMHO
  • Watch for duplicate links for Jamaica, Kingston, and Kingsville
  • "Rough surf generated by the strong winds sank and grounded vessels and lighters on the shores of Kingston Harbour" - ehhhh
  • "Another set of Southern Pacific traincars was readied at Seabrook in case additional evacuations were required." - I feel like this should be earlier, when you first mentioned the rail
  • "The coastal steamer Pilot Boy sank to the hurricane's seas" - is "to" the right word here?
  • "Damage from the hurricane was inflicted over a wide expanse of southwestern Texas" - I imagine southwestern Texas as inland. Is this proper Texasing?
  • "£21,000" - add link for currency
  • Can you find the source for the impact pics in the impact section? Maybe also the page number for the rainfall map? Otherwise, the images are good (cited, usable)

Great prose in the article. This is definitely one of the best articles WPTC has, especially for one such a long time ago. I hope none of my comments are too difficult. It shouldn't take much for me to support this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments; I've utilized most of your suggested fixes, moving around a few ideas and rephrasing a few sentences. As for the dashes, those are in the same vein as "twenty-year-old", as an example. References to "Southwestern" Texas and "Southeastern" Texas are always kind of weird given how the state funnels down to a point in its southern extremities. Southeast Texas is pretty established in the state. On the other hand, no one really refers to a "Southwestern Texas", so I've just replaced it with southern Texas, which decently reflects the region of interest. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 02:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support cowboy, yeehaw! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & Image review by Shearonink

edit

All the images have valid permissions/sources. All the images have alt-text. As Hurricanehink states above, images are good. TheAustinMan re the impact photos' source/sources - so far as I can tell the sources for the impact pics are stated pretty down deep on the Commons File pages. Conditional support pending other areas pass review. 00:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Shearonink (talk)[reply]

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13

edit
  • "No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds." - This reads a little too sensationalist to me. Can we tone it down?
  • "According to the U.S. Weather Bureau" - Wikilink Weather Bureau?
  • "Air pressure bottomed out at 1006 mbar (hPa; 29.71 inHg) on the island." - Do we really care?
  • "In terms of pressure, the 1916 Texas hurricane stronger than any other landfalling tropical cyclone in the United States since 1886." - Missing a word.
  • "Communications between Kingston and other parishes were cut off for 48 hours after intense winds brought down telegraph and telephone lines,[14][25] making the dissemination of damage reports in Jamaica increasingly difficult;[26] the strongest sustained winds reached 72 mph (116 km/h) in Kingston, attended by higher gusts estimated at 85 mph (137 km/h)." - This is probably sufficient to split into two sentences.
  • "Due to the storm's initially small size and the lack of data concerning it, the Weather Bureau lamented that "the location of the center of the storm was [...] a very unsatisfactory manner"," - Comma inside quotation.
  • "Galveston residents evacuated via interurban routes and special trains for the mainland as seas began to rise, filling railcars to capacity" - Maybe rearrange this sentence so that it reads "Galveston resident evacuated for the mainland via..."?
  • "At Corpus Christi, approximately 45 mi (72 km) northeast of the storm's point of landfall" - This should be to the nearest 5, right?
  • "winds reached at least 90 mph (140 km/h)" - 90 mph should be 150 km/h given kn to km/h conversion.
    • I've left it as is. The value was originally reported in mph and not knots. So long as measurements were originally published in mph (as was the case with some of the other measurements), they were converted directly to km/h without backtracking to knots first. The HURDAT metadata (ref name "Metadata") lists this as 78 knots. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thunderstorms and squalls began affecting the city on the morning of August 18" - Link squalls
  • "preceding the onset of hurricane-force winds that evening; the winds diminished to light winds by the following evening." - Can we reword this to avoid repetition with both "winds" and "evening"?
  • "Port O'Connor and surrounding locales were impacted by 75-mph (121 km/h) winds" - Rounding and why is it hyphenated?
  • "located 15 mi (24 km) south of Kingsville" - rounding?
  • "Farther north in Galveston, the hurricane produced 50 mph (80 km/h)" - 50 mph is 85 km/h based on kn to km/h conversion.
  • "while 68-mph (109 km/h) winds swept through San Antonio." - rounding and hyphen again?
  • "(equivalent to $42 million in 2019)." - Says who?

Overall, a very well written and read article with only a few complaints from me. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments! I've made most of these suggested changes. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Supporting. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

Here are my initial comments.

  • No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds - So it actually hit every single plantation? This seems a bit hyperbolic.
    • I'm sure the reality differed, and that at least some banana plantations that held their ground. However, it was indeed the assessment of the American consulate in Jamaica that the entire banana crop is reported ruined. Unfortunately I can't directly link to local reporting from The Daily Gleaner, but they note that hardly a single healthy banana tree has survived the blow (August 18, p.1), that crops suffer[ed] at every place heard from (August 17, p. 2). For realism's sake it may be wise to reduce the scope of that sentence, but at least from the sources available there isn't much to separate either most plantations being damaged or all plantations being damaged. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The southern parishes saw the severest effects, incurring extensive damage to crops and buildings - This needs to be rephrased. The hurricane incurred extensive damage, not the parishes.
  • Aggregate property damage across Texas reached $1.8 million, and 20 people lost their lives. - Would it be better to say "were killed" rather than "lost their lives"?
  • s that passes [sic] through the Yucatán Channel - what was the expected phrasing?
  • In terms of pressure, the 1916 Texas hurricane was stronger than any other landfalling tropical cyclone in the United States since 1886.[9] - the following paragraph might need to be split, because the transition between this and the next sentence is quite rough.
    • I think it's better that all the information about the storm's characteristics when it struck Texas are kept together. I've chosen to smooth the transition a bit to the next sentence to make it a little less choppy. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems like I forgot about this one, but it's a good thing Nova Crystallis pinged me.

Starting from 'Preparations and impact:

  • Crossing the Lesser Antilles from August 12–13 - usually the wording is "from August 12 to August 13" or "in August 12–13"
  • A warning noting the likelihood of hurricane-force winds was issued for the Yucatán Channel near Cuba's Guanahacabibes Peninsula on August 16,[12] though ships resumed course to Cuban and Central American ports when the storm bypassed Cuba with no ill effects.[13] - So, about the first part of this sentence. Ships were stopped? If so, this has to be indicated beforehand.
  • on the night of August 15,[14] killing 17 people - it seems weird to have two numerals in such proximity. "Seventeen people"?
  • the overall damage toll was estimated at $10 million,[17] (equivalent to $235 million in 2019).[18] - A comma is not needed before a parenthesis, usually
  • three other tropical cyclones monitored by the agency in August 1916. On August 18 - also seems weird to have "August" repeated in such close succession...
  • advising residents between Cameron County and Calhoun County by telegraph and telephone of the hurricane's imminent approach - Did this advice apply to Cameron and Calhoun counties as well, or just the counties in between?
  • safer buildings of the business district, finding safe havens - "safe" is repeated in close succession here and "safe haven" seems a bit redundant.
  • between $250,000–$500,000 - this should be "between %250,000 and $500,000" or just "$250,000–500,000". What is the inflation?
  • Don't think I've heard of the word unroofed before...
  • U.S. Army tents were flattened by the storm,[46] injuring four militiamen.[66] - this goes from passive to active voice
  • $300,000 - another inflation needed

That's it for now. epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. These were mostly sensible changes, so I've made them accordingly. As for unroofed, that appears to be a common enough word with some recent usage. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 01:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm happy to support this now. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JC

edit
  • Support – I undertook an informal peer review of the article prior to its arrival here, and also did some light copyediting of my own (see here for changes made). All of the concerns I had were addressed during that process. The article is well-written, thoroughly researched, and organized in a sensible manner. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Darkwarriorblake

edit
  • There doesn't seem to be a relevant conversion for the damage to Jamaica as there is for Texas. If 1.8 million is 40 odd million today, then 10 million to Jamaica must be what? 400 million? Seems to be worth highlighting. Similarly the inflation template could do with being present in the lede as well.
  • Only one website reference is archived as far as I can see. This IMO significantly harms the longevity of the articles reliability.
    • I've gone ahead and applied IABot on the article to archive available links. Most of the links are from Newspapers.com, which are generally stable and tied to something physical (the newspapers themselves), but for the more unstable links (especially the ones published exclusively online and not associated with a DOI), archive links have been added. –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else seems to be in order, all the images are public domain. Prose was generally engaging though admittedly hurricanes are not my area of entertainment, but I have opted to review this as an exchange of reviewing favours with Hurricanehink.
  • Were there any actions taken to help prevent a reoccurrence of such mass damage? Changes in building, planning, preparations, etc? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the news sources, the areas affected didn't suffer long and recovered after fairly routine repairs. It would be a later hurricane in 1919 that shocked the building codes and protocols of the region. Thanks for the comments! –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it worth adding a concluding sentence confirming such? "The areads effected were able to recover in a relatively short time frame following routine repairs. It would not be until the 1919 Florida Keys hurricane that building codes and emergency protocols for the region were reviewed and updated". Something to that affect, if you have the sources to say that of course. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That concluding line does have a ring to it, but there's not really enough sources that explicitly establish the quick recovery (that was my assumption based on the lack of newspapers covering the aftermath), and I'm not sure if there are sources to make the 1919 connection in this article on its own. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 04:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Did I miss a source review for reliability/formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on source spotchecks

  • "allocated £21,000 to relief efforts" is not in given source
  • "the storm bypassed Cuba with no ill effects" is not in given source
  • "forcing police to escort pedestrians off the streets" - don't see this at given source
  • "iron-sheet roofs were torn away from sawmills" - this appears to be conflating two different statements at the given source, the iron-sheet roofs were on the lumber sheds not the sawmills
  • "a very unsatisfactory manner" is a misquotation - the source says "matter"
  • "as was the case with three other tropical cyclones" - source seems to refer to three total cyclones, not three other
  • "A volunteer force with about 100 automobiles was organized on the afternoon of August 18 to move women and children from the vulnerable outskirts of Corpus Christi to the safer buildings of the business district" is too closely paraphrasing from the source - compare "A volunteer brigade of about 100 automobiles was organized, and these were busy from 1 till 5 pm in bringing women and children from the outskirts of the city to the safer buildings of the business section". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made adjustments in accordance with the above spot checks. A few of these drew information from other footnotes present in the article, so I've added those footnotes closer to the relevant information. In that vein, I was wondering if someone with access to NewspaperArchive could add links to the relevant clippings for the articles from that database, as the institutional access I'm using doesn't have that feature. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 21:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query to @Nikkimaria: - do you think the problems you found warrant a full source spot check or were they mostly minor? --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, think at least some additional checks are needed - will see if anyone can provide clippings links as requested. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and TheAustinMan: I am here with the goods.

That's it for the NewspaperARCHIVE clips, let me know if you need further zoom-ins on some of these clips. Probably should link them in the references too, now it's available. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 09:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the ones you couldn't find were off by a few days (though their issue numbers and other information were correct). I've amended these in the article. –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to link these clippings. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, how are things looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing police to escort pedestrians off the streets" - this is not consistent with what the source says
  • "Substantial losses befell crops in Saint Catherine Parish, including severe damage to banana and coconut trees between Kingston and Spanish Town" - source mentions that "some" coconut trees are severely damaged, but think equating it with the banana devastation is overstating things
  • "The eastern banana-growing belt sustained its worst losses since the 1903 Jamaica hurricane" - not consistent with what the source says. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Pinging on behalf of the nominator. NoahTalk 22:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, if you have a sec to revisit, like to try and close this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I struck my oppose based on the more recent checks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2020 [45].

Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bring you: an arrogant Roman general; a proud state refusing peace terms with the enemy at the gates; imported talent showing the locals how to fight; elephant charges; a Roman army going down to defeat with a higher proportion killed than at Cannae. Roll up, roll up; book your places for the review now. Worked on and polished to what I hope is a FAC-worthy state. You may well suspect otherwise, in which case all and any suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

edit

I'll comment soon(ish). In the interest of transparency, I will note that I was the GA reviewer and was forcibly dragged out of my comfortable ga zone([sarcasm]) to review this at the request of Gog but intend to not let that impact my reviewing in the slightest. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh woe, woe, and thrice woe. What have I done? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only the first book of the 40 comprising " MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures,"
Done.
  • "The Carthaginians were engaging in their traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out..." could use a year somewhere in the paragraph if that's present in sources, just to give a reader something to anchor on
I see the issue. The year is in the previous sentence: I have rearranged the paragraph breaks so it should be clearer.
    • "By 256 BC the war had grown into a struggle ..." at the end of the next paragraph, you say " In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet..." maybe arrange chronologically?
Year changed.
  • "Frustration at the continuing stalemate in Sicily and naval victories at Mylae and Sulci " years?
Done.
  • "led the Romans to focus on a sea-based strategy" didn't you already mention that "The focus of the war shifted to the sea"?
Removed.
  • " Both sides were determined to establish naval supremacy " did the Carthaginians not previously hold naval supremacy?
Yes. Before they lost Mylae and Sulci.
  • "ship-handling skills would tell" I have this defintion of tell as "decide or determine correctly or with certainty." It might seem self evident, but could you clarify what it would tell? I think an alternate phrasing could serve to eliminate ambiguity
You need a better dictionary. Wiktionary: "To have an effect, especially a noticeable one; to be apparent, to be demonstrated." Changed to 'be decisive'.
  • Is there a reason why the campaign map isn't centered and all the others are?
Cus the numbers in the key look really weird if they are not above one another. Happy to change it if it doesn't have a similar effect on you. Usually I much prefer centred captions.
  • "vast herds of cattle" why is this in quotes? Surely you could say 'herds of cattle' or something along those lines?
Dequoted.
  • "these more than 100,000 men over the winter" might mention the 100,000 men earlier in the text? It kinda just hits the reader as it stands, because the only stat mentioned before in direct regards to Roman troops is 26,000 legionaries and 20,000 slaves
I had thought that the flagging up of Ecnomus as the largest naval battle of all time had done the trick. Further mention of numbers seemed to be labouring the point. Better now?
  • "failure to make up his deficiency in cavalry" There's no mention of a deficiency before this?
Good point. Rephrased.
  • "major land battle during the war" what's the definition of 'major' being used here? I thought Regulus had a 'relatively small' force?
It's what the sources say. One of the four land battles (non-sieges) at which both sides had over 10,000 men. There were none with both sides having over 5,000. (Other than these four.) So it is a fairly clear divide.

That's it from me, feel free to discuss anything. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie and many thanks for the review. All good stuff. My thoughts and responses above and here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your responses, Gog. I'll digest and come back later today, I think. As far as dictionaries go, I once tried to read Merriam-Webster, but I gave up on the first page. Maybe time to pick it up again? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No rush Eddie. I took long enough to get back to you.
Dictionary: I don't think that you supposed to read them like that. It would make one's prose full of "An amorous aardvark ardently accepted an accurate accusation" type phrases. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me, I forgot to revisit this. I'm happy to Support. Nice work! Eddie891 Talk Work 00:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from T8612

edit
  • I think a map of the site in Tunisia would be nice, or a photo of the Medjerda perhaps in the infobox. Perhaps there are good pictures on Commons.
Sorry; a map of what site? If you mean as in Battle of Cape Hermaeum#Battle and storm I am not sure that it adds information not in the campaign map; and there isn't really room for such a large map. Happy to include an image of the Medjerda. Any favorites? Bear in mind that in is only supposition that the battle took place near the Medjerda/Bagrates, and that the river played no part in either the battle or the campaign. I could possibly include eg File:Oued zitoun Bizerte Tunisia 8.jpg, File:Fernana-city.jpg or File:Oued zitoun Bizerte Tunisia 7.jpg with a caption "Part of the North Tunisian plain in 2016"?
My concern was that there is no map of the area until "Prelude" section. In your other FA you have usually put a map in infobox, like for Battle of Cape Ecnomus. Can't you do the same here?
Ah. Understood. It seemed more useful where it was, so I have copied it to the top of the infobox. See what you think.
  • The caption for the operations' map says "5: Romans are defeated at the Battle of Tunis. (255 BC)", but it should say Battle of Bagradas, unless we rename the article Battle of Tunis.
I am very strongly tempted, but you are right. Fixed.
  • Regarding the cause of the war. I would like you to reuse what you wrote for the Battle of Drepana, eg: Rome's expansion into southern Italy probably made it inevitable that it would eventually clash with Carthage over Sicily on some pretext. The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina). By 256 BC the war had grown into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily. For the same reasons I mentioned during the previous review.
Done.
  • You can say somewhere that Regulus was an experienced commander. He had already been consul in 267 BC and received a triumph for his victory against the Salentini. (source: Broughton, Magistrates, vol. I, p. 200).
Good point. Done. I have also footnoted that he was a last minute stand in.
  • There is something missing in the Prelude about the peace negotiations. Polybius says that Regulus sought peace with Carthage because he wanted to receive the glory of ending the war before his successors could arrive to replace him. Other Greek historians say that it was Carthage who took the initiative because of war exhaustion. Walbank prefers the latter version.
Fair point. It is an area where several sources are doubtful of Polybius, but I should include his view. Done.
  • Walbank also thinks the terms demanded by Regulus are not historical (they are given by Cassius Dio) as they contradict the terms of the Treaty of Lutatius (if Regulus wanted to take Sardinia, Lutatius would have demanded it too). See for the last two notes: Walbank, Commentary, vol. I, p. 90.
I am aware of this. I don't feel that a consensus of modern sources agrees with Walbank - as is often the case. I have put it in a footnote.
  • Walbank dates the battle in early May 255. (same source, p. 91)
I am skipping dating things too precisely. It is not that I don't, personally, incline to the same opinion, or especially doubt that the storm occurred in mid=July; but there seems little if any consensus and it is not necessary to include Walbank's hypothesis. Let's face it, if the theories of every classicist were included the article would be three times as long and unreadable.
  • Another thing missing, which I think is very important, albeit it could be developed in full in Regulus' own article, is the "Regulus Saga". Roman historians invented a long story of Regulus returning to Rome to offer peace terms from Carthage, but he advised the senate to refuse and he returned to Carthage to die. See Cambridge Ancient History, p. 556. It's a classic event in Roman history of the formerly arrogant commander changed by a defeat. He then became of model of virtue. See this article for example. There is a biography on Regulus that deals with the construction of this legend (Erving R. Mix: Marcus Atilius Regulus, Exemplum Historicum), but I don't have it. Still, I would mention this story in Aftermath.
If that belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Regulus article or in a separate article. It is widely accepted that the account is an invention, and I don't see why we need to introduce something which took place years after the battle and which the sources don't believe happened anyway.
Because this is an important event in Roman history, and it was only rejected for good in the 20th century. Some older literature still believed the story or was undecided. See for example the article in the DGRBM (p. 643, bottom half, and the next page). You don't have to tell the full tale, just saying something like that "Despite his defeat, Regulus was celebrated as a model of virtue by later Roman authors, who invented a tale on his heroic behaviour in captivity.". T8612 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being picky, but it wasn't, and isn't, an important event in Roman history. It was important in Roman histography, but I am not at all sure that it belongs here. Nevertheless, added.
  • I would say in the lede that Regulus lost because of his inferior cavalry, while he also did not use the cavalry that the Numidian rebels could have provided him. I don't think it is necessary to tell the detailed numbers of each force here (they are in the infobox too).
Numbers removed and replaced with text. The role of the cavalry expanded on a little in the lead.

T8612 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks T8612, that was a great review. Really had me digging into the sources and chewing my thumb. Your points all responded to above and several changes made. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: your three follow up points responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the edits, although you may have made a mistake and did not move the picture. I think it's possible to leave the operations' map where it is though. Just do the same as on your article Battle of Cape Ecnomus: a small red dot on the map of Tunisia. T8612 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, you may have forgotten to add the map in the lede. T8612 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612, thanks for the reminder. I have been experimenting with a few things, and have not felt that any of them are satisfactory. I agree that a map near the top showing the location of the battle would be helpful. But a map of the whole of Tunisia takes over the infobox, pushing it way down the page and taking out the image of Polybius. I would really like a push pin map of just northern Tunisia, but there isn't one. I am half minded to argue against having one at all, but I do think that it is a sensible request. The two least bad options seem to be to copy the campaign map to the top of the infobox, or put a miniature push pin Tunisia map below it. I have gone with the first of these. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think it's fine. If someone comes up with up with a better map, they can replace it, but the current one is ok. I support promotion now. Great job. T8612 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and for the earlier helpful inputs. Both are appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

edit
  • Given what is said in text about Carthaginian casualties, don't think we should say simply "800" in the infobox
Good point. Changed to 'At least 800 killed'.
  • What makes Constanta Maritime University Annals a high-quality reliable source?
It is published in a reputable journal; by a university; and articles from the journal are frequently cited in academic articles.
  • Be consistent in whether book sources include locations
Fixed.
  • The Further reading entry needs reformatting.
Reformatted.

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Mnay thanks for looking at this. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Interesting read. I have some comments:

Lead
  • suggest "They used this advantage to invade Carthage's homeland, which roughly aligned with modern day Tunisia in North Africa."
Done.
  • suggest "maintain the lodgement in Africa over the winter" and link lodgement, as this isn't really a bridgehead or beachhead
Done.
Done.
  • link Aspis
Done.
Body
  • "Carthaginian written records" link Ancient Carthage for Carthaginian and drop the later link
Done.
  • can you say who Hoyos is? latinist?
A classicist. Done and linked.
  • Arno River
Done.
  • link Sicily (I know it is lineball, but I think we should err on the side of people being geographically challenged)
Done.
  • link Messana
Messina linked instead. (They have the same target.
  • suggest "Frustration at the continuing stalemate in the land war on Sicily, combined with naval victories..."
Done.
  • "threaten their capital., Carthage"
Done. But note that in a previous FAC when I used the phrase I have just changed the text to, a reviewer aske me to add 'Carthage' for clarity.
  • move "(close to what is now Tunis)" to first link to Carthage in the Primary sources section
Only if you really insist. In Primary sources, the city of Carthage is discussed a little in the abstract; here a grasp of its geographic location is more necessary to follow the text. So I feel that if its proximity to Tunis is only to be mentioned once, this is the place where it would be most helpful to a reader.
  • "army.[32]The Roman" needs a space
Thanks, done.
  • move link to Legionary for legionaries up to first mention
Done.
Done.
  • link Roman triumph
Done.
  • suggest "Romans'"→"Roman force"
Done.
  • link Balearic Islands
Done.
  • drop the comma from "Spartan, mercenary commander"
Done.
  • link hilt
Done.
  • link Iberian Peninsula for Iberia
Done.
  • there's one unhyphenated ISBNs

Fixed.

  • author-link Nigel Bagnall, Lionel Casson, Roger Collins, Richard Miles (historian) and Brian Herbert Warmington, and move the author-link to F. W. Walbank to the 1959 work
Done.

That's all I could find to quibble about. Nice work so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the thorough review, appreciated. Your comments all addressed above, with one quibbled with. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Truflip99

edit

Reserving spot for comments. --truflip99 (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • They gave charge of the training of their army, and eventually operational control, to the Spartan mercenary general Xanthippus. -- wouldn't it be better to establish who Xanthippus is at first mention?
That would, IMO, overload the first sentence, which is already a bit convoluted. A number I=of the terms in the first sentence require elaboration, but to do it all there doesn't seem practicable.
  • combined with naval victories at Mylae (260 BC) and Sulci (258 BC) -- comma after this?
Good spot. Done.
  • Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service, and would serve as infantry -- do you need the comma here?
Removed
  • with body armour, a large shield, and short thrusting swords. -- last comma inconsistent with style
True. Gone.

I couldn't really identify any real issues apart from the nit-picked points above. Great read. --truflip99 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truflip99 and many thanks for stopping by for what looks like a fairly painstaking review. I'm pleased that you enjoyed the read. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was late to the party and missed out on all the errors! I'll try a lot harder for the next one ;) Support. --truflip99 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit
  • Add spring in the infobox.
What! In spite of MOS:SEASON? ;-) Done.
  • which roughly aligned with modern day Tunisia Compound adjective here.
Fixed.
  • to the Spartan mercenary general Xanthippus Not "to the Spartan mercenary General Xanthippus"? And link mercenary.
Fixed.
  • is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC) Circa template is needed here.
Fixed.
  • based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin.
I wonder if yourself and the prior reviewer, Eddie891, could reach I consensus on this. As you know, my preference is to link it, but I will go with whatever you two agree.
  • I'm happy to discuss with Eddie891. Per MOS:OVERLINK it states "However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others." and when I went to school back in the days I've heard from a lot of students between 12 and 18 years olds that they always complain or grumple why they should learn a dead language so I don't think it should be linked because I don't think children nor secondary/junior or high school students read this article because it's too cruel or they are not interested at all. Most people would know the language well enough. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be consistent with my other articles I have unlinked it for now. I won't link it unless and until a consensus to do so is reached.
  • Hello, CPA-5 and Gog. I just don't believe that Greek language is any less well known then Latin. To compare pageviews (obviously not the only indication of comparability), Latin got 139,196 in the past 30 days, and Greek 99,234. In the lowest pageviews over the past 90 days, Greek got 2,362-- which is still a lot. Ancient Greek, to which I think the link should be to, gets 129,109 pageviews in 30 days. The dispenser tool counts 58,272 links to Latin and 18,721 to Ancient Greek, which suggests that, if anything, Latin is more commonly linked to. Further, MOS:UL advises us that "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" should be linked. Whether or not Latin is common, I'd consider it a relevant connection to a battle mainly based on Latin and Greek sources. It's not that I think Latin isn't well known, just that in the context both Greek and Latin are relevant connections and comparable in pageviews, the most easily visible measure of comparison. To me it only makes sense to link both or none for these reasons. Hopefully this makes sense, and as always I am happy to discuss further. Regards, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, I hope that you won't be offended if I suggest that you are doing what the overlink guidance warns against: drawing on your own personal experience to extrapolate to a generality. Can I suggest that your experience of other people's knowledge, or lack of, of Latin is probably not representative of Wikipedia's global readership's knowledge, or lack of? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? Personal experience, good question whether I'm offended or not. I'm just telling what MOS:OVERLINK says to us. We should look at demographic biases' of the events. I don't believe pre-university or college (or whatever it is in their countries) students are interested in wars and topics like this. If they are interests in these cruel topics then they know what Latin is. About MOS:UL I agree in some topics an overlinked term can be linked but we should draw the line here. If these topics should have a linked "Latin" to make relevant connections to the article then you can link everything. For instead, if you write Roman generals should they have "Latin" linked because it makes a relevant connection between Latin and the generals. I don't think so if you believe Latin is wide known so the example is useless then here another example. If you look at a not that wide-known article like Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor; the word Arab is linked but it shouldn't by MOS:OVERLINK but if we "have" to follow MOS:UL to make it relevant connection with the Arab people's article then it should be linked. Unless there is a study who tells us how many readers effective click on the word "Latin" to learn more in the Punic Wars, I'm not changing my view here. CPA-5 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • He was on the staff of Scipio Aemilianus when Scipio led a Roman army What was Scipio's rank or was he just a commander?
The 2nd-C BC; ranks?
No. He had no formal position at the time. (If I ever get round to the 2PW I may write about it; it is in the article on him.)
  • as consuls, to each lead an army.[32]The Roman Space is needed here.
Done.
  • 60 km (40 mi) south-east of Carthage Kilometre should be written fully here.
Done.
  • possessions took the opportunity to rise in revolt No link for the revolt?
No.
  • Link Balearic Islands.
Done.
  • Among them was a Spartan, mercenary commander, Xanthippus Link mercenary.
Done.
  • were divided between the flanks.[82][52] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • Regulus apparently hoped to punch through Is it me or is punching here to be meant trying to break or push them back?
Correct: that's what it means here. As in "to punch a hole in": although not with a punch in this case.
  • Link Iberia.
Done.
  • "The Campaign of Marcus Atilius Regulus in Africa, Military Operations by Sea and by Land (256-255 B.C.)" --> "The Campaign of Marcus Atilius Regulus in Africa, Military Operations by Sea and by Land (256–255 B.C.)" in the sources.
Done.
  • "Polybius (2020) [c. 167–118 BC]" needs a circa template.
Done.
  • "The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning " Unlink Latin in the notes.
See above.
  • "The Spanish used a heavy throwing spear" Spanish didn't really exist maybe replace it with "Iberians"
I am going with how the sources describe it and them. (Although I agree with you.)
  • "This assumes, per G.K . Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans" Typo between the "K" and the full stop.
Thanks. Fixed.
  • Circa is needed in the 13,500 Roman deads also add "killed".
Why? That would contradict the sources. While I agree that it probably wasn't exactly 13,500, it is a long =established policy to follow the sources and give numbers rounded. You aren't quibbling with any of the other numbers in the infobox.
13,500 is the number of "Casualties and losses"; the number of these who were killed is given below.
  • That's a good point – Gog: 1–0 EE. But this sentence of yours states: "Approximately 2,000 Romans survived" unless I'm stupid approximately means near or close to the figure and circa "could" also be near or close to figure I don't really understand why not circa or at least use approximately? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see your point. I am being inconsistent. Fair enough. "approximately" removed. I was trying not to start the sentence with a number, but have used a different phrase.
  • Many would be from North Africa which provided several types of fighters including: close-order infantry equipped with large shields, helmets, short swords and long thrusting spears; javelin-armed light infantry skirmishers; close-order shock cavalry carrying spears; and light cavalry skirmishers who threw javelins from a distance and avoided close combat. This is a pretty long sentence.
True, but it is well and heavily punctuated, so I don't see a problem. (I think that you know that I avoid overlong sentences unless I feel them necessary.)
  • from the left wing Hyphen needed?
As it is not a compound adjective, I don't believe so.


I believe that's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EE. Good stuff. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, I have addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Thanks. Responded above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5 Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
It's a key to what the similar colour in the map represents. As that is all of the land include, I could remove it as unnecessary if you prefer.
Probably. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the photos of artworks might benefit from having their licences updated to clearly separate between the extant photographers' copyright and the nonexistent copyright of the artwork.
Good point. Done. Is this what you had in mind?
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT text is OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"ish"? Cheek! Always happy to improve my alt text, on which there is a remarkable lack of guidance or ongoing feedback, so any tips or pointers towards especially egregious examples gratefully received.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am myself not always sure what correct ALT text is hence the "ish" comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are the images in a good enough state for you to pass the review? Or is there anything else I should do? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The images seem to be OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: G'day y'all. In the light of the above, may I fire up my next one? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose ? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry I missed it the first time...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

@Nikkimaria: - how are things standing? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2020 [46].

Ice dance

edit
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ice dance, a discipline of the sport of figure skating. Ice dance is also one of the least familiar disciplines, so it's important that a high-quality article exists. We have less than two years to improve as many figure skating articles as possible before the 2022 Olympics, the only time many people pay attention to the sport. I believe this article is prepared for a FAC review, so thank you in advance. I look forward to any and all feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative oppose by Buidhe
  • The article focuses heavily on rules for the sport, citing the official manual. Passages such as:

    In ice dance, teams can lose one point for every fall by one partner, and two points if both partners fall. If there is an interruption while performing their program, ice dancers can lose one point if it lasts more than 10 seconds but not over 20 seconds. They can lose two points if the interruption lasts 20 seconds but not over 30 seconds, and three points if it lasts 30 seconds but not more than 40 seconds. They can lose five points if the interruption lasts three or more minutes.

    seem too detailed for the general reader. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, it would be better to focus on what secondary sources say about the sport, which includes coverage of rules but maybe not as detailed as you have here.
  • I'd like to give you an example of a featured article for a sport to use as a model, but the only one I could find was seriously deficient in terms of the criteria and will probably be delisted soon. buidhe 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Firstly, I disagree that this article focuses too heavily on rules; the "Rules and regulations" section is small compared to the "History" section. I suppose you could classify the "Competition segments" and "Competition elements" sections as being about rules, but I think it can be argued that they're necessary because they describe the sport's make-up and the requirements that ice dancers must follow in competitions. You wanted a sample of another FA; how about Baseball, which is a highly detailed and comprehensive article that also cites the rule books for both Little League and Major League Baseball. Yes, baseball is more well-known than ice dance, but I doubt that most baseball fans are interested in things like the names of the territories of a field. There's plenty in this article that will satisfy the non-initiated figure skating fan, but like other sports articles, the rules should be included in order for it to be comprehensive. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this oppose; that is, while I don't see a problem with citing the rules, I do question (below) whether an exhaustive and comprehensive search for sources to expand text has been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

edit

I have copyedited while reading.

I appreciate the copyediting, thanks.
  • Ten-Step is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not; fourteen-step and killian not. Please make consistent for each name, and consistent or different-for-good-reasons overall.
The trouble is that sometimes the sources capitalize these words. After consulting the MOS, I think that these steps and dance names are generic terms (we don't capitalize polka, for example), so I'll make the changes. Please let me know if I've missed anything.
Looks OK, thanks (more about Killian below). --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the name Killian come from?
I dunno, none of the sources I found talk about that. I really don't know why that's important; we don't tend to ask where names like "fox trot" comes from. It needs to be lower case, though, as per the above request.
I'm happy with killian lower case for now, but it looks as if it may be named after a person, which is why I asked about the origin. In that case, I think upper case would be better: we use upper case for the Lutz jump. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends upon the source. There's no convention across figure skating articles in Wikipedia or in the press or other writings about the sport. The ISU, though, does capitalize elements named after persons. However, I think that since names of jumps and other elements have become generic terms, they should be lower case. The axel jump, for example, is named after a person (Axel Paulsen). I believe that the origin of the word killian is Irish, so the ice dance step is probably Irish in origin, but there's nothing out there about it.
Thanks for checking. It's OK as it is. --Mirokado (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years
    • "much to the embarrassment of the British, who considered themselves the best ice dancers in the world." I'm entirely sure this is true (I believe something similar happened in Rugby as well!) and would hate to see it disappear, but it would be good to have a reference for it.
The reference is ref23, from Hines (2006), cited after the next sentence because both sentences can be supported with it.
In a case like this, the sentence can be interpreted as editorial opinion, so it will be better to repeat the callout even if it is for two sentences in a row. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, done.
    • "they won 12 out of the first 16 championships,[18] although ..." The sentence needs clarification, in particular "although" is wrong in this context, but I'm running out of time tonight to make a detailed suggestion.
Added a semi-colon and replaced although --> however. Does that work? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both "although" and "however" indicate that what follows qualifies what preceded. Here the statement about the first non-British winner is additional information. Also, there is already a semicolon in that sentence, so a second does not work very well. I think a new sentence presenting the additional information will work best. I've made the edit since that is clearer than specifying extended content here, by all means change further. --Mirokado (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thanks for the copyedit.
  • 1970s to 1990s
    • I have always thought that a motivation for the rules about lifts and separation was to maintain the distinction between ice dance and pair skating. It's OK if I am wrong of course, but otherwise I miss any mention of that.
I'm not able to find anything supporting separation rules, but I added content and a ref about lifts.
That's good for the lifts, and the general point is covered. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhythm dance
    • "They also hold the five highest ...": Please add Template:As of here.
    • As well as the teams credited, it might be good to add the first winners of the new segment type.
The problem with that is that the FD has been in existence since the beginning of ice dance competitions, and the first team to skate it isn't available.
The thing about that is, see, the RD isn't really a new segment; it's really just a re-name of the short dance. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to name the first team to skate the RD after the name change.
I can buy that. Striking. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free dance
    • "They also hold the five highest ...": Please add Template:As of here.
I don't think the template is necessary, since each instance includes the competitions where the teams earned the scores.
The problem is not the sourcing for the current information, but that the information is liable to go out of date with subsequent competitions. From the template documentation: "The template {{as of}} is used to mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. This allows editors to catalogue statements that may become dated over time." --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The solution, to avoid redundancy, then, is to reword the statements. Done.
  • Competition elements
    • "changed from the 6.0 system to the ISU Judging System (IJS)": I think that this change to the judging system should be mentioned earlier in the article in a little more detail as part of the overall history. If I remember correctly, there were three problems with the old judging method: too subjective, the bloc voting already mentioned, and too many teams approaching the 6.0 maximum.
Oh, there were many more problems with the old scoring system. Ya know, we've bumped into this issue before, with other figure skating articles. I don't think that this article is the place for a discussion about the old 6.0 system compared to the new IJS system. Rather, it belongs in those individual articles. I'm not sure if those articles have those discussions, but that's not my problem, at least not yet. (One my goals is to improve both articles, along with others, before the 2022 Olympics, so that people have a place to learn about them.)
Thanks for linking 6.0 system, which works nicely. As you say, that article could be expanded a bit to cover the problems leading to its replacement more thoroughly, but having the link means we don't need more in this article. --Mirokado (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rules and regulations
    • "Skaters must only execute the prescribed elements; if they do not, the extra or unprescribed elements will not be counted in their score.": This could be clarified, how about: "The skaters must execute each prescribed element at least once: any extra or ..."
Ya know, I've struggled with that sentence, since it's close to the source and I wasn't sure how to clarify it better. So thanks.
You are welcome. I made a further copyedit. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falls and interruptions
    • "Ice dancers experience 1.32 injuries per athlete." Please rephrase: does this mean "Ice dancers experience an average of 1.32 injuries during the course of their career" or "while performing in competitions" or ...?
Another issue bumped into. ;) I'll tell you what I told the GA reviewer for Pair skating, who brought up the same issue: The source doesn't state that information. It may in the primary source (i.e., the original study), but I think it would violate the WP:PRIMARY policy.
This has been raised in two independent reviews now. We certainly need to clarify it. As you say, the review article is very poorly expressed at that point (Google is my friend). Looking at the source given there, this figure comes from a study conducted during one U.S. national competition, so my two guesses above were way too small. Looking closer, the review has transposed the figures for singles and dancers, so in this point is is not a reliable source! Nevertheless, we can take the use of the study in the review as justification for using it directly for any necessary correction and clarification, while using the review as "cited in". I suggest something like:
A study conducted during a U.S. national competition including 58 ice dancers recorded an average of 0.97 injuries per athlete.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Fortin |first1= Joseph D. |last2= Roberts |first2= Diana |year= 2003 |pages= 313, 314 |title= Competitive Figure Skating Injuries |journal= Pain Physician |volume=6 |issue= 3}}<br />Cited in {{cite book |last1=Vescovi |first1= Jason D. |last2= VanHeest |first2=Jaci L. |title= The Science of Figure Skating |year=2018 |chapter= Epidemiology of injury in figure skating |editor1-last= Vescovi |editor1-first= Jason D. |editor2-last=VanHeest |editor2-first=Jaci L. |location= New York |publisher=Routledge |page= 36 |isbn= 978-1-138-22986-0}}</ref>
--Mirokado (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fine solution. Ya know, I came across another unreliable study while working on an article about a jump. The researchers studied the effects of a jump on the body, using a male skater as the subject; they stated they were using the easiest jump to study, but in actuality were not. Interesting concept, but the execution of it--har-har--was all wrong, so I chose to not use it. Google is my friend, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 3 (set pattern): "will be" should probably be "was".
Already fixed; noticed when I saw it while working on other comments.

--Mirokado (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mirokado, addressed your comments. Hope it's satisfactory. Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Christine. I've struck some, added some responses and will think a bit more about the rest. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've struck more, still thinking about the others. --Mirokado (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you! You've been very helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a response for the remaining item (injury statistic). --Mirokado (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And again. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is a good overview of the sport and a worthwhile update for the 2022 Olympics. I hope you will be able to find time to update other skating articles too. --Mirokado (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Your feedback was very helpful, and has made this article better. Yes, I've been working on other figure skating articles; see this list here. Tara Lipinski has just passed GA; I'm considering submitting it for FAC. Currently, I'm working on Johnny Weir because both he and Lipinski have become the face of figure skating, with their commentating work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert anything I mess up. The main problem I have with this article is that every time I start reading it I keep having to go and watch Torvill and Dean's Bolero again first.

Ha! Mike, I have the same problem! Every time I read about a skater's program, I have to go watch it. Makes the edit count really low, but my excuse is that it's research, which is oh so onerous. The research I did in college and grad school wasn't nearly as fun! But thanks for suffering for the sake of improving a figure skating article. ;)
  • I don't like having that clunky quote from the ISU in the first paragraph. What if we made it "a discipline of pairs figure skating" in the definition? Then we don't need the additional definition in the lead, though you could still mention that the ISU is the governing body of the sport.
Um, but that's not the definition of ice dance; ice dance and pair skating are different disciplines of figure skating, and have very different histories. Are you referring to the quote about an ice dance team consisting of "one Lady and one Man"? Can you explain why that's clunky? If you like, we can remove it, although it's important to include that ice dance is a mixed sport. I added that the ISU is the governing body.
I suggested "discipline of pairs figure skating" because it currently says "discipline of figure skating"; I thought all I was doing was adding "pairs", but I guess that makes it mean something different to a figure skating fan? There are a couple of things I don't like about the ISU quote. It's odd to quote the ISU for sthis -- our article on mixed doubles says "Mixed doubles or mixed pairs is a form of mixed-sex sports that consists of teams of one man and one woman", for example; not quite the wording to use here, but no need to quote a rulebook. It's also odd to have the capitals, and the slight archaicism of using "lady" instead of "woman" is also distracting, and requires a footnote, which gets in the way of a smooth read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are four disciplines of figure skating: men's singles skating, women's single skating, pair skating, and ice dance. The reason for the ISU quote is their, as you say, archaic use of "Lady". "Lady" and "Man" are both capitalized in the ISU Rulebook and in the original quote, for historic reasons. Figure skating, in many ways, is compelled by its own history, which is full of elitism and classism, and its rules and practices still include that history. They still, well into the 21st century, have many archaic practices, like referring to female skaters as "Ladies". It needs to change, and I think including the quote, with its archaic, capitalized quote, and with the footnote is necessary because it follows our values here in Wikipedia. I won't change the language in any of the figure skating articles I edit to follow the archaic practices of the ISU, even if it means no figure skating article ever gets promoted to FA or even GA. It's been discussed over and over in different talk pages, mostly recently by me {Talk:Single_skating#Ladies_vs._women, although no one contributed to the debate at that time. There doesn't seem to a consensus about it, so in the past, figure skating articles in Wikipedia have tended to follow the ISU practice. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using "women" instead of "Ladies" seems fine to me; perhaps I'm going further than you are by saying I think the archaic language should be relegated to a footnote, if it isn't eliminated altogether. What a reader cares about is that an ice dance competition is entered by a mixed-sex pair, or a man and a woman -- however we phrase it. The "one Lady and one Man" focuses attention on the archaic, which it sounds like you'd prefer to avoid. Or do I misunderstand your position? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess what you're saying is that we don't focus on the archaic use, perhaps like this: According to the International Skating Union (ISU), the governing body of figure skating, an ice dance team consists of one woman and one man. and then retaining the footnote about the ISU's use of Lady. I'm good with doing that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead talks about who dominated the sport before saying what the sport consists of; I think that's the wrong order. In the body you have history first, which I think is OK, but the history gives enough information about the development of the sport that it's not odd to talk about who dominated it at which times. In the lead there's so little information by the start of the second paragraph that it sounds odd. I think a couple more sentences at the end of the first paragraph about the goals of discipline -- technique and creativity, and perhaps grace and beauty if something along those lines can be cited.
I agree that the lead isn't complete; it should include a few more sentences about the sport's recreational nature and how it developed into a sport. I've made some changes; let me know what you think. Although are you saying that the structure of the article should be changed? At Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating, there's a proposal (made by me) for how figure skating articles in general should be structured; history/background tends to be the first section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement. No, I think the article structure is fine, though I need to do another proper read-through so reserve the right to change my mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd combine the last sentence of the lead with the previous one. And "publishes violations" is wrong; they publish definitions of violations. How about something like "Each year the ISU publishes a list specifying the points that can be deducted from performance scores for various reasons, including falls, interruptions, and violations of the rules concerning time, music, and clothing."?
Done.
  • The roots of ice dance, like pairs skating, are in the "combined skating" developed in the 19th century by skating clubs and organizations and by recreational social skating between couples and friends... There's a syntax problem here: the two instances of "by" are read as parallel, but they aren't -- combined skating wasn't developed in the 19th century by recreational social skating between couples and friends. I think this needs to be "and in recreational". I'd also suggest changing the start of the sentence to "Ice dance, like pairs skating, has its roots in" as flowing slightly more smoothly.
Done, both in the lead and the body.
  • Hines and Kestnbaum seem to contradict each other as to the roots of the sport; do we have any reason to believe one is more reliable a source? If not, we might as well make it clear to the reader that we've noticed the difference, with a "however" or "Hines asserts instead that" or something similar. And I don't see Kestnbaum listed in the "Works cited" -- did you forget to include it?
I didn't see H & K has contradicting each other; both are true, but I added "however". D'oh! on the absence of K, and thanks for the catch. ;)
  • In 1836, the Oxford Skating Society published a simple program of figures for hand-in-hand skating. What does this add to the article? It seems to contradict the date from the previous sentence (1890s) and no other comment is made about it.
I don't see the two statements as contradictory. We're tracing (har-har) the development of steps; hand-in-hand skating began to be popular in the 1890s, but no one recorded the figures used until 1836.
What surprised me was that it jumps back in time. I half-wondered if it was a typo for 1936. I found a page of Hines' dictionary on Google Books and he gives the information in chronological order, pointing it that there was a long gap after the publication before there is evidence that hand-in-hand skating was becoming popular. That order makes it much more natural. However, unfortunately his phrasing there is almost identical to yours here, so in addition we need to recast that sentence to avoid the close paraphrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to The Oxford Skating Society published a description and explanation of figures for hand-in-hand skating in 1836, well before it became popular. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the parenthetical "inventor unknown"? If so I'd add it to the next sentence about Schreiter, since that mentions the creation of a dance as well.
Yes, I think we do. Figure skating historians seem to think that the inventor of steps and elements are important, probably (I think) because so many are named after their creators.
Fair enough. I'll have a go at copyediting that sentence next pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last ice dance invented before World War I still being done today: is this an important enough fact to include?  ; if you were to drop this it would be easy to add the fact that the inventor of the European waltz is unknown.
Again, yes because it demonstrates the history of the dance and how what ice dancers are doing today is connected to the past.
I'll take your word for it that this is of interest to those who follow the sport, so I'm striking the comment, but the "World War I" date just seems arbitrary. I can see that it's of interest that this dance dates back to 1909, and that one to the 1890s, but to say it's the last one still being danced that predates WWI seems a strange fact to point out. But struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph in "Beginnings" jumps back and forth in chronological sequence; I think this could be better organized. And you have "Hines insisted" (past tense) but earlier "Hines states"; I think the present tense is the way to go.
Fixed both.
  • A couple of instances of "today" which might be wise to reword a little; neither really justifies an "as of 2020", but both could be improved. Perhaps "since it became an organized sport" for the first one in the "Beginnings" section, and "in the 21st century" for the second.
I agree. I changed two instances to "modern" to avoid the 2020 problem (yikes!) and followed your second suggestion.
  • conducted informal dance contests in waltzes and in marches such as the ten-step, the fourteen-step, and the killian, which were the only three dances used in competition until the 1930s: something is lost in syntax here. They conducted dance contests in marches such as the ten-step -- so the ten-step is a march? And if those latter three were the only ones used in competition till the 1930s (a point reinforced a couple of sentences later), why are we mentioning contests in waltzes? Unless those three are types of waltz?
How about if we remove "in waltzes and in marches".?
That did it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A personal preference -- I'd get rid of "stated"; it always sounds stilted. Use words that attribute opinions: "according to Hines", "Hines considers", "Hines argues", "Hines suggests", and so on. And avoid attributing the opinion inline at all if you can be confident it's an uncontroversial statement from a reliable source -- do we need to say that it's Hines that asserts that "the development of new ice dances was necessary..." etc? "Hines stated, about Torvill and Dean, that..." is another ugly example. And another: "As Kestnbaum stated, "The top Soviet teams...": can't we rephrase this without the quote? Similary for the pas de deux quote later in that paragraph.
Ugly, really? ;) Not a problem, I'm fine with changing it to your preference; done. Changed the K quote to "According to Kestnbaum, the top Soviet teams were the first to emphasize the dramatic aspects of ice dance, as well as to choreograph their programs around a central theme. They also incorporated elements of ballet and theatrical performances into their performances". I agree that there are too many quotes, but I'd like to keep the pas de deux one because it makes value statements like "classic ballet" and "high-art instance".
Sorry, didn't mean to be rude! I do think "stated" can almost always be improved on though. Striking this since I'm about to do another read through and start another set of comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When were the three British teams Hines mentions active? I'd guess they were all skating in the 1930s but I think that should be made clear.
Added. More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first international ice dancing competition occurred as a special event at the World Championships in 1950 in London: I initially assumed this was "the Ice Dancing World Championships" but of course it's actually the figure skating event; that should be clear to the reader without having to click through. I know you have "as a special event" as a pointer but if I missed that, others may too.
Ok, changed to: The first international ice dancing competition occurred as a special event during the 1950 World Figure Skating Championships in London.
  • I would avoid abbreviating "free dance" to FD; it's not a long phrase.
Ok, also replaced SD with "short dance". Any other abbreviations I should change?
I went through and took out all the dance abbreviations, after thinking about it, but it's a big change so I self-reverted; take a look at that version and see what you think. I think for someone unfamiliar with the sport it's easier without the abbreviations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should see other figure skating articles, especially skater bios like Nathan Chen, which I think goes overboard with the abbreviations and is, as a result, very confusing, even for me. I try and limit them, myself, but I don't think that abbreviating RD and FD in their individual sections is problematic. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the point; personally I'd prefer to see all the abbreviations gone, but I wouldn't oppose over that. Let's see if any other reviewer comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restrictions introduced during this period, especially jumps, spins, and the number and type of lifts: it's not clear if the restrictions limited these or required a minimum number of these, which would be a helpful detail to include.
Ok, replaced "especially" with "including".
That doesn't fix it for me -- I think you mean that the new rules excluded jumps (etc.), but given that I have no idea whether a jump is a skating skill or a dramatic aspect of ice dance, I can't tell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Kestnbaum source, jumps, spins, and lifts had previous restrictions, so I think the best solution is to remove the phrase, which I just did. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited the first sentence about judging scandals but I think that paragraph is still not quite right; the mention of the 1998 issues should precede mention of the 2002 scandal, and in any case if the 2002 case is the culmination of the scandals, it should be given at least as much space as the 1998 issue.
How 'bout moving the sentence about 2002 to the end of the paragraph?
Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause there, since I see a few more quotes and uses of "state" in the rest of the article; when you've responded to these points I'll go on reading. Generally this seems in pretty good shape -- most of the points above are minor. My main reservation at the moment is that I think more quotes should be paraphrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thanks for your review thus far; you've been very helpful. Finished with your comments; will go through and see what I can do about the quotes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of time for the moment; will go through the rest of your responses later tonight or in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for what you've done so far; it's muchly appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More strikes and replies above; should get back to it this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note to say that I am having to deal with a meta-wiki block that is intermittently preventing me from editing; I'll work on this tonight but if the block is active I may not be able to post anything till it goes away again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eagerly awaiting additional comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (finally; sorry about the delays). Again I'm copyediting as I go -- please revert anything you disagree with. And there's one remaining unstruck point above.

  • Not sure about this, but what about expanding the mention of judging scandals in the lead to make it clear that it was not only ice dance that was affected? As written (in the lead, not the body) it isn't apparent it affected figure skating at all.
Ok, added phrase: ...which also affected the other figure skating disciplines
  • Now I understand that the note about Oxford Skating Society is just an interjection, I think it might work better as a footnote.
Done.
  • The "Beginnings" section has and the ten-step, a precursor of the fourteen-step, both of which are still used in modern ice dance competitions and then later in the paragraph According to Hines, the ten-step is the basis of the fourteen-step, the oldest dance still done in the sport. One or other of these can be cut, I'd think. Though the first says both the ten-step and the fourteen-step are still danced, and the latter says only the fourteen-step is still danced -- which is it?
This wording is unclear, so I changed it to: Other early ice dances included the European waltz, before the turn of the 20th century, the ten-step, and the fourteen-step, which are all still used in modern ice dance competitions. According to Hines, the ten-step is the basis of the fourteen-step.
  • According to Kestnbaum, the top Soviet teams were the first to emphasize the dramatic aspects of ice dance, as well as to choreograph their programs around a central theme. I think this should be "as well as the first to". And can we drop "According to Kestnbaum"? It doesn't seem likely to be a controversial point.
Ok, done.
  • Hines reported that in 1998, the ISU recognized the move towards more theatrical skating in ice dance by reducing penalties on violations and relaxing rules on technical content, which he called a "major step forward". How about "In 1998, the ISU reduced penalties for violations, and relaxed rules on technical content; Hines describes this as a recognition of the move towards more theatrical skating in ice dance, and argues that it was a "major step forward".
Ok, switched out.
  • The U.S. began to dominate international competitions in ice dance at the turn of the 21st century;: I think we either don't need this, or we need a bit more evidence (and anyway "at the turn of the 21st century" seems odd for an era that starts ten years after the start of the century). Did Americans also dominate the World Championships?
How 'bout changing it to: "after 2000"?
  • According to Caroline Silby, a consultant with U.S. Figure Skating, ice dance teams, as well as pair skaters, have the added challenge of strengthening partnerships and ensuring that teams stay together for several years. Silby further asserts that the early demise or break-up of a team is often caused by consistent and unresolved conflict between partners. I think this could be more concise. How about: "According to Caroline Silby, a consultant with U.S. Figure Skating, ice dance teams and pair skaters have the added challenge of strengthening partnerships and ensuring that teams stay together for several years; unresolved conflict between partners can often cause the early break-up of a team."
Sure, switched out.
  • Challenges for both dancers and pairs, which can make conflict resolution and communication difficult, include the fewer number of available boys for girls to find partnerships; different priorities regarding commitment and scheduling; differences in partners' ages and developmental stages; differences in family situations; the common necessity of one or both partners moving to train at a new facility; and different skill levels when the partnership is formed. Suggest: "Both dancers and pairs face challenges that make conflict resolution and communication difficult: fewer available boys for girls to partner with; different priorities regarding commitment and scheduling; differences in partners' ages and developmental stages; differences in family situations; the common necessity of one or both partners moving to train at a new facility; and different skill levels when the partnership is formed."
Ok.
  • Silby estimates that due to the lack of effective communication, national-level figure skating teams are six times more likely to end their partnerships: I don't understand what this is trying to tell me.
Hopefully this clarifies it; I went back to the source: Silby estimates that the lack of effective communication between dance and pairs teams is associated with a six-fold increase in the risk of ending their partnerships.
I changed it to "within dance and pairs teams". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2018, the short dance was renamed the rhythm dance (RD); the ice dance competition format, as of 2018, incorporates two segments, the RD and the free dance. I think you could just make this "In 2018, the short dance was renamed the rhythm dance (RD)"; the previous sentence makes it clear that the competition format is just those two segments. Or you could make it even shorter by redoing the previous sentence as "The new ice dance competition format was first included in the 2010–2011 season, incorporating just two segments: the short dance (renamed the rhythm dance in 2018) and the free dance."
Done.
  • There are a couple of missing citations at the end of paragraphs in the "Competition elements" and "Rules and regulations" sections.
Both sentences are a summary of what follows, so I didn't think that it needed to be included. I can remove them if you like.
That's fine, so struck, but I'd suggest putting the citations for the following material on them too, just to stop others asking the same question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • I think the main paragraph of the "Competition elements" section is weak. There are three identically structured sentences beginning "The ISU defines...", which reads clumsily. Interspersed with the definitional sentences are more narrative sentences, but they get drowned by the ISU quotes. And if the ISU's definition is what matters, why do we care if someone else defines a twizzle differently? Or if we care, should we know who it is? I think this paragraph might be one of the rare cases where a table or a bullet list works better than prose, though if the prose can be made smoother that would be best.
I experimented with a bullet list, and decided that it looks much better. I also removed the second definition of twizzle.
I agree, that's an improvement. Re: Step sequences have three divisions: Types, Groups, and Styles: without further explanation of what this means it's not very helpful; I'd either explain it or cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "The U.S. Figure Skating 2018–2019 Rulebook" defines choreographic elements in ice dance as "a listed or unlisted movement or series of movement(s) as specified". These elements are not scored in the same way as the other elements, but are confirmed if the element's minimum requirements are met. Why is the rulebook in quotes? and I don't understand what this is telling me -- it sounds like any movement at all is a choreographic element, but in that case it makes no sense to say that they're not scored in the same way as other elements.
I put the rulebook in quotes because it's a document rather than a book, and that's what I've seen the USFS do. With the move to the bullet list, this issue has been resolved. You'll notice that there's not yet an article about choreographic elements, because I haven't decided if it's necessary yet, but mostly because I haven't gotten to it yet. ;) No source I've seen describes it in this way, but it seems that it's a box the judges check if they decide that it's been done. They don't have levels or any point value per se. Competition elements in ice dance explains it better, I think, so perhaps the solution is to remove the sentence about scoring? I will go ahead and do it.
  • The ISU published a judges' handbook describing what judges needed to look for during ice dance competitions in 1974: from the lead, I thought they published this list every year?
I need to add that it was the first time it was published. Done.

I read through the rules section and am going to think about it some more before suggesting copyedits, so that's it for this pass. I have some sympathy for Buidhe's comment expressed above about the "how to" feel of the article. You're right in your response to Buidhe that the sections on competition segments and competition elements are necessary, but the balance feels wrong. Not counting the lead, on my screen this article is a bit over one and a half screenfuls of text on history, and a bit over two and a half on competition information and rules. Can we redress this balance with more information about the history of the sport? Or is there scholarly research that could be mentioned? I know nothing about it, but was "Dancing on Ice" an ice dance show? Was it popular enough to mention? Are there statistics about participation? Is it a sport that is regarded as for rich kids only, as tennis sometimes is? Which countries have national championships? These are just random ideas, and I don't mean that all (or any) of that has to be in the article, but I do wonder if there's scope for expansion. I'll have a look for sources over the next day or so and see if I can find anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I still respectfully disagree. I admit that I haven't done all the research I could have about ice dance and about figure skating in general, but I suspect that I've accessed most of the major sources. Much of what I think you and Buidhe are asking for is really information and history of the sport as a whole. "Dancing on Ice" has aspects of ice dancing, but it also had pairs skating elements, so I think a discussion of it and other televised ice skating shows, which boomed in the 90s due to the Harding/Kerrigan scandal, better belong in the parent Figure skating article. I again bring up Baseball; it's also top-heavy with rules and regulations, although it has split-off articles about its history. (I anticipate our parent article eventually having a similar structure.) Baseball has the kind of stats you request, but it's a parent article, so I think that the same kind of stats about ice dance better belong in Figure skating. I agree that this article isn't as comprehensive as it could be, but I doubt that any more sources and information will make that much of a difference in making a history section about ice dance longer. I hope this doesn't prevent this article from being promoted to FA. At any rate, thanks for your review and helpful comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right about the material I'm asking for belonging in a parent article. I'll think about it some more, and may read through again, but will probably support once I've done so. Just one minor point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great; thanks again. Addressed above comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Have read through again and this is FA quality. I have a couple of minor points below that don't affect my support.

  • In the third paragraph of the "1970s to 1990s" section, when did the ISU tighten the rules? Or did they do so in steps at different times? I ask because it would nice to reorganize the two sentences attributed to Kestnbaum like so: "Kestnbaum argues that there was a conflict in the ice dance community between the traditional social dance school, represented by the British, the Canadians, and the Americans, and the theatrical dance school, represented by the Russians. Initially the historic and traditional cultural school of ice dance prevailed, with the ISU introducing restrictions [during the late 1980s and early 1990s], but in 1998 the ISU reduced penalties for violations and relaxed rules on technical content, in what Kestnbaum, describes as a "major step forward" in recognizing the move towards more theatrical skating in ice dance." The bit in brackets is just a random guess at dates; I think if we cast the sentence this way, which I like because it gives the sides before naming a victor, then we do need to have the dates there.
I like this change; it tightens up the prose, so with some modifications (Hines states--harhar--the last quote, not Kestnbaum.
  • The U.S. began to dominate international competitions in ice dance after 2000: can we make this "The U.S. then began to dominate international competitions in ice dance", since it didn't start till 2010?
Sure, done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, thanks so much, Mike! You have made this a much better article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sportsfan77777

edit

Note: I reviewed this article for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead,

  • "pairs skating" ===>>> "pair skating"
  • "Before the 2010–11 figure skating season, there were three segments in ice dance competitions: the compulsory dance (CD), the original dance (OD), and the free dance (FD). In 2010, the ISU voted to change the competition format by eliminating the CD and the OD and adding the new short dance (SD) segment to the competition schedule. In 2018, the ISU voted to rename the short dance to the rhythm dance (RD)." <<<=== I would suggest reversing this to state the current format first and then how it changed from the old format after.
I'm not sure we should do that, User:Sportsfan77777. If we're following a chronological format, which we are, the old format should go first. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christine on that one, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting to break from the chronological format in that paragraph in order to draw more emphasis to the current format (not required). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1990s,

  • I feel like the phrase "culminated in a controversy at the 2002 Olympics" sounds like it's going to say something like "culminated in a controversy at the 2002 Olympics that led to [a change in the judging system]". Is it missing something?

In the 21st century,

  • The European dominance of ice dance was interrupted at the 2010 Winter Olympics <<<=== interrupted, or ended?
  • I feel like the paragraph with Silby doesn't really fit into the 21st century sub-section, and should have its own section or sub-section header.

In competition segments,

  • can you add where and when Papadakis and Cizeron achieved their record scores for RD and FD?

In rules and regulations,

  • can you add a sub-section going over how ice dance is scored? As in, right now, you go over what aspects are scored in terms of the competition segments and competition elements, as well as possible deductions in the rules section. But you don't talk about or mention the different facets of the IJS scores, namely the eight columns in Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Ice dance from TSS through IN. (This is the only big comment I have.)

After these comments are addressed, I'll support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG Review

edit

Hi, Christine; good to see you here again. I am going to read through today, but for now, some things stand out for fixing:

Sandy, good to see you too. I always appreciate your feedback, so thanks.
Removed Tessa and Scott as per your suggestion. I put them there because I'm trying to make it a convention to include a picture of the skaters mentioned in the article. Plus, they're so great. I'm not the only one who thinks so; at one point, another editor (prolly Canadian) inserted an image of them in every ice dance article, even if they weren't mentioned. Yes, it was painful to remove them, but they're in another part of the article, anyway. ;)
Sorry 'bout that-- it's always sad to lose a nice image ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are all kinds of citation cleanup needs.
    • Page ranges use endashes. Some people apparently don't see them, but the difference between them stands out glaringly, and page ranges should use WP:ENDASHes; currently, they use hyphens, endashes and emdashes.
      1. - Hyphen (not used for page ranges)
      2. – WP:ENDASH (the first character below the window in edit mode ... you can click on it from there)
      3. — WP:EMDASH (the second character below the window in edit mode ... not used for page ranges)
      • I fixed some of these with a script,[47] but there are more that need manual checking. The script got the hyphens, but not the emdashes
Pretty sure I got the rest.
Looks good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dates ... there are random ISO dates in the citations, eg:
      • Kany, Klaus-Reinhold (9 July 2011). "The Short Dance Debate". International Figure Skating Magazine (August 2011). Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
        • Fixed that one myself with a script,[48] you might want to install that script.
I just did a visual, and it looks like all the dates are correct.
All set, !!!!
    • p v pp, sample, Kestnbaum, pp. 222 ... need to check throughout.
Got it.
Fixed throughout. 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Something wrong here? Hines (2011-xxvi">Hines (2011), p. xxvi
Yes, don't get how that happened. Fixed.
All good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP work needed, for example 10 seconds, 58 ice dancers.
Pretty sure I got this, too.
I did a lot more, see [49]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am so embarrassed to even ask, but do you need a NBSP after every number? It's not something that has come up for me before because I haven't tended to edit articles with as much numbers as figure skating articles have.
No, not after every number ... only where you want to prevent having the number end on one line, with the unit the number is about on the next line. It's only a guideline, so don't sweat it too much :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are basics that experienced FACcers should have in place :) :) I will read through today or tomorrow, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! But I'm not an experienced FACer! ;) No, I appreciate the pickiness. I'm definitely out of practice. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry for the ouch, Christine; it was unintended, and I apologize :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. It's all good and all for the best. ;)
I removed all the Elton information; much of it could be found in better sources.
Much better, !!!!
Yes, I believe that a full literature review has been done. The above sources have content that don't belong in this article (i.e., the articles about Torvill and Dean better belong in their article) or they're too old. It's true that one of the challenges with this and most other figure skating sources is a lack of recent, updated, and reliable sources, but I think that I've been able to include most of the most important sources (Kestnbaum, Hines, the ISU itself).
OK, that works for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose work needed (samples):
    • By the end of the 19th century, waltzing competitions became popular throughout the world. According to Hines, Vienna was "the dancing capital of Europe, both on and off skates" in the 19th century.
      • 19th century used twice in consecutive sentences ... can be avoided. How about inverting the order of these sentences, and combining them ... for example ... Hines writes that Vienna was "the dancing capital of Europe, both on and off skates" during the 19th century; by the end of the century, waltzing competitions became popular throughout the world.
    • Ack. According to writer Ellyn Kestnbaum, the origins of ice dance come from late 19th-century attempts by the Viennese and British to translate the waltz and other ballroom dances to the ice and to create ballroom-style performances on ice skates.
      • Would anything be lost by simplifying this to, According to writer Ellyn Kestnbaum, ice dance began with late 19th-century attempts by the Viennese and British to create ballroom-style performances on ice skates. The two clauses seem to say the same thing.
    • Redundancy ... two sentences beginning with same ... Kestnbaum argues that there was a conflict in the ice dance community between social dance and theatrical dance and that at the time, the historic and traditional cultural school of ice dance prevailed. Kestnbaum argues that ...
    • there were allegations of "bloc voting" ... passive voice. Widespread? coming from one source? who made these allegations?
    • Ack. Very long sentence, repetitive wording (gold medal, gold medal). The European dominance of ice dance was interrupted at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, when Canadian ice dance team Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir won the gold medal, marking the first time a team from North America had won a gold medal at the Olympics, and Americans Meryl Davis and Charlie White won the silver.
      • The European dominance of ice dance was interrupted at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver by Canadians Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir and Americans Meryl Davis and Charlie White. The Canadian ice dance team won the first Olympic ice dance gold medal for North America, and the Americans won the silver.

OK, so I hate nitpicky prose FAC reviews, and suggest that some prose tightening is needed in general. I'll stop for now, please ping me when I should revisit. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got the above acks. I'll go over it one more time so that you don't see as many when you return, and then I'll ping ya. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I've done the above and am ready for what's next! BTW, I don't mind the nitpicky prose reviews. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Christine. Continuing on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Time section, we have five seconds, but also 10 seconds and 30 seconds. While we typically spell out less than ten, it is important to maintain consistency within a list or section. My suggestion is to just spell out ten and thirty for consistency. I will do a full read-through next, with an eye towards supporting.
Fixed, as per your suggestion. I also went through the entire article for similar fixes.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks so much! I'm sincerely honored that you reviewed and supported. This will be the second-ever figure skating FA! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

This is a superior article from a content creator in peak form, worthy of the FA star. Some comments:

Ah, such nice words, Hawk! Thanks so much. Ah yes, I'm the WP equivalent of Alysa Liu and her quads. ;)
  • I laughed out loud at note 1. It's official is it? (But I couldn't help wondering if such an attitude contributed to the treatment of Tonya Harding.)
Ack, don't get me started about the ISU's archaic use of the word "ladies". See here for my opinion: Talk:Single skating#Ladies vs. women.
The paragraph also mentions the scandal during the 1988 Olympics. Not only doesn't the source list all the scandals, but I didn't want to list them because I don't think this is the place for that.
  • References required in the last sentence of "1970s to 1990s", the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Competition segments", and second paragraph of "Time".
Ref35 is at the end of the 1970s to 1990s section. Other two done.
  • Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir are mentioned before they are linked.
Got it.
  • Link "2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver"
Got it.
  • Split the second paragraph of "1970s to 1990s" at "The ISU pushed back"
Done.
  • An intriguing bit: "fewer available boys for girls to partner with". Suddenly the skaters have become boys and girls, and what is the reason for this disparity?
Huh, you're the first to bump into that. That's the way the source puts it; plus, we're talking about the beginning of skaters' career, when they tend to be boys and girls.
  • Another great bit: costumes must not "give the effect of excessive nudity inappropriate for the discipline". (Now I'm going to spend the rest of the day trying to imagine what excessive nudity looks like.) Overall, I get the impression of judges being like the women on the night club door ("You're not getting in here wearing that"), with all the integrity of the Eurovision popular song contest. (And if I had to perform acrobatics, I would want tights, not trousers.)
Gack, I have no response! ;)
Fabulous article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Source review
  • All sources are of high quality
  • Spot checks performed on references 27, 34, 54, 76, 84 and 85 (Aside: five thousand bucks for a skating outfit?!)
21:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Hawk. Yes, figure skating is a *very* expensive sport. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Has there been an image and source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christine, could we pls add a citation to finish the second-last para of 1970s to 1990s? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2020 [50].

Sega

edit
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog. The world's most prolific producer of arcade games. A rise that at one point had them thinking about taking shots at Disney. This is Sega, the Japanese company whose stories are among the most interesting in video games. This article has taken years of work, starting a spinout from scratch as it got too big, and work on various articles of Sega's games, hardware, and development studios to get the whole story. It's a fantastic, well-researched and highly refined article.

My goal is to have this article on the main page for Sega's 60th anniversary on June 3, 2020. It has gone through two FACs, both of which crashed solely on the basis of a lack of feedback. This will be my last attempt to make this goal. Personally, this article reflects years of efforts on Wikipedia, as it is the main article of 80-90% of my editing focus. I would like to see it proudly featured among Wikipedia's best. Red Phoenix talk 16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the following commenters from previous FACs to give more feedback: @Ritchie333:, @SnowFire:, @Megaman en m:, @Lee Vilenski:. I will also leave messages asking for feedback at WT:VG and WT:SEGA. Red Phoenix talk 16:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC). Additional:Because he has a notice on his talk page that he is willing to review FACs, I have left a message inviting The Rambling Man to this FAC. Red Phoenix talk 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPRICE (policy): "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers." There are many places in the article where the prices are policy-compliant, but a few that use only product reviews and a justified reason for including the price is not apparent. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Please review throughout for NOT policy compliance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All prices removed. I am well aware of the policy. No price listed have applied for years anyway, but I struck them all and reworded appropriately to be extra triple sure. Red Phoenix talk 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Finances chart should be scaled up
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: can you provide a suggestion of how to scale up the chart without messing up other users' screens? I thought I was told to always leave it at the default and that messing with it might mess it up for other users. Also, where am I missing alt text? I checked all of my images; they all have alt text. Thank you. Red Phoenix talk 01:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using |upright= scales the image relative to user preferences - if I've got my default set to 300 and you've got yours set to 220, |upright=1.2 will produce an image that appears at 360px for me and 264px for you. Alt text appears to have been my error. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from theJoebro64

edit

I'm gonna take a step into the House that Sonic Built later this week. JOEBRO64 19:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this and will start reviewing soon. I just have to finish reviewing a GAN right now. JOEBRO64 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joebro. I understand, we're all a little busy right now :) . Red Phoenix talk 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's a start:

  • "Sega developed its first coin-operated game, with Periscope, in the late 1960s."
  • Should Standard/Service Games be mentioned in the lede?
  • "In more recent years, it has been criticized for misguided business decisions and lack of creativity." A slight NPOV issue. I think this might need some rewriting so it doesn't seem as if we're directly saying their business decisions were poor or their games weren't creative, as that's how it comes across.

More to come. JOEBRO64 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @TheJoebro64: I used your phrasing for the first point, gave a brief namecheck to Service Games of Japan (I didn't really mention Standard Games because it's a much smaller part of the story and ended 15 years before Sega began), and tried to lighten up the POV on the last sentence. I'll be waiting for more. Red Phoenix talk 00:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done some more reading of the article and don't really have anything significant to say. The only thing that really stood out to me was that there is a bit of inconsistency if we're referring to Sega as "it/its" versus "them/their", but that's a minor quibble that can be quickly fixed. Consider this my declaration of support. JOEBRO64 15:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Zwerg Nase

edit
  • Lead: Any particular reason why Irvine is wikilinked and London isn't?
  • References: There are a couple with ALLCAPS titles, which should be changed.
  • Genesis, Sonic the Hedgehog, and mainstream success (1989–1994): "Genesis was launched in New York City and Los Angeles" - shouldn't it be "The Genesis..."?
  • Shift to third-party software development (2001–2003): "This was followed by further reductions clear the remaining inventory." - there's a word missing here.
  • No mention is made of SEGA's role in the 1993 congressional hearings on video games and the subsequent creation of the ESRB. Maybe include some information on that in the article? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zwerg Nase, and thank you for reviewing this article. To answer your comments:

    • London is not linked because of MOS:OVERLINK. Large cities which most readers would be familiar are generally not linked.
    • All of the ALLCAPS titles are fixed.
    • I honestly don't see much a difference in including "The", but I've done so anyway at your request.
    • Replaced the missing "to" in the sentence.
    • That mention I had in History of Sega, a spinout article I put together because of how large the history section of this article was getting. I've adapted that section into a paragraph and brought it over here, since it is important.

@Zwerg Nase: All comments have been addressed. Thank you for reviewing! Red Phoenix talk 11:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: Thank you for the quick responses! The ESRB section looks good, I think it is warranted to include it here as well, considering Sega basically established the predecessor. Overall, very good work, I am impressed with this article and support elevating it to FA status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indrian

edit

I did not participate in the first two FACs, but I will go ahead and throw some comments out on this one.

  • "After the war, the founders sold Standard Games and established Service Games, named for the military focus." - This is not quite accurate. Standard Games was wrapped up shortly before the end of the war in August 1945, while Service Games was not established until over a year later in September 1946. In between, the Brombergs were operating all sorts of other businesses in Hawaii, including a new game operator called California Games. As with all things early Sega, it gets convoluted, but see here for the basics.
    • I have never seen that book before. I've added a cite though the preview provided doesn't have a page number, so I used the chapter title for the time being. It looks like a good read, though I don't have $67 to purchase it at the moment. Red Phoenix talk 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in its territories in 1951, Bromley sent employees Richard Stewart and Ray LeMaire to Tokyo to establish Service Games of Japan to provide coin-operated slot machines to U.S. bases in Japan. A year later, all five men established Service Games Panama to control the various entities of Service Games worldwide." As written, this implies Sega of Japan was established in 1951 and Sega Games Panama was established in 1952 because 1951 is the only year mentioned. The companies were, of course, established in 1952 and 1953 respectively.
    • So, it turns out one of the sources used was wrong and said 1951 - ergo, the error. The bad source was removed and this was fixed. That source wasn't really useful for much anyway. Red Phoenix talk 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Rosen comes out of nowhere in the middle of the section. Some kind of transition is necessary even if its just a single word like "meanwhile."
  • "Because Sega imported second-hand machines that required frequent maintenance, it began constructing replacement guns and flippers for its imported games. This began the company's transition from importer to manufacturer." - This somewhat distorts the early manufacturing history of the company, which was really focused on slot machines far more than games. The early Sega manufactured output was in knockoffs of Mills Bell-O-Matic slot machines, which they were straight up counterfitting. Bell-O-Matic Corporation went so far as to take out ads in the trades stating that Service Games and Firm Westlee (Service Games Panama's West Germany subsidiary) Mills machines were not genuine. Not all of that detail needs to go in the top level article, but implying that game parts drove the company into the manufacturing business rather than slot machine parts is not quite right.
  • "and Esco Boueki, a coin-op distributor founded and owned by Hayao Nakayama. Nakayama was placed in charge of Sega's Japanese operations." - This is also not quite accurate. Nakayama was named co-EVP of Sega Enterprises alongside an American executive, Dane Blough. Blough ran finance and administration, while Nakayama ran basically everything else. Nakayama was not named president of Sega Enterprises Ltd. until 1982, when Dane Blough moved back to the States to serve as vice chairman of Sega-Gremlin. Again, not all that detail needs to be in the top level article, but what is here should be clarified. Once again see here for some of the detail.
    • The link was not available in my "preview" view. So for now, I adapted the quote from the source I do have, which stated that as of the acquisition Nakayama was placed in a management role. Not inaccurate, although not necessarily quite so precise, either. Red Phoenix talk 20:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We lost a CEO transition in here somewhere. David Rosen retired and was replaced as CEO of Sega Enterprises, Inc. by former Mattel Electronics president Jeff Rochlis.
  • "Following a downturn in the arcade business starting in 1982, Gulf and Western sold its North American arcade game manufacturing organization and the licensing rights for its arcade games to Bally Manufacturing." - As above, by only including the 1982 date here, the article implies that is the year these operations were sold rather than 1983.
    • Ah, not something I caught. Found a source, added the date, and cited it.
  • "However, by 1984 the Famicom began to outpace the SG-1000. " - Sega sold 160,000 units in 1983, while Nintendo sold 500,000 units even with its recall problems. To say that the Famicom only started to outpace the SG-1000 in 1984 is not accurate.
  • Its continuing success since its release in the region in September 1989 makes the Master System the longest-lived console in history." - I would be careful of making this claim. The "Master System" units available in Brazil for well over a decade have been emulated systems that lack a cartridge slot and only allow the playing of built in games. How is that any different from an Atari Flashback or an NES Mini?
  • " In 1986, Sega of America was established to manage the company's consumer products in North America." - If I am reading this article without knowing much about the topic, I am wondering why if there is a Sega of America in 1986 then the Master System is being marketed by Tonka. I know you are trying to streamline the top-level article, but inconsistencies like this should be handled even if only briefly.
  • " Artist Naoto Ohshima proposed a hedgehog with red shoes he called "Mr. Needlemouse". This character was renamed Sonic the Hedgehog, and went on to feature in one of the best-selling video game franchises in history." - Again, I know we want to keep this brief, but this is a distortion of the Sonic creation. Oshima created a rabbit character that was later modified into a hedgehog because Naka and Yasuhara wanted a character that could roll into a ball to emphasize the speed of the game (an armadillo was also considered). When the team decided on a hedgehog character, Oshima pulled out an old drawing that included a hedgehog named "Mr. Harinezumi." Harinezumi is the Japanese word for hedgehog, but the kanji could be translated literally as "spikey rodent." Someone in the US office apparently did such a literal translation and incorrectly called the character "Mr. Needlemouse." Oshima never did. While Mr. Harinezumi was used as the basis for Sonic, this was not the original mascot character chosen for the game in the company-wide competition.
  • "By January 1992, Sega controlled 65 percent of the 16-bit console market, making it the first time Nintendo was not the console leader since 1985." - This statement is not accurate. While Sega probably did have around 65% of the 16-bit market (Nintendo disputed this, of course, which is always how it goes), 16-bit systems were not the entire video game market. When 8-bit sales are factored in, Nintendo was thought to still have over 70% of the video game market. They were still the console leader, so this statement needs to be qualified.
  • In tandem with the above, the article somehow leaves out when Sega actually did trounce Nintendo in the United States, which was 1993. As written, the article appears to state Sega was in decline by then due to its peripheral madness, but this was its best period in the home. I know there is a mention of the four straight years of Christmas victories, but the implication in the article now is that Sega blew Nintendo away in 1991 and never looked back. In fact Nintendo bounced back very well in 1992 with a price cut and key exclusives, but then blew 1993 due in large part to censoring Mortal Kombat.
  • "The Model 2 was equipped with better hardware than any home video game consoles at the time." - New arcade hardware has always been better than contemporaneous console hardware because coin-op games sell for thousands of dollars instead of hundreds of dollars. Not sure why this is being singled out here.
  • "With lifetime sales of 9.26 million units, the Saturn is considered a commercial failure, although its 5.75 million units sold in Japan surpassed the Nintendo 64's 5.54 million." - This is a highly POV statement trying to soft pedal the Saturn's failure through a comparison that is not apt. Globally, the Saturn was a disaster and greatly outsold by the N64, which had a much stronger showing in the United States and Europe than Saturn did. Also, Sega sold many of those Japanese systems early, before the N64 was even on the market. By March 1996, Sega had already sold 2.5 million of those Japanese Saturns, while the N64 would not be out for another three months. Clearly, the head-to-head figures for the two systems are not going to look very flattering for Sega. And Sony PlayStation sales are not mentioned at all, which of course obliterated both the Sega and Nintendo systems.
  • "During 2003, Sega had plans of partnering with John Woo on development of video games by his Tiger Hill Entertainment studio, but plans fell through." - Is this really an important company milestone?

The above is a start on some of the factual issues in the article, but honestly I think there is still a lot more work to be done here. Trying to encapsulate the entirety of a long-running multinational corporation in the space of a single wikipedia article is an immense challenge, which I imagine is why FAs on such topics are exceedingly rare. The huge amount of work done here is truly both remarkable and commendable, but a lot of the article is still essentially just names and dates that could have been taken from press releases, which brings into question its comprehensiveness. I think a little more of the "how and why" of Sega still needs to be included to complement the "who, when, and where." We'll see how this develops. Indrian (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your comments so far. A fair bit of these issues have to do as it usually does with what we call "reliable sources" and what's accurate in them and what isn't. Some of it is a lack of clarity in their wording, and a bit of it is my error, naturally. That being said, you and I don't disagree often, but I do respectfully disagree that there is a lack of comprehensiveness here. I'm going to try to give you the best argument I can, and I apologize if it's not concise and I also assure we will still be good colleagues no matter the result--unlike the Sega Saturn GA fiasco, which I have long regretted.
There are only six company FAs, and none have passed since 2012. While I did look at all of them to get ideas on how to write this article, not all of them are FA-standard anymore, and Sega has a more comprehensive history section than all of them. To get a better idea of a structure for a multinational company, I looked at Walmart. At present, Sega, the article, is 165kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, it's actually pretty big as it is, and it contains 293 citations. The idea for History of Sega came from me seeing History of Walmart and History of Nintendo. In History of Sega, I have tried to incorporate more interviews and commentary to accommodate more of the how and the why. Much as I'd love to put all of this together, History of Sega has an additional 121 citations compared to Sega's history section (368, vs 247 through "History" in the Sega article), and it's 214kB. Therefore, being concise is critical because of the size we're working with already.
If I had the sources, I would love to keep expanding on the subject and include more of the how and the why. However, History of Sega is the place to do that, and expanding it any further will probably result in another article split - which I'm certainly not against if it does get bigger. The history has to be somewhat concise here to combine with the other sections and present the highest quality summary of Sega that can be covered from reliable sources, both past and present, and how the company is viewed in the industry. This isn't meant to be a cop-out for this article, and I hope one can see that in History of Sega as well, which I do feel includes more how and why and I've continued to attempt to expand and try to add detail. Unfortunately, we don't consider articles in tandem at FAC even for spinouts, as far as I'm aware.
I hope you will consider my words about being concise and expanding that material elsewhere carefully, and I will listen carefully to a counterargument. I also look forward to more comments. Red Phoenix talk 23:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sjones23

edit

Hey there. I'm the one who reviewed and promoted Sega to GA, so I'll try to review most of it sometime this week. Meanwhile, we should change the # symbol to No. as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Number signs and all dead citations should be archived (the live links should also be archived as well to avoid potential link rot). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjones23; I changed the # symbol and re-archived the sources. I don't see any more that are unarchived. Looking forward to more comments. Red Phoenix talk 01:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjones23: I apologize if I'm bothering you, but I look forward to your review and feedback. Thank you. Red Phoenix talk 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64, Indrian, and Sjones23: I am looking forward to more comments. As an FYI to all, I should be able to respond quicker, as I'm now on quarantine for two weeks. Red Phoenix talk 12:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: Sorry for the late reply. I ran the article through the copyvio bot and it reported a 36.3% ("violation unlikely"). Otherwise, this article looks good. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjones23:. Thank you; I appreciate your return to look at this article one more time. To answer any concern you may have on the copyvio bot, I ran it myself before I nominated this article at FAC. There is an article I ran it on that says 92.8% on a WordPress site, but this takes blatantly from my previous work at Dreamcast - noting the WordPress site says on it it was this person's idea in 2016, while I worked extensively on Dreamcast and had it promoted to GA in 2014, that prose has changed little in the years since, and I did use a fair bit of it for one of the sections in this article (and did attribute in the edit summary for respective edits). On the remaining articles in the list with a higher rate (36%, and going down), all of them are sources for this article and all of the highlighted "violations" are actually used in direct quotes attributed to people at Sega who said them or opinions of the authors who wrote them, and of course, properly attributed in the article. Red Phoenix talk 09:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: That works for me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire

edit

I reviewed this during its first FAC and supported then. Looking at a diff since the second FAC, just some minor quibbles...

  • "In 1986, Sega of America was established to manage the company's consumer products in North America, though Sega's partnership with Tonka caused most of Sega of America's infrastructure to be shut down during that period." - Bit of a mood whiplash here, with the "though." Did the source really say that Sega of America was established, ramped up, hired a bunch of people, then laid everybody off after it turned out Tonka would handle the Master System? Just say that more explicitly then. If what this really means is "Sega of America was established in 1986, but was small and tiny and Tonka handled most everything around then" write something like that rather than the current sentence.
    • The second is mostly right, but not quite - according to Playing at the Next Level (the source used), it's a little complex and I'll admit I was trying not to be too wordy here. Essentially, a lot of the marketing and game adaptation for the North American market that Sega of America had done was shut down so Tonka could do the marketing and distribution. Nothing in the source indicates layoffs, but that they did customer support and a little localization. I rephrased to try and explain this better; it did result in having to add more to explain it. Red Phoenix talk 01:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Kalinske revealed the release price and revealed that Sega had shipped 30,000 Saturns to Toys "R" Us, Babbage's, Electronics Boutique, and Software Etc. for immediate release" - I realize that SandyGeorgia brought up WP:NOTPRICE above, but removing the price renders that sentence weird with a double revelation. "Kalinske announced that Sega had shipped..." and then include another sentence later that mentions the Saturn's high price point as a barrier to adoption for the console with quoting the actual price optional.
    • I'll do you one better - I added in a bit more about why the Saturn struggled, including the price being high. Had to track down a new magazine source for it, but it works. Even the Sega Saturn article was not quite so explicit on this. I do understand not all reviewers have time, but I kinda wish SandyGeorgia would have had time to tell me which ones she felt violated policy and which ones didn't instead of just quoting the policy - we wouldn't have had this issue in that case.
  • Related to the above, but if the references support it, the Dreamcast price cut appears quite significant - it went to 2/3 the launch price in less than a year, it seems! The magnitude of the slash from 30K yen to 20K yen certainly reads as significant enough to be mentioned to me, if the sources support it. (Again, even if you don't want to mention the prices outright, surely something exists to suggest the magnitude of the change - there's a big difference between a 5% price cut and a 33% price cut.)
    • I added "in Japan by JP¥9100". The source has both prices right next to each other in the same sentence. Anyone who reads that and can do math isn't going to challenge it, and it's technically not a price, it's a difference with context.
  • " In December 2000, The New York Times reported that Nintendo and Sega were holding discussions regarding a potential US$2 billion buyout" - well this obviously didn't happen. What's the relevance here? There's lots of things that didn't happen that could be mentioned. Was this a relevant rumor? Do the references think Sega was lying to save face and the NYT was right, say? I see above that Indrian talked about the seeming lack of high relevance for the John Woo studio deal, but at least that actually happened and was then abandoned. It's not clear if the Nintendo-Sega deal negotiations was a thing that happened at all currently. (If they did, then say so - "Sega and Nintendo denied it, but according to historian John Doe, everyone knew they were just saving Sega the humiliation.")
    • Just responding to this as the person who added this, but I think it's worth mentioning because (A) the Times is a highly regarded publication and wouldn't just make this up and (B) Nintendo is a significant company which makes the fact it nearly happened notable. Reuters also reported on the discussions (though the link to the Reuters article is dead, it's mentioned in this Geek.com article) so it's more likely than not that the discussions did actually happen and just fell apart. JOEBRO64 00:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article written by a young Andrew Ross Sorkin no less, before he was famous. The Geek.com article is just citing the NYT article so isn't independent confirmation. Did any later scholars or book authors come back to this? "Negotiations collapse after stock market hit to Nintendo" would be relevant to mention, sure, but "journalist writes inaccurate article about Sega, causes brief stock price shift" is not really important. And the article itself notes that everybody denied this was even happening at all on the record. It'd be nice if this was sourced to a non-contemporary source, if possible... SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re some of the above concerns - I think it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. A large corporation with a long history will inherently have some matters of style & taste for what to include. I'm satisfied with the current balance of comprehensiveness vs. WP:SIZE, as well as the facets chosen to focus on. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: Thank you for commenting! I've addressed your comments. I like what you said about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - I struggled with that mightily in putting this and many other articles together, I feel. I think I'll be taking that advice with me in my future editing (situationally, of course). Red Phoenix talk 02:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support. SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian and Sjones23: I'm sorry to trouble you again, but I'm running out of time if I'm going to get this on the main page on June 3. Is there any chance you can finish your reviews soon? Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 21:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example the president of Sega Europe
    • Inserted, actually put a sentence about Dale taking the job in as well. Red Phoenix talk 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a further aside, everything in the infobox should be traceable to a source. The only other questionable one was the name of the tower where their headquarters is, but I don't even really see how that's necessary - and another editor sent me a thanks when I removed it.
  • Similarly some of the details in the lead don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example that the sale to Gulf and Western was "In an effort to become a publicly traded company"
    • This one was actually because the excess detail about this was moved to History of Sega and trimmed down from here. Removed from the lead.
      • Lead looks fine to me otherwise. If you have other concerns, let me know.
  • Some of the details in captions warrant citing - for example that the red logo was used until 1975
    • I can't find that one, but I did remove the year. I don't think there's any lack of understanding in knowing precisely what year the changeover on the logo was made.
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Fn1 is missing page numbers
  • FN7 has a duplicated publication
  • FN11: is this an authorized republication?
    • Hard to say for sure, but I'm going to assume no - and that's kind of funny, because other normally reliable sources have jumped all over it and talked about the translation. I found the book and was able to find some page numbers, and then removed the Shmuplations link just to be on the safe side. Red Phoenix talk 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the documentation for {{cite news}}, publisher is usually omitted when substantially identical to the publication title. More broadly though, with this in mind you should be consistent in when publisher is included and when it is not
  • Subscription and via attributions should use the separate |via= rather than being bunched into the publication title
  • FN21 is missing page numbers - check other NewsBank refs, there are generally page numbers provided by the database
  • FN22 returns a harv error
    • Found out the hard way that setting a ref parameter means you can't use the sfn template for the same. Fixed by simply reformatting FN22 to be consistent with other refs to the same source. Red Phoenix talk 01:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When is "61 March 1995"? ;-)
    • So you'll get a laugh out of this one - 61 was the page number, and the cite journal template actually made it look like it was part of the date, lol. I changed "page" to "pages" which made the template insert a period. Red Phoenix talk 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN47: the website title is redundant here
  • Be consistent in when you include locations for periodicals

I'm going to pause here and suggest you first add any citations that are missing, and then go through all of the citations and make sure they're consistently formatted before proceeding. For the moment I'm going to oppose on sources just because there's a significant chunk of work that's going to be required here; happy to revisit once some of that's been done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nikkimaria: Please revisit asap; I spent several hours tonight weeding all of the minor inconsistencies out. What I went with was no publishers where there is a website parameter listed, and no URL-based website parameters - publishers are used instead. I also chose no locations for book publishings, and fixed all of the minor issues above, including en dashes. I apologize if I'm rushing you, but I'm almost out of time if I'm going to make my goal of getting this article to FA in time to be on the main page on June 3. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 04:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still seeing some unsourced info in the infobox - for example the cited source identifies someone else as the chairman and gives the currently listed individual a different title
    • I see that the new source for financial data gave the officer listing for Sega Sammy Holdings, but not Sega. The company gives their financial data all at once for all of their subsidiaries. I threw in another source in the infobox announcing positions for Sega, specifically.
  • Still seeing some unsourced info in the captions - for example that Sonic became the mascot in 1991
    • I was pretty sure this was covered in a source in the paragraph next to it, but I've taken the liberty of adding another one anyway.
  • FN8: issue? Same with FN28, check others
  • Fn15: date doesn't match source
    • Must've been a fat-finger typo.
  • FN16: source includes a specific date. Same with FN25, check others
  • FN29: source includes a page number. Same with FN39, check others
  • Fn32: date?
  • FNs41 and 42 are to the same publication but are differently formatted
  • FN51: author name is misspelled
  • FN55 includes publication location while other similar references don't. Same with FN63, check others
  • FN56 uses a URL-based website parameter - you mentioned above you weren't doing that? Same with FN61, check others
    • A quick side note here - I fixed what you were seeing (and certainly not ones I caught on the first pass because they were less obvious), but there will be one or two occurrences where the name is a .com, or something like that. 1Up.com, for instance, that is the site's name and what we use on Wikipedia, not just "1Up".
  • Businessweek or Business Week?
  • FN70: page, issue? Same with FN73, check others
  • FN74: accessdate?
  • Hansard is a publication title
  • FNs 52 and 86 are the same
  • FN91: publication title is AllGame not Allgame

Stopping there - still some work to do here, I'm afraid. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nikkimaria: We are ready for another look - I trawled the whole reference list as well as your notes. I did 34 edits today since this morning to fix the issues, including all of your notes so far. Please let me know what other concerns you have and what needs addressed. Red Phoenix talk 21:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: author name is misspelled. Same with FN161, check for others
  • FN29 is missing agency attribution
    • I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean for this one. Red Phoenix talk 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than being attributed to a specific author, it's credited to a press agency, so should use |agency=Associated Press. This attribution is also missing in FN169, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Awesome to know. Specifically a cite news feature, I see - I don't frequently work with newspaper-based sources. I added to those two, and found two more that I gave this attribution.
  • FN39 is missing author
    • Done
  • How are you deciding when to include publisher for periodicals? I see it in FN41 but not in many others
    • That was my mistake; it made no sense anyway to have that publisher when it's practically the same name as the periodical. Removed.
  • BBC is a publisher. Same with CNN, check for others
    • Fixed all occurrences of BBC and CNN
  • FN59 is missing date
    • Done
  • FN63 has the same issue flagged in the last round
    • Oh crud, sorry. I didn't even see that one. Fixed.
  • FN70 was flagged in the last round, as was FN73
    • ... And that one I must have missed entirely. My apologies. I couldn't find info on issue and page for Video Business, but I was able to replace one with an existing book and the other I just struck as being supported by the other sources present around it.
  • FN76 formats author differently from other refs. Same with FN109, check for others
    • Fixed the broken formatting, and I didn't see any others on a check.
  • FN136: this citation is intermingling the chapter author and the book editors - they should be in separate parameters
    • Fixed. I learned about new parameters for the template in figuring out how to fix this, so that's good.
  • FN145: date doesn't match source. Same with FN166, check for others
    • Here's the deal here: I changed all the dates for articles sourced to GameSpot (so more like 8 sources changed). I'm almost positive all of their dates are wrong for articles published before the year 2000, but Internet Archive doesn't have anything older and nothing on their site says an original date, so I guess we'll just go with what their site says.
  • FN132 and 146 are the same
    • Fixed. I caught another duplicate cite I hadn't seen, too. I don't see any more at this time.
  • What makes International Business Times a high-quality reliable source? See WP:RSP
    • Honestly, I was not familiar with RSP (Believe it or not. But I'm more than familiar with WP:VG/S, which I use more anyway). Replaced with an IGN source
  • What makes Kikizo a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's published by Adam Doree, and his site was previously published by AOL. That being said, just to be extra triple sure I went ahead and replaced the source with 4Gamer.net, which is in Japanese but is listed at VG/S.

@Nikkimaria: Ready for more when you are. I apologize for the flags I missed the previous go-around. I've put a few more hours into trying to get this right, and I appreciate your patience. Red Phoenix talk 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN141 still includes location. Same with 286, check for others
    • It was just those two - I did a search for the parameter under source editing. Still can't believe I missed them, but I have it.
  • Fn157: I see that Eurogamer is generally considered reliable, but am not sure about this particular case as the author's background is unknown
    • I looked it up - that's actually John "Gestalt" Bye, one of the founding members of Eurogamer and writer for magazines before that. I'll update with his actual name.
  • FN164: date doesn't match source. Same with FN171, check for others
    • Fixed. Both of those were CNET, and I think that may make sense in light of GameSpot's dates being wrong - GameSpot was owned by CNET at one time.
  • FN202 doesn't match author formatting of other sources
    • Fixed. I also went through again to look for any others and came up empty.
  • FN214: don't see that author named at the source?
    • Odd that it's not in the current page, but it is in the archive for it. I'd hate to remove attribution to someone just because their website did, especially since it's in the linked source archive, unless I'm told it needs gone.
  • FN220: author is misspelled. Same with FN223, 259, check for others
    • Fixed all three. Have not seen any others as of yet.
  • FN221 is missing author
    • Missing author added
  • What makes Crunchyroll a high-quality reliable source?
    • I was just trying to keep this info in English, but I went ahead and replaced it with the source itself for the Crunchyroll article, which is the Japanese website 4Gamer.net, considered reliable per WP:VG/S
  • FN151 and 262 are the same
    • Consolidated.
  • FN288: why not cite the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Initially, that was because I couldn't find it. But I did, now, and I have replaced it with Famitsu.

@Nikkimaria: All comments addressed. If there is another wave, I'll be ready for it. Thank you for your detailed review so far; I have never had such a detailed source formatting review before, and it's nice to learn new things about references during this process - twelve years and six FAs into my time on Wikipedia, ha ha. Red Phoenix talk 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN1 should use dash not hyphen
    • Done.
  • FN4: something to be aware of with using Google Books is that their metadata isn't always the greatest - for example this ISBN appears to correspond to a different edition, it doesn't match the one in the actual book
    • I'm a little lost here - the one in the actual book is an ISBN-10 but it converts to that ISBN-13. I can't find anything for another edition.
  • Fn69: date doesn't match source
    • I'm not sure if you're looking at the URL, which says 1994-2-20 but opening the article itself it says February 21, 1994 (at 12 AM, no less). Shouldn't that mean we stick with the 21st?
      • It says Feb 20 for me, at 11PM - looks like this is one of those annoying sites that adjusts the publication date based on your time zone. Since the URL says Feb 20 I'd go with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh lovely. Well, in that case, I have done the change.
  • FN70: generally book publications don't include a day-level date, year is more appropriate
    • Done
  • FN131: if this publication has a full name suggest using that instead, and also quotes within quotes should use single quote marks - this happens elsewhere too
    • It sure does - that's Electronic Gaming Monthly. I fixed the quote issue too and found four more that I fixed.
      • Looks like there's at least one other, FN186.
        • Ah, the "Dreamlast" quote. Missed that one, sorry.
  • Fn210: Bloomberg here could be treated as either a publisher or an agency, but it shouldn't be a publication title
    • Since it's from their website, I'll set it as publisher.
  • Fn253: the page name appears to be "Our Back Story" rather than what's in the footnote
    • Done
  • FN264: not a requirement, but as this appears to be available free online I'd suggest linking it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a bad idea. Done.

@Nikkimaria: Comments addressed, but a couple of questions back this time in the above responses. Let me know what you think or if there's more to address. Thank you again for your time in conducting this review. Red Phoenix talk 21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the two changes flagged above this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: All done, thanks again! Red Phoenix talk 21:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Namcokid47

edit

I hate to even say this, but I don't know if this is ready to be an FA yet. As a GA it's a total win, as an FA I'm not 100% sure. I personally have to agree with Indrian here in that a lot of this article feels like names and dates from press releases, without having much of a "why and how" here. This is a fantastic article and I've used it as a base for my drafts on Namco and Bandai Namco Entertainment, but I think this needs some more time in the oven. The references are another point of concern, as a lot of them are indeed from press releases or corporate websites instead of video game books or publications (the near-entirety of the Corporate Structure uses primary sources - this is fine when sourcing revenue or smaller sub-divisions, but surely some third-party sources could be found for them), and some of them are not formatted properly or don't have consistent dates. I also noticed multiple instances of the article switching from "their/they" and "it/its" when referring to Sega, which needs to be fixed.

I know full well you've poured so much time and effort into this one article, and the amount of content and the writing quality is excellent. However, there's still some issues with it, such as its comprehensiveness and references, that I don't know if it's fully-ready to be an FA. Sega is a massive company with a lengthy corporate history behind it, so I know it's hard to pinpoint every single thing that they've done, but that's probably why so few company articles are at FA. I'll give this another work if I see my concerns be addressed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namcokid47: I disagree with pretty much your entire assessment, and a lot of it has been refuted already if you read above - it's almost all been brought up already. Let me see if I can break this down, point by point, and address each concern you have brought up in your comments.
  • Concern 1: they/their vs it/its, originally by TheJoebro64 — Fair; I hadn't gotten to fixing it yet. I filtered it tonight to use "it/its", which is more consistent with American English and matches with the lead "Sega is", not "Sega are". That's now done.
  • Concern 2: Formatting/Consistent dates, originally by Nikkimaria — That's the whole point of a source review, to catch these issues. That's also why source reviews are mandatory at FACs for an article to pass. I trust Nikkimaria, who is a highly established editor and coordinator at WP:FAR, to catch the issues that would be in the way of this article advancing to FA status. And we're almost done, too. That an article with 290 sources would take so many comments doesn't surprise me. It's a lot to keep track of, and getting extra eyes on reference sections is usually almost impossible otherwise.
  • Concern 3: References from "press releases" instead of "video game books/publications" - Take a good look at any book on the history of video games. I'll name four of them right here that were used in this article:
  • Steven L Kent's The Ultimate History of Video Games
  • Ken Horowitz's The Sega Arcade Revolution: A History in 62 Games
  • Alexander Smith's They Create Worlds
  • Roberto Dillon's The Golden Age of Video Games
  • All of them share something in common - they include a lot of the same cites. In the books, yes - the authors cite where they learned of this part of the history. And wherever such a citation came from and whenever possible, I preferred to find that citation and include straight from that source, rather than the book. If that's where the information actually came from, that's what should be cited, ideally. There are a couple of press releases used, true. That's because sometimes that's the only way to get the necessary level of detail (for instance in Corporate Structure, other sources covered the "Sega Games" conversion but only the press release spoke of Sega Corporation specifically becoming Sega Games and the holding company being built on top of it). Sources on current corporate structure are naturally weaker with Sega drawing less interest since the Sammy merger and their quietness in making changes internally since then, but I don't see the number of primary sources with an issue as it's not citing questionable facts or establishing notability, and it's comparatively small in proportion with the whole article. Some of the sources from reputable reliable sources are probably based heavily on press releases, with a bit of analysis that was not included, true. But that ties into concern 4, below:
  • Concern 4: Not enough of the "how and why" Then tell me what you want to cut out of the article. The how and why is why History of Sega exists, and it contains a lot more of it. Here, we hit the main bases and we're hitting the top of WP:SIZERULE - so much so that part of the reason for the spinout of History of Sega was I was actually crashing the VisualEditor because of the size. Is History of Sega done? No, of course not, but it's equipped with a good bit of this already, and we don't consider groups of articles at FAC. Unfortunately Indrian has not responded to repeated pings to respond to my refutation, but SnowFire, one of the article reviewers, stated their satisfaction with the comprehensiveness in response to Indrian's concern, and that "it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good", a phrase I actually took to heart.
  • I want to point out that I consider Sega the top, overarching article for a number of sub-articles that do have a lot of this information, including History of Sega, SG-1000, Master System, Sega Genesis, Sega Saturn, and Dreamcast, among others. Four of those are FAs and three of those are GAs, and they incorporate a fair bit of history with them as well, as well as the how and the why. I envision Sega development studios as fulfilling that role for R&D down the road, where studios such as Sega AM2 and Sonic Team have that information already as well. So, the how and the why is there in a lot of senses. They're simply spun out into other articles.
I don't know if I can explain it better than that, but this I know: This article is in FA shape. It's ready for this. It's comprehensive as a top-level overarch of the company, with a number of sub-articles that give the details, in a streamlined format to give the most concise explanation within the space allotted. It's in excellent shape, and the minor issues not caught at two previous GA reviews, two previous FACs, and a previous peer review are being addressed. As long as things move the right way, it's ready to be on the main page on June 3, just two weeks away (and I've been working with the TFAR coordinators to try and make it happen). And my mind is made up on that. I have zero doubt, and zero uncertainty, that it's ready. Red Phoenix talk 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I have not done a good effort at reviewing the article, from bringing up already-corrected errors and providing those that were not even remotely that big of a deal. There's obviously a well-researched, well-documented amount of info here, so my claim of "it's not very comprehensive" was complete BS (alongside the references - they're an easy fix and should no means be an argument to oppose an FAC). I spent a good amount of time reading over the article, and I give this a full support. @Red Phoenix: I sincerely apologize for my poor, lackluster job at reviewing the article. I don't know if I'm even close to having enough experience to comment on FACs (or even GANs), so I basically parroted comments that have already been resolved, which is inappropriate. I vote to support this article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Namcokid47: Hey, no worries :-) . FACs are tough for both nominators and reviewers, and I’ve been on the wrong side of both aspects before. If you’d like in the future, I’d be glad to help teach you some finer points of FAC and reviewing. Red Phoenix talk 16:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - I am working with the TFA coordinators on getting this article to the Main Page on June 3, in two weeks’ time, provided it passes. If it’s not too much trouble, to help them in such a short timeframe can I get a set of eyes to look this over sooner rather than later? By my count we are at 4 supports and no opposes (Nikkimaria’s was struck), a complete image and source review presuming Nikkimaria didn’t have more after striking the oppose, and everyone expressed satisfaction at their comments being resolved except for Indrian, who I pinged at least twice but did not receive any response - while other editors were swayed by my counter arguments. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 16:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pls check and rationalise the duplinks in the article post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [51].

Knap Hill

edit
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Neolithic site on a hill in northern Wiltshire. It's a causewayed enclosure, one of the major types of Neolithic earthwork, and is historically interesting as it's the first one that was excavated to the point where the characteristics of a causewayed enclosure could be clearly seen -- an encircling ditch and bank with many more entrances, or causeways, than made sense if the earthworks were for defence. The article has had a very thorough review by Dudley Miles, and is much improved as a result; I believe it's ready for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • Support. My queries about this first rate article were dealt with in my review.
  • I have one further suggestion. In the first paragraph on Connah, after "into Early and Late Neolithic.", I suggest starting a new paragraph: "In addition to the Windmill Hill ware, pottery from later periods was found in upper layers." You could then delete "they were not associated with the earliest strata" and the reference to upper layers below. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've split the paragraph as suggested, but I left part of the explanation just to be on the safe side. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike, no change needed but just clarifying: "The conclusion was that there was a 91% chance that Knap Hill was constructed between 3530 and 3375 BC, and a 92% chance that the ditch had silted up at some time between 3525 and 3220 BC." So this means that it is theoretically possible that the ditch silted up five years after it was constructed? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I thought about trying to get something of this into the article but it's too complicated for easy summarization. Essentially what they produced was a graph showing how likely it was that the silt was accumulating for 1 year, for 2 years, and so on, up to 2500 years. There are two peaks in the graph: 23% chance it was silting up for between 1 and 65 years, and a 45% chance it took between 115 and 280 years. (The 92% number you're quoting from the article is a summarization of this data at a higher level.) The researchers sum up by saying "we believe that a short duration, probably of well under a century, and perhaps only a generation or two, is more plausible". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit

Looking now....

Otherwise looks pretty comprehensive and well-written - on track for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas: all done but one, which I'd like to leave as is. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Spotcheck

  • I checked Andersen 2019 for CP.
  • Article: Causewayed enclosures are characterized by […] segmented ditches .
  • Source: The causewayed enclosures […] are characterized by a system of ditches, one or more palisades, and occasionally, banks
    Rephrased to: "Causewayed enclosures are areas that are fully or partially enclosed by segmented ditches...often with earthworks and palisades in some combination". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find it kinda awkward to have full sentences within parentheses out in the prose—try dashes instead.
That sentence was originally a footnote, but another suggested it needed to be in the main text. I'd prefer to keep the parentheses as they are, if you've no objections; to me dashes are used for thoughts more closely related than this is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whitesheet Hill is duplinked.
  • I agree some of the maps are unusually large, especially the text under background is squeezed. Would it hurt to put them down to about half size?

With two reviewers complaining, I've bowed to the inevitable and shrunk the maps. A couple are still over 1.8; are they OK at that size? Duplink removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more balanced to me, yeah. And not really much loss of detail. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to know, so probably warrants a footnote? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Wiltshire at first mention outside intro, and also in infobox image caption.
    I linked it in the body, but the infobox throws a Lua error if I make it [[Wiltshire]] in the location definition. Is there a way around that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have some other higher res photos[52][53] of the hill, why not show one under site, for example?
    Good idea; I cropped one of them, since they're mostly foreground and sky. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romano-British occupation" Link?
    Linked in the lead; I know this was linked in a prior version but somehow I guess it got erased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and this is probably not by chance." Any theories as to what the purpose was, then?
    Not really! The source says "It must be assumed that the siting of such important monuments was not haphazard, but was conceived and thought through in advance; the distinctive trait could therefore be significant"; here "the distinctive trait" refers to the fact that the sites have striking topography when seen from below, but are only actually visible from higher ground. I read this as saying "it looks like they chose this kind of site deliberately but we don't know why". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site has been scheduled as an ancient monument." Maybe nice to note when?
    The "designation1_date" parameter would let me do that if I knew the date, but from the Historic England entry I see no clues to when it was listed. Apparently the data was imported from another system and it seems that information didn't make it across, or at least isn't visible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state the occupation of people you mention in the first two sections, but why stop when you reach Antiquarian and archaeological investigations and onwards?
    It was unconscious but I think probably because I assumed readers would gather these were antiquarians and archaeologists. I would have trouble finding a cite for a description of Phillips; the sources only talk about what he did and not at all about him. I'd guess he was an archaeologist but I don't know. The Cunningtons and Connah could be described as archaeologists, and Aubrey and Hoare as antiquarians, if you think it's necessary; Thurman I'd have to look up but he probably is more archaeologist than antiquarian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Colt Hoare mentions Knap Hill early in the 19th century" Why present tense here, when everything else is past tense when you refer to various historical commentaries?
    Fixed; thanks for the catch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "note by Maud Cunnington" Is her last name needed right after her full name has been mentioned?
    I have read elsewhere that using first names for women is often considered demeaning, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, isn't sentences like "and Cunnington concluded that they were contemporary" equally problematic, as they assume the man is the "real" Cunnington? Wouldn't it also be best to give full names for both each times they are mentioned (or only first names for both after first mention)? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in theory no, because Maud wrote the article, so "Cunnington" there just refers to her. But if it's too confusing as written perhaps I should spell out "Maud Cunnington" every time it's just her. There are twelve instances of "Cunnington" referring to her in the article; I think it would be clunky to make all of them "Maud Cunnington", but I can do it if you think it's necessary. I just realized I never explicitly say in the body of the article that Maud Cunnington was the sole author of the 1912 article (I do say so for the 1909 paper). What if I start the third paragraph of that section with "Maud Cunnington described the excavation in a 1912 paper. She and Benjamin excavated a 54 feet..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, because I thought when you just used the lastname that it referred to the man. Hmm, yeah, as long as you make it clear at the beginning of a paragrapgh which one you refer to, it should be ok with lastnames after. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was this one taken care of? I should be ready to support after this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed this comment. I implemented the change suggested above. FunkMonk: pinging to see if there's anything else. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there are some conventions I don't know of, but the punctuation in the quote under Benjamin and Maud Cunnington, 1908-9 seems very inconsistent. Sometimes tou have "purposes.... Excavations", four full stuffs with space, other places you have "that...some of these", three full stops, no space. But then you also have "camp... The" three full stops, with space. Should this be standardised?
    Fixed. The rule I learned was three full stops for an ellipsis, plus one and a space for the end of a sentence. I wasn't being consistent with that rule, but anyway MOS:ELLIPSIS says not to add the fourth one unless it's syntactically important. It should be MoS-compliant now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only human bone found was a small jaw bone with worn teeth" Under what circumstances was it feposited there? Intentional burial?
    Cunnington doesn't say; it's listed along with other finds from the ditches, but she says nothing about context and doesn't speculate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cunnington speculated that the skeleton had been placed so near the surface of the barrow that the missing bones had been disturbed by animals." When you say placed, do you mean by people? And wouldn't it have been a body at the time?
    Changed to "speculated that the body had been buried". In some cases interments were indeed of skeletons that had been previously buried; if I recall correctly this is known to have happened both in barrows and in the ditches of causewayed enclosures. However, Cunnington says 'body' elsewhere, so I changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Glossary of archaeology links don't go to specific sections on that page (should be possible to do so).
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knap Hill is notable for having been the first causewayed enclosure to be excavated and identified" Give date here?
    It's mentioned in the very next sentence, after the paragraph break; is that not close enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it referred to the 1850s date, though, which isn't mentioned in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first excavation of the enclosure was the Cunningtons -- Thurman excavated one of the barrows outside the enclosure. I've reworded the lead to make it clearer; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so were called "causewayed camps", but that name has fallen out of use." Only seems to be stated in the intro.
    Now mentioned in the background section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit disjointed that you, unlike the order in the article body, start the intro with location, and end with more location info, instead of keeping it in one place.
    That was in response to a comment Dudley Miles made in the talk page review: Most of the lead paragraph is about other earthworks. I suggest devoting the first paragraph to an explanation of causewayed enclosures and a description of the site, and move the comments about other sites to a fourth paragraph of the lead. Dudley, can you comment? I'd be OK with moving the material at the end of the lead back up but I don't want to reverse an edit made in response to a reviewer without checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "implied a catastrophic end" and "imply a violent end", I wonder if these could be consolidated? Not entirely the same meaning.
    I agree. Cunnington is a little circumspect about this, and I don't want to go beyond what she says. She says the quern in the fireplace, and the heat damage to it, "is suggestive of a conflagration and the desertion of the site afterwards. If such a catastrophe did indeed take place, the discovery of a sixth-century Saxon sword may be considered as affording a possible clue to the date and cause of the occurrence". I could make it "sudden" but that seems very bland given the clear hint of violence; I can't definitely say violence happened, though. What if make both statements "imply a possible violent end"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as both statements say the same, I'm fine either way. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made them both "violent". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There still seems to be some room for confusion with the Cunningtons, for example "The discovery of a second enclosure, to the northeast of the original target of their excavation, complicated the Cunningtons' work.[21] They labelled the new enclosure the "Plateau Enclosure" to distinguish it from the "Old Camp".[21][29] It was clear to Cunnington that", first they are mentioned as a couple, then only one is mentioned, but how to know which one? FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention was that readers would understand that the paper was written by Maud Cunnington, so any reference to "Cunnington" had to be to Maud, but I see that it's sometimes still confusing. I reworded the first sentence to "To distinguish it from the "Old Camp", the new enclosure was labelled the "Plateau Enclosure" in Maud Cunnington's published paper"; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FunkMonk: pinging; I think this is the last point? Are there other places where the references to Cunnington or the Cunningtons are confusing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last I can see is the following "The Cunningtons also opened the barrow outside the old enclosure, to the southwest (not marked on their plan, but labelled "Grinsell 10" on Connah's plan, below), and found a skeleton fairly near the surface, face down. It was missing all the bones of the legs and feet, and the right hand; Cunnington speculated". It is the same issue as above, not sure if anyone is actually confused, but could probably be clearer to be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made it "Maud Cunnington speculated"`, which I think takes care of it at the cost of a little long-windedness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1

edit

A very nice read indeed. Some, very minor, suggestions below:

Infobox
  • I'd be inclined to put its status as a Scheduled monument in the designation slot, but that is a personal preference, not a criterion point.
    Done -- I wasn't familiar with this infobox, so I hadn't noticed that was possible; thanks for pointing it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Antiquarian and archaeological investigations
  • Is there any reason why Hoare reads as "notes 1", rather than "note 1"? Ditto with the splendidly named Eugène Eschassériaux in the Benjamin and Maud section.
    Changed to "note". I've been using that format for at least ten years and I had never noticed before that "note" would look more natural than "notes"! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Thurman, 1850s
Benjamin and Maud Cunnington, 1908-9
  • Map - "The two pits found under the long mound are labelled P" - super-picky but should it read "The two pits found under the long mound is/are (?) each labelled P", as there are two of them (pits and 'P's). I got a little confused by the P.P. - perhaps if the map was larger!
    Good idea; done. As for the map, I would love for it to be larger, but if you look above you'll see two reviewers suggested they were unacceptably large. Nikki OKed it with the use of the {{clear}} template -- you can see that version here -- but I shrank the maps instead after the second complaint. I agree it's hard to read at the current scale. Any thoughts on the best way to go with this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was having a slight dig at earlier commentators! I have exactly the same issue with buildings articles. I like the images to be big, in order that specific features can be seen, but they frequently don't meet with the approval of other editors. I'm not sure there is a way round the issue but, if you want to explore it further, I always go to User:RexxS who is very well-informed, and very helpful, on all visual/accessibility issues. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cunningtons found pottery sherds in the long bank that she dated to Roman times" - two things. Is it "shards", and is it the Cunningtons, in which case the "she" needs to be "they", or "Maud", in which case the "she" is fine? There are three other instances of "sherd" further on. Actually, digging around, I see archaeologists favour "sherd", so you can ignore that point, although for the non-specialist reader, I think shard is more commonly understood.
    I think in specialist articles it's better to use specialist technology if it can be clearly explained in context, since the reader will encounter the term if they look elsewhere. I've linked the term to glossary of archaeology#potsherd, which will help, but I could put a parenthetical "(pottery fragment)" inline if you think that would be better. The "she" issue is tricky. The dig was done by both Cunningtons; the articles were written by Maud alone. I've tried to word things throughout to be consistent with this, but I agree this sentence reads oddly, though it's accurate as written. I went ahead and changed it to "Maud Cunnington"; if you paused there, so will other readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very little to quibble with, and the above are so minor that they don't stand in the way of Supporting. KJP1 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images appear to be pertinent, well placed but there is no ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've added alt text, but I've done so in line with my comments on WT:ALT, which I think is not the usual approach. As far as I can tell, this makes more sense, but I never got a sensible answer to my post there (which is why I rarely bother with alt text). I left the sword without alt text since reading the file name is perfectly fine there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

edit

Hi I enjoyed reading this, I have some minor suggestions and a question on referencing, first time leaving comments at FAC so feel free to correct errors. Mujinga (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and glad to see you at FAC. If you're interested in archaeology articles we do get nominations on related topics periodically -- a recent article that came through was Chestnuts Long Barrow. More reviewers are always very welcome. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and good luck with this article! Mujinga (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
Placeholder: on this tomorrow, looks an interesting topic, but not far removed from my own area of interest. Thanks for the opportunity. serial # 22:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I was slightly taken aback by the heavy reliance on a >100-year-old source, but there's no doubt it's a reliable one, and it's often the nature of this field that as trends come and go, so can the scholarship in any particular area. None of which of course invalidates a previous area of research. I spot-checked Cunnington (1912), as the oldest, 10 times; this became a mundane exercise as I realised that they cited nothing more or nothing less than what was being claimed. All in all, regardless of age, the sources used are of the highest academic quality and crests 1c.
Incidentally, re the discussion above, I admit that in the interests of consistency, I'd be willing to shorten a source's author for an sfn for the sake of consistency; see, for example, here, where the National Archives, although a similar source to—say—Historic England, linked to the bibliography. However, your reasons as explained above are perfectly fine, this is more by way of contributing adjacently to that discusion. An excellent article all round! serial # 14:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; and thanks for the review. Old dig reports are sometimes not discussed very much in subsequent literature, but I think you can get a sense of them by seeing what gets cited from them, and Cunnington is still cited everywhere. I like the look of the sfns links at the article you pointed me to but I'm afraid I'm unlikely to switch -- mainly habit, since I can use the style I'm familiar with without thinking. I think sfn used to be very difficult to use with VE, which was another disincentive since I much prefer VE, but it appears that's no longer the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem whatsoever. VE was, indeed, a total arse with sfn, and nearly broke me a number of times, but as you say, that's habit for you! All the best, serial # 15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [54].

Ichthyovenator

edit
Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on an unusual theropod dinosaur from Laos with undoubtedly one of the most bizarre anatomical structures known for any dinosaur, having two sails on its back. This is the first FA nomination for a dinosaur from southeast Asia and the fourth one for a spinosaur, in hopes of achieving a featured topic status for this unique family of prehistoric animals. The article is well-illustrated, all relevant publications and references have been cited, and it has passed GA review. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
Scaled up the Paris museum image and size comparison. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rinchenia_mongoliensis_profile1.jpg: what source was used to create this? Same with File:Patagonykuspuertai.jpg, File:Alioramus_Life_Restoration.jpg, File:Stokesosaurus_by_Tom_Parker.png, File:Carcharodontosaurus.png, File:Neovenator.png, File:Allosaurus_Revised.jpg, File:Torvosaurus_tanneri_Reconstruction_(Flipped).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question about this on Lythronax's FA. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All images now have citations, thanks to Lythronaxargestes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Casliber

edit
Thanks! Looks good. Forgot to mention I also requested a copyedit at the GOCE[55] if further fixes are needed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb. I will be claiming points for this review in the WikiCup.

I will probably do a little copy editing as I go through which you will want to check.

Thanks for reviewing! Copyedits are always appreciated but I'll be checking anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusually among all other known spinosaurids" doesn't really work. Do you mean something like 'Unusually for a spinosaurid' or 'Unlike other known spinosaurids'?
"Unlike other spinosaurids" definitely looks better and more concise, replaced. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like in today's crocodilians" Optional: → 'as in today's crocodilians'.
More concise, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2 metres (6.6 ft) squared" Suggest using '|ftin'.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MDS BK10-01 — 15" I think that it would be better if the spaced em dash were replaced by 'to' as in the source. If a dash is preferred, use a spaced en dash.
Used "to". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Designated under the specimen number" Should that be 'numbers'?
Yep, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by French palaeontologist Ronan Allain, Tiengkham Xeisanavong, Philippe Richir, and Bounsou Khentavong" Is there a reason why the first of the four is formally introduced and the other three aren't? (Is there a missing 's'?)
Removed "French" and added 's' to palaeontologist. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the third spinosaurid named from Asia" Maybe 'is the third named spinosaurid from Asia'?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology" be in italics?
Probably, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of these additional vertebrae were compared with those of other spinosaurids in a 2015 paper by German paleontologist Serjoscha Evers and colleagues." And did they have any opinions on or thoughts about them?
Added "in which they noted multiple similarities with the vertebrae of the African spinosaurid Sigilmassasaurus" and left the anatomical comparisons for the Description section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "estimated Ichthyovenator at 8.5 metres (28 ft) in length and weighing 2 tonnes (2.2 short tons)." This doesn't really flow for me. Part of it may be a use of American English - in which case, fine - part is the mixing of tenses - "estimated ... weighing".
Fixed tense consistency and rephrased, does this look better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (9.7 ft)" My preference would be to use ft and in throughout, rather than decimal feet.
Fixed, I'll keep an eye out for this in other articles I'm working on as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link processes.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increased in height from the top and bottom" I am not sure what this means.
Removed "from the top and bottom", it was rather unecessary. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on its back and hip" "hip" or 'hips'?
Meant 'hips', fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 metre (3 ft 3 in) long" "metre" 1. is the article in US or UK English? 2. The MoS says that common units should be given in full only at first use, and thereafter abbreviated.
It's in UK English, thus "metre", "palaeontologist", etc. are used throughout. Abbreviated all following units, forgot to do this! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sacral vertebrae of the hip" "hip" or 'hips'?
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the spine of the first sacral vertebra is with about 21 centimetres (8.3 in) much lower" This doesn't make sense. (Delete "with"?)
Removed "with" and rephrased to "as the spine of the much lower first sacral vertebra is about 21 cm (8.3 in), creating a sudden hiatus in the profile of the sail." ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were confined only to above the base of the neural spines" I don't think that we need "only".
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and longer compared to the pubic bone" Optional: would this work better with "compared" → 'in proportion'?
'in proportion' definitely works better now that I think of it. Replaced. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "away from the centre of attachment" → 'from away from the centre of attachment'?
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lower end of the pubis had L-shape" 'was L-shaped'? 'han an L-shape'?
Changed to 'was L-shaped'.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pubic apron (expanded lower end of the pubis)" Possibly '(the expanded ... '?
Added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link fenestra.
Linked and explained with (opening). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link ischia in the lead.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "accompanying pubis being comparatively shorter to it than in" Optional: 'accompanying pubis being comparatively shorter in comparison to it than in'.
Changed to "accompanying pubis being shorter in comparison to it than in". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely for information, a possibly easier alternative to <nowiki/>' is {{'}}.
Thanks! Hadn't looked at the article in source code view much so I hadn't noticed. Replaced in all instances anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is likely that spinosaurids were also scavengers and hunters of larger prey" reads as if spinosaurids were hunters of prey larger than themselves. Is this what was intended?
Meant "larger prey than fish", fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an indeterminate sauropod, iguanodontian, and neoceratopsian" Should that be 'and indeterminate sauropods, iguanodontians, and neoceratopsians'?
I thought of that, but since only one unknown taxon has been identified for each of these groups thus far, I kept this wording. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to see the relevance of the Tangvayosaurus image. Is there some way of making this more explicit?
Added "another dinosaur from the Gres superieurs Formation". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", the former from which fossils of theropods (including spinosaurids), sauropods, iguanodontians, and freshwater fish have also been recovered" Suggest '; , from the former of which fossils of theropods (including spinosaurids), sauropods, iguanodontians, and freshwater fish have also been recovered'. Note use of semi colon.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thus preceding the breakup of Laurasia" "preceding" → 'preceded'.
Removed unecessary "and thus". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the changes look fine to me. I have done a little more copy editing for you to check. And I spotted one last decimal foot:

Copyedits look good, thanks! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2.95 m (9.7 ft)" |ftin?
Must've missed that, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My nit picking above notwithstanding, this is a well written article which so far as a I can see ticks all of the FA boxes. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

edit

Nice to see you back!

Glad to be back and thanks for reviewing! Always good to have an expert onboard, especially for the more technical parts of the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the length ratio between the main body of the pelvis and the pubes and ischia being higher – this could be worded much simpler, something like "with the ilium, the uppermost bone of the pelvis, being proportionally longer than both the pubis and ischium". Another issue was that you have "main body of the pelvis" in singular but pubes and ischia in plural.
Reworded and fixed inconsistency. Definitely reads better now, I have a tendency to write overly complicated sentences like these. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2014, a Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology abstract concerning the genus was published by Allain. This abstract – I suggest to just write "In a 2014 conference paper" or "… abstract" without the journal; (more relevant would be the conference).
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, this abstract has not been formally published as an academic paper as of 2020. – Conference abstracts are independent of papers. And the abstract was formally published. This could be removed.
Yeah, I only just learned that recently. Removed and also merged lower two paragraphs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • interzygapophyseal laminae – I would add an explanation in brackets, at least explaining laminae.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • air pockets – I would use "excavations" instead, or, if you want to keep the hint to the PSP, "excavations that were filled by air sacs in live".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parapophysis (a process that articulated with the capitulum of the ribs) of the first dorsal increased in height from the top and bottom – It is not clear that you compare with the cervicals here.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • co-ossified (fused) – you already used "fused" in a sentence before, so "co-ossified" can be removed here.
Removed, simpler terminology is better anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (articular surfaces with the neural arch of the preceding vertebra) – I would remove "with the neural arch" as I feel that it confuses more than it helps. It sounds like that the prezygapophysis would not be located on the neural arch.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The postacetabular ala (front expansion) was much longer than the preacetabular ala (rear expansion) – isn't it vice versa? pre -> front and post -> rear?
Whoops, fixed! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the hind rim of the pubic bone, two openings, the obturator foramen and a lower fenestra (opening), were not fully closed, making them into notches. – "fully closed" means that the opening is filled completely and thus disappeared. I don't think this was the intention. Instead maybe "were open and notch-like" or "were not fully surrounded by bone".
Changed to "were open and notch-like". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If you could please add sternum, centrodiapophyseal fossae, spinopre- and spinopost and spinoprezygapophyseal fossae, prespinal and postspinal fossae, as well as interzygapophyseal laminae, that'd be great. I had a lot of trouble overall with the vertebral terminology in this one, and finding good definitions for these terms isn't easy. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, American researcher Mickey Mortimer pointed out that a spinosaurid skeleton – We should somehow indicate that this was not pointed out in an academic paper (what is what the reader would assume), but in a mailing list. But this begs the question if it is relevant in the first place. And if a conference abstract counts as "confirmed" is a matter of perspective as well, I feel this is given undue weight. Perhaps just mention the conference abstract and keep both citations, but remove the part with Mortimer?
Had some doubts about this myself, so this definitely cleared things up. Removed and re-ordered, hopefully looks better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the sister species of a clade – more precisely call it "sister taxon"?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of systematic section: First it is about systematics, then autapomorphies, and then systematics again. The Autapomorphies seem out of place. Maybe discuss them first and only then start with the systematic position. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged and also moved around and swapped some images, I think that's much better now. Let me know. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼
  • She thus placed Ichthyovenator as incertae sedis (of uncertain taxonomic affinity) within the clade Orionides, pending description of the new material, which she states will likely confirm Ichthyovenator's spinosaurid identity. – A very difficult one. Let me explain my thoughts: This cites the personal webpage of the author, who describes herself as hobby paleontologist. Therefore it is, strictly speaking, not a reliable source according to WP:Reliable Sources. On the other hand, WP:RS clearly states who is to be considered an expert: someone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". And this is the case here. The webpage, however, itself is not cited in peer-reviewed papers, which means that it has no direct impact on academic research – it is thus also less relevant. An edge case I would say. But there is another, serious issue I have with this particular sentence: "She thus placed" implies a formal decision, and those are only possible in an academic publication. This should be, if kept, carefully reworded, possibly by mentioning that this is published on a web page. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a rather delicate situation, I had some doubts myself over whether this should be kept on the page and whether I'd presented it appropriately. Just did a rewording attempt[56] based on your suggestions, let me know if it's any better. If not, I'll be fine with simply removing this part from the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, it is likely that spinosaurids were also scavengers and hunters of larger prey than fish. – I'm wondering if this is precisely reflecting the sources. "Larger prey than fish", is this referring to the juvenile Iguanodon? Why would a juvenile Iguanodon be larger than large fish, does the source say so? Or is this rather a hint on the spinosaur feeding on a sauropod, but if so this should also be mentioned and made clear? Shouldn't it be iguanodontid in any case, can it really be referred to Iguanodon after the recent taxonomic revisions? Shouldn't it be "scavengers or hunters" instead of "scavengers and hunters", or where is the evidence for hunting?
Took a closer look at the sources again and changed the paragraph accordingly. Changed to "scavengers or hunters", Iguanodon to iguanodontid, and added a mention of the sauropod feeding association. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trackways of sauropod and ornithopod dinosaurs – that would surprise me. Both sources only mention tracks, not trackways, and they also mention theropod tracks. Why are the theropod tracks are left out, aren't those even more relevant to this theropod article here? We need to be more precise.
Changed to "tracks". Must've missed that note about the theropod footprints, added! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though it may also be possible that spinosaurids already had a cosmopolitan distribution before the Middle Cretaceous, preceding the breakup of Laurasia from Gondwana. However, the authors noted that more evidence is needed to test this hypothesis – the "Though" at the beginning of the sentence irritates me a bit, and I'm not sure if "this hypothesis" is referring to the faunal interchange hypothesis or the early cosmopolitan distribution hypothesis.
Yeah, I seem to have a knack of using words like "though" unnecessarily, as previous copyedits by the GOCE to articles I've written have let me know. Removed. "This hypothesis" was referring to the cosmopolitan distribution sentence. I took out the period before "however", which seems to be what was contributing to the ambiguity. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • across Pangaea, before its breakup starting in the Late Jurassic, – Pangaean breakup started much earlier though?
Whoops, not sure how I ended up wording it like that. Removed "its breakup starting in". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2019, Spanish palaeontologist Elisabete Malafaia and colleagues also indicated a complex biogeographical pattern for spinosaurs during the Early Cretaceous, based on anatomical similarities between Ichthyovenator and Vallibonavenatrix – You should add where Vallibonavenatrix was found, as this is about biogeography. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, hadn't realized I didn't include anywhere on the article where that genus was from, added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Reference numbers based off of this version.

  • 2: This doesn't use a cite template, which results in some inconsistencies (e.g., the "and"). Also, hyphen rather than en dash, and the journal name should be given in full.  Fixed
  • 3–4: These are the same.  Fixed
  • Generally speaking, there's inconsistency in whether full first names, or just initials, are given. I always recommend full first names, since—as someone who tends to write articles involving old topics—figuring out what the initials stand for decades later can be a real pain. But either way, best to be generally consistent.
Added author first names to all citations. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing from 20 & 25. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also inconsistency in date formats: "June 2017" in one place, for example, and "2019-03-04" in another.  Fixed
  • 6: Volume #? Issue #? Page #s?
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: Is "e1323" really the page range?  Fixed
  • 8: What's going on with the author names (or name) here? "S., Paul, Gregory" makes no sense. Also, are you citing a chapter in particular? And ISBN could stand to be hyphenated.
Fixed all. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this citing a particular entry/chapter/article within the work? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added entry name. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9: Only last names given (and in the same "last=" parameter). Also, ISBN or OCLC?  Fixed
  • 10: What does "Cretaceous Research. in press: 104221" mean? Volume/issue/page # info missing. No cite template used, leading to inconsistencies.  Fixed
Removed page number field since it this citation is used to reference info on all pages of the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12: What is "PLOS One"? Is the page range really "e0187070"?  Fixed
  • 13: Is the "Archives of the DINOSAUR Mailing List" a reliable source? In any event, there's no date, and "dml.cmnh.org" is the website's URL, not its title.
It is sometimes used in dinosaur articles to cite informal discussions between experts in the field (most often about uncontroversial facts), but removed it anyways as it's not needed and the citation next to it has all the same information. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: What is SVPCA? How many other authors are there?
Added other author names. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16: Is this a reliable source? Retrieval date?
Mortimer has co-authored published palaeontological papers, and the sentence clarifies that the hypothesis she proposed was informal. Added retrieval date. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18–19, 22: Same questions as 12.  Fixed
  • 27–28: What are the "Supplementary Information" links?
Not needed, removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30: How many other authors are there? Also, there are a whole bunch of inconsistencies created by not using a cite template here. Finally, an en dash should be used instead of a hyphen.
Added other author names, en dash added by Jonesey. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32: Volume #? Issue #?  Fixed

Other than those queried above, sources appear to be of appropriate quality. Spot checks not carried out, although I can do that if needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions answered, Usernameunique. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed remaining comments, Usernameunique and Ealdgyth. The article also received its GOCE copyedit a few days ago[57], which I made some final tweaks to. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Always loved some dinos as a child years and years ago.

Lead

  • is a genus of spinosaurid theropod dinosaur that MOS:SEAOFBLUE here.
Removed theropod since it is less specific. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • lived in what is now Laos in Link Laos; don't believe it's too well known to unlink it.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • South-East Asia, sometime between 125 to 113 million Per MOS:OVERLINK major land areas shouldn't be linked.
Looks like it was added in the copyedit, removed overall since Laos is now linked anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • been between 8.5 to 10.5 m (28 to 34 ft) long Per MOS:UNITNAMES write metre fully here.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weighed 2 to 2.4 tonnes (2.2 to 2.6 short tons) Link both tons and no long tons?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike other known spinosaurids Link spinosaurids.
See above, linked theropod lower in the lead instead. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and naming

  • surface area of less than 2 m2 (22 sq ft) Per MOS:UNITNAMES write metre fully here.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is derived from the Greek word ἰχθύς (ichthys), "fish" Per MOS:EGG change Greek to Old Greek.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the Latin word venator, "hunter" Unlink Latin per MOS:OVERLINK.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • named spinosaurid dinosaur from Asia after the Thai genus Link Thai.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • weighed 2 tonnes (2.2 short tons) No long ton and link both tons.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its front corner formed a 3 cm (1.2 in) narrow process Compound Adjective here.
Hyphenated. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 54.6 cm (21.5 in)-high spine Why is there a hyphen here? And MOS:UNITNAMES also aplies here.
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 92 cm (36 in)-long ilium of the pelvis was blade-like, and longer in proportion to the 65 cm (26 in)-long pubic Remove the hyphens at the units per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS.
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! All comments answered CPA-5. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [58].

French battleship Bouvet

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The French battleship Bouvet was one of several older French and British battleships to meet a violent end during the Dardanelles campaign of World War I. I wrote an early version of the article many years ago, but as a number of other French battleship articles that have graced the FAC page of late, a new book published in 2017 allowed me to improve it considerably. The article has since passed a Milhist A-class review, and is hopefully up to snuff. Thanks to all who take the time to review it! Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed at Milhist ACR late last year, so couldn't find a lot to quibble about. A few minor comments:

  • "much of the rest of the fleet waswere used"?
    • Done
  • "should be 45 cm (18 in) thick"
    • Done
  • link sea trial
    • Done
  • link ship commissioning
    • Done
  • first name for Adam?
    • Nothing I was able to find, unfortunately - Jordan & Caresse aren't fond of first names for some reason
  • what was the Division de complément?
    • Added a translation
  • in some spots you use Contre-amiral, others Rear Admiral. Suggest consistency.
    • Good catch
  • link battlecruiser
    • It's linked earlier at the mention of Goeben

That's all I've got. Nice job Nate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WereSpielChequers

edit

I made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki....

Are you sure you saved them? I don't see any edits from you (or anyone else in some time)
I think I disappeared down a rabbithole and made some changes to linked articles. Have now reread the article. ϢereSpielChequers 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered mentioning who the ship was named after and how many other French war ships have borne this name?
    • It's there, in the box and then in the first para of the service history section
      • It is indeed, not where I expected but OK
  • Do you think the article should have a little about the subsequent fate of the wreck and her war grave status? this looks like an interesting source though it has different crew figures and a slightly different sinking narrative.
    • That's a good source, thanks for pointing it out. I added a section on the wreck. I'll have to go through and see what other articles can be updated with it.
      • Thanks.
  • In a service life of nearly two decades there is no mention of equipment upgrades, though the crew figures quoted for the time of sinking were very different to those at commissioning. If the French made no discernible changes to warships of that era during their service life that might be worth mentioning, alternatively if there were some upgrades it would be worth covering that
    • I'm sure there were changes made, but the sources don't mention any specifically - Jordan & Caresse have an appendix on wartime changes made to French battleships, but it seems Bouvet didn't survive long enough to see any, and they don't cover any pre-war changes to the older ships.
      • Thanks for the explanation, obviously we can't go further than the sources cover.
  • The photos are presumably the best available to us, though I do wonder at the assumption of life plus 100 years re a 1915 photograph, but have you considered using File:Masséna Carnot Jauréguiberry Bouvet.jpg as an illustration of Bouvet with three of her half sisters?
    • The issue is whether it's out of copyright - I'd assume it's fine in the US, but we don't have publication data for the specific edition of L'Illustration it came from

More generally, nicely written, a pleasure to read. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to my queries, shifting to support. ϢereSpielChequers 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • displacement could be up to 14,000 tons Per MOS:UNITNAMES a long written unit in this case metric ton should be abbreviated after mentioning it once fully.
    • Done
  • displacement to around 12,000 metric tons (12,000 long tons) Same as above.
    • Done
  • She had a displacement of 12,200 metric tons (12,007 long tons) as designed Same as above.
    • Done
  • the outboard screws were 4.5 m (15 ft) wide Not a compound adjective?
    • Yes, but you don't use a hyphen with abbreviated units
  • she cruised at 17 to 17.5 knots (31.5 to 32.4 km/h; 19.6 to 20.1 mph) --> "she cruised at 17–17.5 kn (31.5–32.4 km/h; 19.6–20.1 mph" Per MOS:UNITNAMES short fully written units should be written "few" times so it has to be abbreviated.
    • I don't generally like to abbreviate knots as it's a less common unit of measure (and the benefit of removing three characters isn't so great). As for the horsepower figure, I purposely left that long, as the abbreviation isn't obvious (it's abbreviated as CV for French topics)
  • she reached 18.2 knots (33.7 km/h; 20.9 mph) from 15,462 metric horsepower (15,250 ihp) Per MOS:UNITNAMES in this case both short and long written units should be abbreviated.
    • The MOS says may, not should.
  • At a cruising speed of 9 knots (17 km/h; 10 mph) Same as above.
    • As above
  • combined output of 128 kilowatts (172 hp). What kinda hp?
    • Standard horsepower
  • armament consisted of two Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1893 guns First mention of mm and should be written fully.
    • Corrected the earlier figures from cm to mm.
  • smaller than the 305 mm guns, produced 460 millimeters (18 in) of iron penetration Should be abbreviated per above.
    • Done
  • This image "File:Bouvet in Toulon-Agence Rol-2.jpeg"'s "Bouvet at anchor, c. June 1912" should have a circa template.
    • Done
  • on the Aegean coast of the Gallipoli peninsula on 1 March --> " on the Aegean coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula on 1 March"
    • Done
  • "12,200 t (12,007 long tons; 13,448 short tons)" Remove short tons in the infobox also link both tons.
    • Done
  • "120 to 400 mm (4.7 to 15.7 in)" --> "120–400 mm (4.7–15.7 in)"
    • Done

That's it I believe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I totally forgot this. I even can't remember it was still active. I had another look and I didn't find anything else so support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - all okay

edit

In progress. There appear to be some images hosted on Wikipedia that qualify for hosting on Commons. I am transferring them now and will return to provide comment when complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:French battleship Bouvet NH 64442.jpg - I am a bit wary of that licence. The image has an unkown author and unknown date and the licence states that "most" of the files on the website are in the public domain. I'm going to seek a second opinion on this one.
    • The vast majority of the images in the NHHC collection were collected by ONI for warship recognition purposes, which were either taken by US naval attaches or were obtained commercially (which indicates a pre-1924 publication for ships that predate that). As an example, I'm blanking on his name at the moment (but this has come up in another FAC on a French battleship), but the US naval attache to France during World War I amassed a collection of several hundred photos of French warships just during the conflict. Absent an indication on the NHHC page to the contrary, we can assume their photos are safe to use. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been having a debate about this one over at Commons. The other editors agree that the NHHC's declaration establishes its PD status for the US, so it is safe to remain and be used on English Wikipedia. However, it can't be moved to Commons as we can't establish a secondary licence; if we knew any one of date of publication, country of origin or author, we could probably find a Commons licence that could work. Failing that, the PD assumed status will kick in on 1 January 2036, so it can be migrated then. As the licence is okay for Wikipedia, I can't see any problem with using it in the article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:French battleship Charles Martel illustration.jpg - The image was created over 120 years ago so is eligible for the PD assumed tag. I've transferred it to Commons.
  • File:French battleship Bouvet at anchor.jpg - The author died 90 years ago, so I have transferred it to Commons.
  • File:Bouvet in Toulon-Agence Rol-2.jpeg - The licence is incorrect here as the artist is recorded as a photographic agency but it is licensed as the author being dead for 100 years. I am going to seek a second opinion.
  • File:Balearic Sea map.png - All fine with this one.
  • File:Bouvet in the Dardanelles.png - This one looks okay. I think it is eligible for transfer to Commons but I am going to seek a second opinion.
    Given that it was published in 1916 in an US publication and most likely was first published there given that the photographer was probably also an American. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I checked the source last night, added a link, updated the author field, changed the licence and moved it to Commons.[59] All fine with this one now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bouvet capsizing March 18 1915.jpg - I'm not too sure of this one. The Imperial War Museum says the author is unknown but Commons has it licensed with a claim of expired Crown Copyright. While it is quite likely that the photograph was taken by someone serving in the Royal Navy, we can't say that with certainty. All we can say is that the photograph ended up in the collection of Surgeon Oscar Parkes. Unless there is some other evidence to support authorship by a serving member of the British forces, we can't assume that the licence is valid. I'd advise replacing this image unless the licensing can be clarified. The file will be eligible for PD assumed status on 1 January 2036 if the UK gov licence can't be confirmed.
    If it was published in 1915, it's PD in the US which is all what enWikipedia cares about. Of course, it might be deleted on Commons then we'd need to upload a copy locally with the tag Template:PD-USonly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I was the one who found the original publication and updated the licensing on the file.[60] I just hadn't updated the comment here yet. Both of these last two should be fine now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bouvet sinking March 18 1915.jpg - Like the file immediately above, this file has an unknown author. However, I can't find the catalogue record online, so it is probably not digitised yet at IWM (or if it is, it is filed with an odd name). The file has catalogue number SP682, so is likely another part of Surgeon Oscar Parkes' collection. Commons has it licensed with a claim of expired Crown Copyright. While it is quite likely that the photograph was taken by someone serving in the Royal Navy, we can't say that with certainty. Unless there is some other evidence to support authorship by a serving member of the British forces, we can't assume that the licence is valid. I'd advise replacing this image unless the licensing can be clarified. The file will be eligible for PD assumed status on 1 January 2036 if the UK gov licence can't be confirmed.
    As above, I found these last two in a source published in 1915. That covers US copyright. There is a caption in the source in French about the picture being taken by the English, which I would like to get translated. Hopefully that is the evidence I need to support the UK gov licence but reuse here should be fine with the US licence per Jo-Jo Eumerus above. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing so much leg work for me! Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images in the article as of this moment are perfectly fine. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [61].

Hurricane Lane (2018)

edit
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC) and ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Lane, the 2018 pacific storm that affected Hawaii. Per Hurricanehink's recommendations and my own belief that it is high quality, I have nominated it for featured article. NoahTalk 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13

edit
  • "Hurricane Lane was the second wettest tropical cyclone on record in the United States, after Hurricane Harvey of the previous year, and the wettest tropical cyclone on record in Hawaii, with rainfall accumulations of 58 in (1,500 mm) at Kahūnā Falls." - Holy loaded sentence batman. A few things...one, the fact it's the #1 wettest in Hawaii is probably more notable than #2 in the United States. Save the mention of Harvey for later in the article.
  • "Traversing west through a region favorable for powerful cyclones" - This isn't always true. It depends on environmental conditions. Probably better just to mention that.
  • "Landslides and flooding damage roads statewide; repairs concluded in April 2019." - Damage to damaged.
  • "Early on August 19, Lane crossed 140°W, transitioning from the NHC's area of responsibility to the Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC)" --> "Early on August 19, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center assumed responsibility of the storm after it crossed 140W."?
  • "Reconnaissance data around 09:00 UTC showed continued strengthening, though the observations had mixed signals." - Mixed signals why? All data points confirmed a powerful hurricane.
  • "Increased wind shear from an approaching upper-level trough imparted weakening once more by August 23, though Lane would not recover this time." - Link trough.
  • "University of Hawaii at Manoa students who were staying on the campus were advised to stay informed and download alert apps, and to store basic emergency supplies such as flashlights, first aid kits, food, and water" - Sounds like normal preparation stuff we don't care about.
  • "Hawaiian Airlines waived the change fees for tickets to, from, within, and through Hawaii from August 21–26." - Maybe simplify "to, from, within, and through" to simply "across"?
  • The problem with that is that it would make it appear that the airlines were only waving the fees for people inside the state of Hawaii rather than anyone traveling to the state from elsewhere. NoahTalk 12:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were authorized to coordinate disaster relief beginning on August 22 and continuing indefinitely." - FEMA is a singular agency. Were --> was
  • "Downed power lines made many evacuated residents slow to return to their homes after the storm." --> "Downed power lines prevented evacuated residents from returning home in the wake of the storm."
  • "The fire destroyed 22 homes,[60] including one worth $5.5 million,[61] leaving 60 people homeless,[58] and burned 27 vehicles." --> "The fire burned 27 vehicles and also destroyed 22 homes, including one worth $5.5 million, leaving 60 people homeless"?
  • I can change it further if you feel it needs to be. I thought a semicolon would suffice since it does the job of separating thoughts much better than a comma. NoahTalk 12:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 29, the Central Pacific Bank would provide natural disaster loans of $1,000–3,000 for any Maui residents who applied." - This is worded as if it would be provided on August 29 only.
  • Don't forget to mention the bit about Harvey and the second wettest in the U.S. in the impact section. It also needs a source since one isn't provided in the lede.

That's all from me. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Total damage from the hurricane exceeded $42.5 million" - don't see this total cited anywhere, which of the mentioned figures are being included in this calculation?
  • "This upper-level low would eventually develop into a subtropical cyclone along the International Dateline in early September" is cited to a tweet dated before September
  • All meteorological events for tropical cyclones are recorded in coordinated universal time (UTC). 8:16 PM (I don't whether this is EDT or HST, but it doesnt matter) on August 31 --> 00:16 on September 1. NoahTalk 16:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Hurricane Center is not a work - check for others
  • I'm not seeing this in the article at all. It may have been that NHC was listed as a website with NOAA as the publisher. Since that in itself was incorrect, I have changed all to NHC as the publisher with no website parameter. NoahTalk 15:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN35: source credits this story to newspaper staff, not AP
  • FN36: again, not seeing the AP credit at source - check for others
  • Fn38 is missing publication date, check for others
  • FN44 has a formatting error
  • Specific news programs are works, channels are not
  • @Nikkimaria: I think I fixed this one. Changed the KNON ones to publisher since it is a channel and the Hawaii News Now to work since it is a program. Also fixed a Hawaii tribune ref that was incorrect. NoahTalk 12:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for reports
  • Still seeing AP attributions where there shouldn't be - for example FN63 (the images are from AP, but the content doesn't appear to be)
  • FN42 should use a more specific publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I've left a note here, on the tropical cyclones WikiProject talk page, about first sentences of storm articles; if/when that reaches a consensus that may affect this article. Other comments:

I just went ahead and changed it. I moved the part about it being wettest to the second sentence. NoahTalk 15:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traversing west through a region of...: traversing is used to describe crossing something; the storm could have traversed a region of the ocean, but it can't just traverse west. "Traveling" or "moving" would work instead. You could say "Traversing a region of...", but then you lose the "west"; the problem is that "through" is already implied by "traverse".
  • Any reason you link the other islands but not the Big Island?
  • microwave satellite imagery depicted an eye at the lower levels of the cyclone: "depicted" isn't right; it implies agency on the part of the depicter, though it does get used in the passive to avoid this. I think "showed" would work.
  • Advisory discussions by meteorological agencies usually use "depict" when referring to features from satellite imagery, but since it's not grammatically correct I changed it to the suggestion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wind shear became increasingly intense, and "[tore] apart" the cyclone. Its inner core became disrupted and soon collapsed. It seems odd to have a two word quote, one word of which is in brackets. How about "Increasingly intense wind shear disrupted the inner core of the cyclone, which soon collapsed", cited to both sources?
  • As Lane was the first tropical cyclone that threatened to make landfall in Hawaii as a hurricane in over two decades, Fort Shafter announced that all Navy vessels and Air Force planes were being moved out of state on August 22: the source doesn't support the statement that the movement of planes and vessels was because it had been two decades since the last storm, which is an odd thing to say anyway.
  • Accumulations were greatest along the volcanic slopes of Mauna Loa; 49.48 in (1,257 mm) fell in Waiākea-Uka near the city. Precipitation peaked at 58 in (1,473.2 mm) at Kahūnā Falls, as measured by a private weather station. A couple of things here. First, these two sentences seem to contradict each other, unless Kahūnā Falls is on the slopes of Mauna Loa, in which case that should be clearer. Second, what city is being referred to?
  • Residents reported similarities to historic flooding in April: "historic" gets overused; suggest "Residents reported similarities to record-breaking flooding earlier that year", with the same link.
  • Is there a possible link target for "brown water advisory"? If not, what about a red link for it, or for "brown water", if that's a term that gets used in these situations?
  • Evidently we don't have an article for this, but there's really not much to say about it to warrant one. It just means be advised of potentially contaminated water from surface runoff. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" list is quite long -- do we really need all of those? Some are already linked in the navboxes at the bottom, for example, and others seem only marginally relevant. How many readers are going to care about Hurricane Ana just because it had a similar track?

Generally this is pretty close; just a few points above. The prose is fairly staccato, with lots of short declarative sentences, particularly in the "Impact" section; that's always a problem with these articles, and it's not easy to fix, since the nature of those sections is to list many independent facts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! If there are additional comments/concerns I'll be more than happy to address them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good with the fixes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images are properly sourced and licenced. ALT text seems OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JC

edit
  • Increased organization of the system marked its transition to a tropical depression - This is a little clunky, but by main complaint is that "transition" should (in my view) be reserved for cyclone phase changes, where the word has meteorological significance. Pick a synonym, any synonym.
  • Based on Dvorak satellite intensity estimates and the development of banding features - Curved bands are taken into account by the Dvorak technique, so these aren't actually distinct indicators.
  • high sea surface temperatures - I'd change "high" to "warm" at the very least, but ideally say how warm they were.
  • With the met. hist. being as chronologically structured as it is, remove the mention of Cat 4 before we get to that point.
  • symmetrical outflow atop the storm provided ample ventilation for convective development. - The referenced discussion doesn't support this, and I think it's unnecessarily technical.
  • with winds exceeding 74 mph (119 km/h) - Why this instead of the actual intensity?
  • breaking the eyewall - Is the eyewall something that can be broken in the physical sense?
  • Reconnaissance observed peak surface winds of 177 mph (285 km/h) - SFMR is a form of remote sensing, not direct observation.
  • imparted weakening - Caysed, induced, engendered, begat... not imparted.
  • though Lane would not recover this time. - Too anthropomorphic.
  • What is "noticeable" weakening?
  • Increasingly intense wind shear disrupted the inner core of the cyclone, which soon collapsed. - Is it your intention to convey that the cyclone collapsed, and not that the core collapsed?
  • 150 mi (240 km) south and west of most islands. - I'm having trouble verifying this in the provided sources. Equidistance from "most" islands in a 2,500-km chain seems doubtful.
    • "Under persistent strong vertical wind shear, Lane rapidly weakened late 24 August through 25 August as it made its closest approach to the State of Hawaii, within 130 n mi south and west of most islands." – Directly from the TCR, but I'm adjusting to "main islands". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sporadic convection, sometimes with intense thunderstorms - But earlier you said convection was thunderstorms.
  • Hurricane Lane was the most powerful storm to threaten Hawaii since Hurricane Iniki in 1992. - Not consistent with reference to John 1994 in the previous section.
  • I hate to say it, but the paragraph documenting the timeline of watches and warnings is mind-numbingly dull. What's to be gained by knowing each change? I've spent a long time advocating for summary-style discussion of TC statements: the first watch, the greatest extent of the highest warning, and the final discontinuation.
  • The University of Hawaii at Manoa initiated emergency protocols on August 22, and a University spokesperson said two weeks worth of food and water had been stored in case of a severe emergency. - What do these protocols entail? And why attribute the fact that provisions were stored? Do we doubt this?
  • two dozen domestic and international flights to and from Honolulu International Airport, Hilo International Airport, Kahului Airport, and Lihue Airport. - International flights between Hawaiian airports?
  • while the remainder of harbors statewide remained one alert level below closure. How many alert levels are there? Why is this important? It seems like a fancy way to say "nothing happened".
  • Numerous state parks and hiking trails closed for the duration of the storm - Remove "for the duration of the storm", since that seems imprecise.
  • Fort Shafter announced that all Navy vessels and Air Force planes were being moved out of state on August 22. - This badly misrepresents the source material. Also, metonymy on the first (and only) reference to Fort Shafter is not appropriate.

I'll stop there for now. Based on my initial read-through of the MH and preps sections, the article is in fair shape; just some polishing to be done. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the thorough comments. If you have additional suggestions for the remainder of the article I would be happy to work on it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

  • Accumulations were greatest along the volcanic slopes of Mauna Loa - Aren't all the slopes on Mauna Loa volcanic? If possible, a region (eg. "eastern slopes", "northern side", or whatever the case may be) would be helpful.
  • a maximum of 58 in (1,473.2 mm) at Kahūnā Falls in Akaka Falls State Park, as measured by a private weather station - False precision, apparently. Also, the total is listed as 58.8" in the PNS... was it later revised?
    • PNS's are preliminary documents, the final total given was 58.00 inches which is listed by the TCR and WPC. The auto conversion is a bit too precise, but 4 sigfigs is appropriate here rather than 5. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along the still-erupting Kīlauea volcano, the rain created excessive steam that caused whiteouts.'
    • The earlier reference to Kilauea omits the kahakō, and the link should be moved there.
    • "Still-erupting" doesn't provide much context. Still from when? 1983? Suggest changing to "active" or simply "erupting" and linking 2018 lower Puna eruption.
    • A whiteout, to the best of my knowledge and experience, strongly connotes snow being involved somehow.
    • It may be misleading to say this did happen; the source says it was considered a possibility.
  • I don't see a major overlinking problem, but it can't hurt to check if the nominators have the time/inclination. There are a few inks to Hilo.
  • Areas along the Hilo Bayfront were particularly affected. - IS there any more context for this?
  • Landslides in the town destroyed two homes. - Does "the town" refer to Hilo or to Hawaiian Acres specifically?
  • Close paraphrasing (and needs metric conversion once resolved):
    • Excess water overwhelmed three sewage pumps, causing 9 million gallons of untreated wastewater to spill into Hilo Bay
    • The storm also overwhelmed three sewage pump stations, causing more than 9 million gallons of untreated wastewater to spill into Hilo Bay
  • Across Hawaii County - I think this is the first time the Big Island was called Hawaii County instead of the Big Island, or variations thereof. While I figured they were one and the same, it isn't made immediately apparently.
  • $3–5 million in property damage - The source seems to suggest that figure largely stemmed from lost valuables and bonsai stock, and I'm not sure those would count as property damage. Maybe I'm wrong.
  • 4,000 in West Maui. - West Maui redirects to the mountain range. Probably not the intended target.
  • At one point, a hurricane shelter had to be evacuated because of encroaching flames; 600 people were evacuated due to wildfires overall. - This sentence should be split to avoid the implication that the latter figure encompasses the former event.
  • Heavy rains later affected Maui, accumulating to 25.58 in (650 mm) in West Wailuaiki. - There are some instances of misplaced modifiers, most of them inoffensive enough to overlook. This one is a bit more jarring and requires rewording IMO.
  • On August 24, a sinkhole estimated to be 25 to 30 ft (7.6 to 9.1 m) deep opened in Haiku. Three residences, each with families home, were left isolated. - I don't see the depth figures in the following citation, though maybe I'm missing it as I did once in my last round of comments. I'd also round the conversions.
  • Three of the first four sentences in the Kauaʻi and Oʻahu are structured around the semicolon, so that gets a little monotonous.
  • Power outages affected households in Haena and Wainiha,[62] with wind gusts in the latter reaching 55 mph (89 km/h). - I don't share some reviewers' general objection to the "with -ing" participial phrase construction, but it's out of place here as it implies causation.
  • Residents reported similarities to record-breaking flooding in April. - I'd frame this less anecdotally; "some of the hardest-hit areas were previously affected by..."
  • in Hawaiʻi - Is there a reason for using the fancy apostrophe just this one time?
  • Officials in Hawaii reallocated $10 million in funding for road projects to pay for disaster recovery. Repair costs for damaged roads and bridges across eastern areas of the island reached $35 million.
    • Now here I think it's appropriate to specify Hawaii County, since it was that council doing the budgeting.
    • Source doesn't support that all or even most of the $10 million was originally allocated to road projects. It should also be noted that they were interested in repairing county property, not funding recovery in general.
    • $35 million was an estimate. Change to reflect this if no final total can be found (which is probably the case).
Lede

– Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciate the additional comments! I believe everything has been addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More

In the course of my final read-through, I found a few more things that tripped me up. I'm doing some minor editing for flow and clarity... if I've inadvertently changed the meaning of anything, feel free to revert. Comments in no particular order at this point:

  • On August 29, the Central Pacific Bank announced that it would provide natural disaster loans of $1,000–3,000 for any Maui residents who applied. - This does not faithfully represent the source. As far as I can tell, the loan program was available to the entire state (not just Maui), included amounts up to $10,000, not $3,000, and still included an application process - "any" resident was not automatically approved. Once again, it's entirely possible I've overlooking something important, but this is what I'm seeing right now.
  • FEMA ultimately provided nearly $2.5 million in public assistance. - Source says nearly $10 million.
  • Residents observed fire whirls approximately 15 ft (4.6 m) tall. - Is there a way to make clear that only one person witnessed this?
  • it also burned 27 vehicles.[57] - Why is the NCDC event report used for most other fire-related figures, except this one?

I think that's about it. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the comments! Went down another rabbit hole and was able to add more information to the article. If you have the time, I'd appreciate if you could look it over. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The added content looks good. Once again, I made a few minor edits, hopefully without inadvertently introducing new issues. I'm satisfied that the article now meets the criteria, so support. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

edit

Placeholder, will give this a butcher's tomorrow. serial # 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps link "microwave satellite" to Microwave transmission.
  • "close to Hawaii was Hurricane John" --> "close to Hawaii had been Hurricane John"?
  • "closed on August 22 to 24" -->"closed between August 22 and 24".
  • Big Island (Hawaii) can probably be delinked in the lead as it links to Hawaii, which is also linked to in the lead. But it's also linked to in the final "See also". On the other hand Hawaii itself is also linked in the lead—twice!—and the infobox, and then doesn't seem to be linked in the body at all?
    • The Big Island and state are both named "Hawaii", which is why the island is often just referred to as "The Big Island" and the entire archipelago is "Hawaii". Removed the redundant extra link in the lead for the state. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though that hurricane passed far enough" --> "though that passed far enough", as it's clear what the "that" is referring to and removes a repetative (third use of) "hurricane".
  • Suggest: " turned almost due north".
  • "Although the storm itself continued to weaken, the displacement of shower and thunderstorms to the east of its center resulted" ---> is "displacement" necessary? "Although the storm itself continued to weaken, shower and thunderstorms to the east of its center resulted..." seesm to work equally well.
  • "Sporadic convection, sometimes with intense, occurred during this period"...intense what?
  • "Hurricane Lane was the most powerful storm to threaten Hawaii since Hurricane Iniki in 1992". Now, if Iniki was a Cat 4 storm, and we have been told in an earlier paragraph that "The only other Category 5 hurricane to track this close to Hawaii was Hurricane John in 1994", this reads rather contradictorilly? However, if what you mean is that, although John was stronger it did not get as close to inhabitation as Iniki, could Ininki's mention bet tweaked to clarify this? (For the non-hurricanologits, you understand!)
  • "On August 27, Lane briefly reorganized with a burst of convection over its center and banding features developing to the east. By August 28, the convection became", how about "On August 27, Lane briefly reorganized with a burst of convection over its center and banding features developing to the east. The next day, the convection became..."
  • " President Donald Trump issued an emergency declaration for Hawaii", is there anything linkable to "emergency declaration"?
  • "also flooded. Areas along the Hilo Bayfront saw widespread flooding". How about tightening, to something like "also flooded, as was much of the Hilo Bayfront"?
  • "Residents in Hawaiian Acres were forced to abandon their cars on flooded roads.[44] Landslides there destroyed two homes". Suggest "Residents in Hawaiian Acres were forced to abandon their cars on flooded roads, and landslides destroyed two homes".
  • I'm guessing that Maui and Molokaʻi were not hit by torrential rain then, as brush fires broke out! Talk about unlucky. But do we know why such diverse weather was experinced in the same storm?
    • Strong winds can extend outside the range of heavy rain from a hurricane, as was the case here. The post-storm report did have additional information clarifying this that I've added in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Maui County Police Department determined there was no criminal intent involved." Wel, mens rea is a pretty specific thing to link to in an article aboyt hurricanes; how about linking to arson instead, as that is what the investigators were determining?
  • Ah, but then we hear that rain hits Maui on 25 Aug, which kind of draws attention to a lack of dates in the previous section. If a date could be inserted there to indicate when the fires started and/or died out, I think the chronology would then flow better?
  • "Around 25 signs along the Lahaina bypass was blown away or burned": plural signs suggests "were" rather than "was"?
  • "near mile marker 17", slightly meanngless to those us that do't live ther! Can a (maybe approximate) location be provided?
  • Actually, on that theme, considering the number of geographical location the article mentions, a map wouldn't go amiss. Is that possible? ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Hawaii Quite a few at Commons)
  • "waters", water?
  • Link Central Pacific Bank?
  • Can "brown water advisory" be expanded on perhaps? I don't think many people wil know what that it is; and until this article, the phrase is only used on one other in the entire project :)
  • Do we know why Honolulu was excluded from the emergency package?
  • "Some of the hardest-hit areas were previously affected"; "Some of the hardest-hit areas had previously been affected"?
  • Any reason the aid took (presumably over) a year to be paid out? (Indeed, has it?)
  • I'd suggest that the sentence "Prolonged damaging swells from Hurricanes Lane, Olivia, and Norman caused extensive erosion along the north shore of Oʻahu" be moved to the aftermath section.
NIce article. If any of my remarks fly in the face on ENGVAR, etc., feel free to point them out. Cheers, serial # 14:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Serial Number 54129! I believe I've addressed/replied to everything. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, does everything look okay @Serial Number 54129:? NoahTalk 12:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

edit

I've spotchecked half-a-dozen citations and everything matches, with no close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [62].

Charles Duke

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Charles Duke, the youngest man to walk on the surface of the Moon (he's 84 years old). The recent death of Alfred Worden reminds me that I would like to have this one through FAC as soon as possible. If the FAC coordinators have any objection, the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/INTERFET logistics/archive1 can be withdrawn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Comment

Apollo 16 section is really long, hampering readability. Is there any way to break it up? buidhe 07:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that would improve readability. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • Not a formal image review, but the version of the lede image seems cropped slightly differently on the NASA site.
  • " As lunar module pilot of Apollo 16 in 1972, he became the tenth and youngest person to walk on the Moon." This could be ambiguous, as to whether what is meant is he was the youngest to that point, or the youngest including those (Cernan and Schmitt) who came later.
    Added "(and remains)". He was indeed younger than Cernan and Schmidt, who were born on 14 March 1934 and 3 July 1935. Since no one has been to the Moon since, Duke proudly states that he is still the youngest, although he is 84 years old. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little surprised that he attained the rank of Eagle Scout in 1946, when he was at best barely 11. I see the list bears it out. I know in the 1970s the minimum age to be a Boy Scout was 11. Perhaps times were different then, but that seems a bit precocious.
    I can only go on what the sources say. Duke doesn't mention it in his biography, although he mentions his baptism the following year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't The Long Gray Line released after he was already at Annapolis?
    Ooooh. That is what he says in the book, but as you say that cannot be correct, so it must have been misremembered. (Looking through the list about West Point, the most likely candidate is Francis Goes to West Point, a 1952 comedy.) Removed this claim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They became engaged on Christmas Day, 1962, and were married by her uncle, Randolph Claiborne, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, in the Cathedral of Saint Philip,[16] on June 1, 1963.[4]" Awful lot of commas.
    Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you using a picture of Duke as CapCom in the selection and training section? Would the shot of the Group 5 astronauts work better?
    Substituted an image of astronaut geology training. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Low, the Apollo Program manager," Our article on him says he was the Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager, at least from 1967. I think Phillips was the Apollo Program manager.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with the command module pilot (CMP) becoming the commander (CDR)." Was this really part of the rotation scheme? It happened but I've never seen anything that said that Borman, McDivitt and Stafford could not have had another Apollo mission had they wanted one.
    And all were. It became policy rather than practice starting with Conrad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Jack Swigert, a command module specialist from the Nineteen, was designated as CMP. This crew would eventually become the prime crew for Apollo 16." Certainly not in that form. You might want to better define "the Nineteen" as you have not used it as a proper noun previously.
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission was originally scheduled to be flown in late 1969, but in view of the successful outcome of Apollo 11, it was postponed to April 1970.[50]" Well, first to March and then to April.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Showing commendable caution," Opinion?
    Very well. Removed. The problem is that the movie depicts them as fools. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The subsequent explosion on Apollo 13 greatly affected the backup crew, especially Mattingly, who felt that he should have been on board." I don't think Mattingly was reassigned to the backup crew.
    Orloff (p. 268) says he was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "typhoid Mary" I would capitalize the T.
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it was hoped that rock samples retrieved by Apollo 16 would provide clues about the processes that formed the highlands.[56]" I might dwell a little more on the hoped-for vulcanism.
    Added a bit. A candidate for most expensive mistake in scientific history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The astronauts went into quarantine, and were allowed out only to fly T-38s for an hour a day. The day before liftoff, the Apollo Program director, Rocco Petrone saw someone he thought was Duke around the pool at the Holiday Inn. A furious Petrone called the crew quarters demanding to know why Duke had broken quarantine. The staff's protestations that Duke was still there and had not left did not placate Petrone, and they had to track down Duke, who suggested that Petrone might have seen his brother Bill.[65] " If he was in the crew quarters, why did he have to be "tracked down"? Did training continue using this period?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After two orbits," Two full orbits?
    No. TLI occurred during the second orbit. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to mission rules, Orion should have then re-docked with Casper in case Mission Control decided to abort the landing, and use Orion's engines for the return trip to Earth." I would remove the second comma which would remove a bit of ambiguity.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption: "The Apollo 16 Command and Service Modules (CSM) ..." In text you earlier referred to the "command and service module (CSM)"
    Removed the "s" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at 2:23:35 UTC on April 21.[75]" Perhaps a leading zero?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rover-2" Maybe LRV-2? Or just put the LRV acronym after where you mention the Lunar Roving Vehicle and just say LRV later.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " had his suit ruptured or PLSS broken, he would have died.[79]" That is, unless the OPS or the buddy assembly would not suffice.
    Changed to "might have". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duke had always been fond of Coors Beer, which was only available in Texas on the northern parts, around Dallas and El Paso." I would hesitate to describe El Paso as North Texas. I'd toss an "at the time" in there too for the benefit of those who have not seen Smokey and the Bandit. Austin really isn't southern Texas, so I might say they planned to expand to the rest of the state, if the source will support his.
    Yes, that is supported by the source. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "knocked back" informal?
    Sigh. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

edit

Holding place. Kees08 (Talk) 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First batch of comments, more to come. Kees08 (Talk) 20:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kees08, are you planning to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JennyOz

edit

Hi Hawkeye, I have only one comment since my AC review...

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

I reviewed this for A-Class at Milhist back in January and it was in excellent shape then. Looking at it again, I only have a few comments to make:

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lee Vilenski

edit

Doing a review (am in wikicup, may claim points)

All the best with the Wiki Cup Lee. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Lead:

I agree - Pendright (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education:

Air Force:

August would have beem prospective - Pendright (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selection and training:

  • Duke spotted a front-page article in the Los Angeles Times, and realized that he met all the requirements.
    amd realizied that he "could meet" all the requirements.
    No, he already did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Pendright (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astronaut training included four months of studies covering subjects such as astronomy, orbital mechanics and spacecraft systems.
    Add the definite article before astronaut
    Don't see the value in this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Astronaut is a common noun Pendright (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar module specialist:

  • For this reason, Duke served as CAPCOM for the LM orbit, activation, checkout, and rendezvous on Apollo 10.
    Consider this: For this reason, Duke served as CAPCOM for the LM orbit; including activation, checkout, and rendezvous for Apollo 10.
    That is not correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Pendright (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As CAPCOM, he became the voice of a Mission Control nervous by a long landing that almost expended all of the LM Eagle's fuel.
    Change the "a" before long landing to "the"
Okay Pendright (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 13:

Apollo 16 - Training:

  • Young, Mattingly and Duke were officially named as the crew of Apollo 16, ...
Replace "of" with "for"
Missed Pendright (talk)
  • It was believed to be volcanic in origin and mainly composed of basalt, based upon the tones of gray observed from Earth.
Replace the comma with a semicolon
Missed Pendright (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outbound voyage:

Lunar surfce:

  • As a result of the delay, powered descent to the lunar surface began about six hours behind schedule, and Young and Duke began their descent to the surface at an altitude 5,000 m (16,000 ft) higher than normal.
    Replace the comma after delay with a semicolon
    That would be incorrect use of a semicolon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected Pendright (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a stay of 71 hours and 14 minutes, Duke and Young conducted three excursions onto the lunar surface, during which Duke logged 20 hours and 15 minutes in extravehicular activities involving the emplacement and activation of scientific equipment and experiments, the collection of nearly 97 kilograms (213 lb) of rock and soil samples, and the evaluation and use of the LRV over the roughest surface yet encountered on the Moon.
    At71 words, this sentence is long by most standards.
    Split sentence in two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later life:

Pendright (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG notes

edit
  • Some serious WP:NBSP work is needed. Samples: Apollo 16 (we don't want a hanging 16), and all units of measure.
    Units of measure are handled by the {{convert}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last citation is missing publisher.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The placement of the sentence about his brother Bill's death seems odd in that paragraph, but I don't have a suggestion for how to fix that.
  • in a 1-hour, 23 minute EVA ... why a hyphen on 1-hr, but not on 23 minute? Perhaps recast the whole sentence to eliminate any need for hyphens?
    Re-worded the sentence just to get rid of a hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy cow, there is a lot of blue in here ... I wish some could be eliminated. Do we need (samples) valedictorian, senior year, jet aircraft, seasickness and so on? It's a rather daunting sea of blue.
    "Valedictorian" is an American term; I had to look it up again now just to reply to this. In Australia, we refer to the student who achieved the highest marks as the "dux", but it has no ceremonial role, as there are no high school graduation ceremonies. The term "senior year" is equally unfamiliar. Unlinked the other two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, did not do a thorough read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
Otherwise, all sources seem of encyclopedic quality (even the book on twins) and are appropriately and consistently used.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [64].

Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville

edit
Nominator(s): Ruby2010 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the subject of Lady Granville about six years ago, when reading about her very famous mother. I subsequently created her article and brought it to GA status in October 2014, but then forgot about it until last year, when I came across her again in a book about diplomatic wives. I've since almost entirely rewritten the article and have brought it here to you now. I hope you find her as interesting as I have! Ruby2010 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit
  • "After a difficult labour,[59] their eldest child Susan was born within a year of the wedding." This is a difficult sentence, because it has two temporal adverbial clauses. Perhaps you could split this into two short sentences?
  • "With dread, she predicted the long hours and superficiality of social life in France." This sentence doesn't quite work for me. Can it be revisited?
  • "Harriet's many letters "gives us remarkable" Singular/plural issue.

That's it - that's all I can see! A really good read. Please double-check my edits. (I'm taking part in the WikiCup.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, thanks very much for taking a look! I made a few edits that hopefully resolve your points. For the final item, I found I slightly misquoted the author's grammar, so thank you for observing something was amiss. If you notice anything else, please post. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Happy to stick my neck out on this one. It's very well-written, and a close look at the sources (no spotchecks) suggests that they are all suitably reliable and well-formatted, while some Google Scholar searching suggests that nothing major has been missed. I'm watching this page in case I've missed anything, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Forgot to mention: I'm taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ruby2010 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

All images are free. Despite the lack of freedom of panorama in France, the chateau is old enough to render that question moot. buidhe 03:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Buidhe! Ruby2010 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

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

  • It seems odd, in that it jumps chronologically, that her parents are mentioned in the lead after her childhood.
  • "Devonshire House had become the centre of fashionable life in the Georgian era." Just checking that the consensus od sources supports "the", rather than 'a'?
  • Yes, "the" is supported by the sources. This claim is mostly cited to Surtees, who writes that "Harriet Cavendish was born in 1785 into a society of all that was brilliant, political, cultivated and good-mannered in the world of fashion, of which Devonshire House was the centre". Askwith mentions that at Harriet's birth, Devonshire House was the "epicentre of the aristocratic circle of the time". Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and ensured they had a stable upbringing with a good education." Your earlier statements would seem to indicate that Harriet did not have "a stable upbringing". Perhaps "ensured they had" → 'strove to provide' or similar?
  • "As she continued to remain single over the next several years" Maybe 'As she remained single over the next several years'?
  • "and thus usurped this role from his eldest unmarried daughter" I think eldest is redundant.
  • "Eldest" is significant only because decent society would have dictated that someone in this position take on certain family duties. But since this does not strictly add much to the reader's understanding, I have removed it. Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equivalent to £730,951 in 2019" Seems spuriously accurate. Can I suggest adding 'r=−4'? "£2,192,852" likewise.
  • I'm a tad unfamiliar with this template, but when I tried updating to r=4, it added more digits (becoming £730,950.764 and £2,192,852.292, respectively). I think keeping it at the default of r=0 is better, since the values are fewer, but I am open to suggestions. Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented what I was suggesting - it needs the minus sign. If you don't like it, revert.
  • "Social hostess": in the first paragraph we are told a little about each of the children other than Susan. Could a similar summary be added for her?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the cabinets of several ministries" Ministries don't have cabinets, governments do.
  • The 28 years from 1796–1824 seem to only be covered by "Beginning in 1796 he was stationed in foreign courts, firstly in France and then in Prussia and Russia". I am not sure that this meets 1b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
  • I found it a bit difficult to outline Granville's timeline. This paragraph was intended to provide an overview of his political and diplomatic career. I'll work on this and post back when it's worth another look. Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've finished making some edits. I ended up trimming some of his background and then moving it up to earlier in the article; this helped resolve any perceived gaps in his timeline. The reader is first introduced to him in the Marriage section where they learn a bit about his background, and then proceeds to follow his life as it impacts his wife (the subject of this article). Please let know if you have any remaining concerns here. Ruby2010 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She dreaded the long hours and superficiality of social life in France." Optional: → 'She dreaded the long hours and the superficiality of social life in France.
  • Note 2: "A daughter of the famous moral children's writer" Is there actually such a thing as a "moral children's writer"? It suggests to me that the person referred to is both moral and a writer, which I suspect is not what is intended. Possibly 'A daughter of the famous writer of moral children's stories' or similar?
  • "often depended on social capital." It may just be me, but I have no idea what that means. Could "social capital" be linked, or explained, or reworded; or all of these?
  • "managing les elegantes" This is the English Wikipedia. Do we need an unlinked and unexplained foreign word. No doubt a reader could Google it, but that would seem to defeat the point of an encyclopedia. Could we have a bracketed translation after the phrase?
  • The phrase appears many times in her letters, so I thought it a shame to lose it. :) But since I agree the reader's understanding is of paramount importance, I reworked the sentence and omitted it. Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case feel free to retain it, but explain it in line. Eg, to pick random examples, "he was elected praetor (commander) of a Roman field army" [explanation in brackets] or "In succession he was appointed: quaestor, a junior position administering the public treasury; plebeian tribune, a senior position with – in theory – extensive powers over the legislature; and praetor, a senior administrative and judicial position reporting directly to the emperor." [explanations in the text].
  • "Harriet viewed her role more so as a facilitator" Is "so" necessary?
  • "Due to changes in government ministries, the Leveson-Gowers spent approximately seventeen years in Paris" I don't see why the latter follows from the former - "Due to". Could the reason or mechanism be explained?
  • Sorry, I can clarify this further in the article. Granville's posting would have depended on those in power at the time; when a government changed, diplomats were often pulled back to England. I'll work on adding a bit more context here. Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her behaviour as one of a typical Victorian era widow" I don't think that behaviour is singular, at least in this case. "one" → 'that'. You are right, now edited. Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the time period in which she lived" "time is redundant.

Impressive work. A flowing yet lively read. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thanks very much for your review. I made most of your requested edits, with just a few remaining actionable items on my end. I will post here again when complete. Thanks again, Ruby2010 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have finished making some additional edits. Please let me know if you have any remaining items. Thanks again, Ruby2010 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well tweaked. A lovely article. Happy to support. Note a couple of comments from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Ruby2010 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "Lady Henrietta Elizabeth Cavendish was born on 29 August 1785 at Devonshire House, Piccadilly, London. Her parents were William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, and his first wife, Lady Georgiana Spencer.[1][2] As such, she was born into enormous privilege. As major landowners, the Spencer family controlled one of the largest fortunes in England. The Duke of Devonshire possessed even more wealth, with an annual income that was twice as much as that of Georgiana's father; in addition to Devonshire House, he owned Chatsworth House and four other estates of similar opulence. 1. You start two successive sentences with "As", and neither seems necessary. I would suggest deleting "As such, she was born into enormous privilege." as superfluous and starting the next "The Spencer family were major landowners who..." 2. Why is the Spencer wealth relevant? Did Lady Georgiana inherit it or did she bring a vast dowry?
  • I've removed the "enormous privilege" sentence but kept the structure of the following sentence intact. Yes, Georgiana brought a large dowry into the marriage. I wanted to make it clear that both sides of Harriet's family were wealthy without getting too detailed. If needed, there is more I can add here to help clarify this. Ruby2010 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seeking distraction from an unhappy match, the Duchess spent her time socialising and gambling, and became a popular political hostess and leader of fashion. By the time of Harriet's birth, Devonshire House had become the centre of fashionable life in the Georgian era." I think this is a bit misleading. The first sentence is OK, but by the time of Harriet's birth, her mother had lost her popularity due to her conduct supporting the Whigs in the 1784 election. According to the ODNB articles (which you cite, apart from the one on her father) Devonshire's wife and mistress lived happily together in a menage-a-trois. Devonshire and his wife were both Whig supporters, and Devonshire House was primarily a Whig social centre.
  • This claim is mostly cited to Surtees, who writes that "Harriet Cavendish was born in 1785 into a society of all that was brilliant, political, cultivated and good-mannered in the world of fashion, of which Devonshire House was the centre". Askwith mentions that at Harriet's birth, Devonshire House was the "epicentre of the aristocratic circle of the time". Both sources mention 1785 but are hardly specific in saying whether at that precise moment Devonshire House (and Georgiana) were popular. I dug into another source (Foreman 1998) a bit more and found that her popularity had at least been restored by 1786. So I've changed this to be a bit vaguer: "By the mid-1780s, Devonshire House had...". Let me know if you have additional concerns. Ruby2010 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her lover Charles Grey" Perhaps "the future prime minister, Charles Grey".
  • "But after three years of indecisiveness, Duncannon married another." I would prefer "another woman", although this is probably personal taste.
  • "their refusals, often in response to his womanising reputation". "in response to" sounds wrong to me. How about "due to"?
  • Granville "served briefly in the cabinets of several governments". I doubt whether this is correct. ODNB only mentions July to October 1809.
  • "she did so out of support for her husband". I would say "she did so to support for her husband"
  • "Harriet initially cared little for politics, perhaps because she had been inundated with the topic from a young age." If you were writing about her sister, you could say that she was passionately interested in politics because she had been inundated from a young age. I would delete as nonsensical.
  • Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this point. The intent is to surprise the reader that while her mother was very public and active in politics, Harriet cared little for the subject. Perhaps this is not coming across enough? Ruby2010 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the comment attributing her lack of interest to her mother's interest that I was questioning. If she had come from an apolitical family and you had written "Harriet initially cared little for politics, perhaps because her family had no interest in the subject", that would make more sense. I suggest something along the lines of "Unlike her mother and sister, Harriet cared little for politics until late in life." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. Hopefully now it is improved. I changed to "Despite being inundated with politics from a young age, Harriet cared little for the subject until later in life." Ruby2010 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Granville's family were firm Tories, though he was more moderate in his positions." Flexible might be a better word than moderate. According to ODNB, his marriage brought him into the Whig ambit.
  • One reply above, but I still think the article is thin on the early background, especially as it is not a long article. A few points (if I remember the ODNB articles correctly from a quick read): Her mother's heavy drinking was also a major problem. Georgiana and Bess were close friends and may have been lovers. Georgiana accepted the menage a trois. Bess helped to bring Georgiana's gambling and drinking under control, and thus to successfully bear her daughters, but also tried to set the Duke against her. Bess accompanied Georgiana when she was exiled to bear her illegitimate child. Georgiana was a major figure in Whig politics and Devonshire House was an opposition social centre. The Duke supported the Whigs financially though out of what he regarded as hereditary loyalty to the party rather than a strong interest in politics. Georgiana was vilified for canvassing lower class voters in the 1784 election and the acrimony against her for dividing society along party lines in the Regency crisis of 1789-90 was so great that she and the Duke and Bess fled to France. Of course, you will decide what if any of these points you think are relevant to her daughter. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for the delayed reply. Yes, I struggled with how much detail to provide on Harriet's family – it was fascinating to read about, in part due to the many items you listed! I do have plans to work on their articles more in the future, but for Harriet, I ended up only including detail when it directly impacted her or provided needed context. That said, of the details you listed, I do think the article would be most improved by clarifying Bess's role in the Devonshire marriage (and indeed Harriet's own conception). Right now this is mainly addressed in the 'Upbringing and first London season' section, including with a footnote. I will work on adding a bit more detail earlier in the article, so that the reader is not misled to think Bess only appeared later in Harriet's life. Ruby2010 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • You repeat yourself saying twice that Elizabeth Cavendish became a member of the household.
  • "Despite being inundated with politics from a young age". You say this as if you have already mentioned it, although you have not. It seems as relevant to her early life as her mother's devotion to fashion and gambling and I think it should be covered.
  • I would give the year of birth when you list her children. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thank you for the review. I've added the missing son to the inbox; he died young so that is why I had omitted him.
As for the footnotes, I didn't feel that FN 129 needed a page number since the whole source is backing up the claim (Surtees 1990 is supporting that Surtees produced an edited collection in 1990); if this is considered too much use of a primary source, I also included another (Hayter 1990) to be safe. For FN 131, there were no page numbers on the ancestry pages contained in the source, but I have done a bit of guesswork and added what I think would be the page numbers if they were present. Ruby2010 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments

edit
  • After her brother's death in 1858, she inherited Chiswick House and subsequently took up residence. Subsequently adds nothing.
  • What is the number range style used in the article? Either 255–6 or 164–65. Sample only, more throughout.
    • Surtees 1990, pp. 255–56.
    • Askwith 1982, pp. 164–5.
  • I believe there is a MOS:COLLAPSE problem in the Ancestry section (but I have not followed MOS closely lately).

That is all the checking I did ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, SandyGeorgia! I've removed "subsequently" and gone through to update the page numbers (using the standard "pp=176–77"). I don't see an issue with the Ancestry section; could you clarify further? Is the issue that it should not be collapsed at all? (Sorry if a silly question). Ruby2010 (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed text used to be discouraged ... unsure if it still is, but I suspect so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Ancestry sections are collapsed in most articles where they are present; it seems this is the default with the template. Others can weigh in though if they think it should be collapsed or not. Ruby2010 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [65].

BioShock 2: Minerva's Den

edit
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Produced by a small team almost as an afterthought, Minerva's Den has been called one of the greatest video game expansions of all time, and served as a stepping stone to one of the most popular games in the "walking simulator" subgenre. Article recently passed GA and went through a GOCE edit, submitting for y'all's appraisal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I didn't play Minerva's Den, but did play Bioshock 2. Probably my least favourite of the three - though Infinite was one of the best games I ever played.

  • " the city's supercomputer, the Thinker ... download a copy of the Thinker" Is The Thinker a computer or software? You can't download a supercomputer. (Can you?)
  • "ideas he originated in his hiring interview" Is originated the best word, here?
  • Some wikilinks for "free will" and "identity" would be helpful.
  • "Both Porter and Wahl wanted to use the Thinker for their own ends" Why past tense? Is this no longer true by the time of the events of the game?
  • "suggested the possibility technology from Rapture" I'd put a that there, but I know some people think I overuse the word.
  • "Gaynor reasoned Rapture advanced using genetic technology, but the residents of Rapture explored other technological dead ends. Rapture citizens built areas devoted to robotics and automation in Minerva's Den" Again, I'd add a that, but, more importantly, I think these sentences could be better linked. The sentence following this passage, meanwhile, is on a completely different topic. The paragraph feels jumpy.
  • "they also adjusted the order" I assume they is the designers, but this isn't clear.
  • "In contrast with previous DLC releases for the game, Minerva's Den is the only expansion to offer new single-player experiences." Redundancy. I recommend the sentence is completely rewritten.
  • "The game was updated to support Steam achievements, Big Picture mode and controllers. Minerva's Den was free for players who owned BioShock 2 before the patch." What are Steam achievements, Big Picture mode, and controllers? What patch?
  • Ok, call it a pet peeve, but I really dislike the way you personify publications. Why attribute a view to The Daily Telegraph when you could attribute it to the particular reviewer? (Another example: "Reviews from GameSpot and Eurogamer". Why reviews when it would be much more natural to write reviewers?)
  • "considered the expansion offers" Odd construction - is considered the right word, here?
  • "GameSpot's Kevin VanOrd wrote the setup for the expansion is familiar to BioShock players—voices on the radio telling the player where to go—the appeal lies with its "personal nature" and Porter's character." Is this missing a word or two? while the setup?
  • "perception of the meaning of make games" ??

Hope that's useful. Please double check my edits. (I'm taking part in the WikiCup.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J. Thanks for the review. If the article has not convinced you, I'd recommend playing the game, even if you were down on BioShock 2 generally :P
I believe I've addressed most of the above concerns.
  • I left Porter and Wahl wanted to use the Thinker as past tense, as Porter's goals have substantially changed and it matches the tense used for the description of Porter's past life. So I think it's the right choice.
  • Regarding the personifying publication thing: this has been an issue on many an FAC, and I get conflicting advice constantly; some people like stripping out critic names entirely and just using publications, other people prefer the opposite. In my experience the former is quite common in film criticism, especially. I don't necessarily think either is wrong, in there are tradeoffs (it's easier for people to keep track of publications than names, especially in more dense reception sections, while I generally agree with you that people write reviews for publications, and not the personifications therein.) It's not something I've found useful feedback on in style guides. In this case, I tried to only mention names when they were being outright quoted. I guess I'll leave it open for any other reviewers to chime in on this case? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These look like good fixes. On the past tense, maybe you could say something like "prior to the events of the game" or "after the Thinker was first created" or "while initially working alongside each other" or something to contextualise when this was the case. On the personification... I realise that there's some disagreement about this, and it's not the hill I want to die on, so I'm not going to make any demands. Happy to see what other reviewers think. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a good sift through Google Books and Google Scholar. To my surprise, I've only really come across one source worth citing. Page 115 of 'Videogames, Identity and Digital Subjectivity has this this nugget: "The Bioshock 2 expansion Minerva's Den, meanwhile, proves that games are capable of nuanced and thoughtful engagements with the history of AI and the questions it raises. An allohistorical narrative incorporating references to information theory, cybernets an the Turing test, Minerva's Den eschews lazy human/machine dichotomies to offer a gratifyingly complex account of how technology, gender, race, education and class factor into notions of 'the human'." (The context is simply that there are examples of AIs in scifi video games worthy of scholarly analysis, even though that's not the focus of the chapter.) Worth citing, I think, just so we have a nod to the scholarly literature, but only if you agree with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a line using the source you mentioned; I've also swapped around the sentence ordering and added some wording to the above bit about tenses (it flowed a bit more logically regardless to mention Porter's background and then Porter and Wahl rather than digressing.) How's it look now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten about this - I'm waiting to see what other reviewers think for now. If no other reviews are forthcoming, I'm happy to revisit. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The player assumes the role of Subject Sigma, an armored human known as a Big Daddy" I'm imagining I've never played Bioshock and trying to understand this sentence; how about "The player assumes the role of Subject Sigma, an armored human or "Big Daddy","?
  • " to download a schematic to the city's supercomputer" Ambiguous; could mean "to download a schematic into the computer" or "to download a schematic of the computer".
  • "As an Easter egg, the names of the members of the development team were given to slugs scattered around the game's levels." If "the game" is BioShock 2, what is the significance of this? If it's Minerva's Den, why mention this here?
  • "had to reuse as many assets as possible" Could this be explained?
  • "to become smarter" more intelligent, perhaps?
  • "level designer J.P. LeBreton and the lead level designer of BioShock" I'm struggling with this a little
  • "In comparison to the long development and narrative of the main game, Gaynor enjoyed the opportunity to tell a shorter story in which players understood the characters." This doesn't quite work for me. How about something like "Contrasting the long development and narrative of the main game with those of Minerva's Den, Gaynor said that he enjoyed the opportunity to tell a shorter story in which players understood the characters."
  • "the gameplay was repetitive" Presumably you're meaning to say repetitive after the main game had been played? I wonder if this could be rephrased a little. "To prevent players who had already played BioShock 2 from feeling that the gameplay of Minerva's Den was repetitive", perhaps?
  • "BioShock 2 and all of its DLC were released" I'd say was, but I might be wrong.
  • Apologies if I've already said this, but I personally find attributing views to publications (e.g., "Rock, Paper, Shotgun wrote") a little sloppy. Particular reviewers say things rather than particular publications - indeed, publications will sometimes carry multiple conflicting reviews of the same work. Other than that, though, I think that's a great reception section.

I'd be happy to support (subject to a satisfactory source review) once the issues above are looked into. I think this is a great article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:J Milburn I believe I've addressed all the above minus the reception bit which we talked about earlier. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from theJoebro64

edit

Looks like a nice article, but it also looks like it needs another review. I'll get in some comments throughout the week. JOEBRO64 18:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I've done a read-through and not much stands out to me. Here are my comments:

  • Any reason the Switch isn't listed in the infobox yet? I know the Switch port hasn't been released yet, but that doesn't mean we should exclude it.
  • "Minerva's Den is a shooter game with gameplay that is experienced from a first-person perspective." I think this is overly wordy and clunky and could be simplified to just "Minerva's Den is a first-person shooter."
  • "The player uses similar weapons and plasmids (genetic modifications that grant superpowers) though the player obtains them in a different order." I'd revise to "The player uses similar weapons and plasmids (genetic modifications that grant superpowers), but obtains them in a different order."
  • "... and for Apple Macintosh in 2015." It was OS X at the time, not Macintosh.
  • "... the rest of BioShock 2 were re-released in a bundle..." "Rerelease" does not need a hyphen.
  • "Minerva's Den received generally favorable reviews and a Metacritic score of 82/100 for the Xbox 360 version based on 12 reviews." I don't see why only the Xbox version's score is referenced in prose, and it's unnecessary to state it anyway because there's a review box containing it. I'd revise to "Minerva's Den received "generally favorable reviews", according to review aggregator Metacritic."
  • Kotaku and Engadget should be italicized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized"
  • "The game's twist ending was positively received..." A generalized statement like this needs direct refs, because it could be challenged.

Once these are addressed I'll support. JOEBRO64 17:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joe, thanks for the comments. I've addressed most of the above. The only thing I'll push back on is the first point. Yeah, it seems a bit clunky, but just saying "BioShock 2 is a first-person shooter" doesn't actually tell you much if you don't know what video games are or aren't familiar with FPS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great. JOEBRO64 17:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • The lead has "travel through Minerva's Den, the technological hub of the underwater city of Rapture" and "an unseen part of the underwater city of Rapture, the technological hub Minerva's Den" in the course of just four sentences. If you combine the first two paragraphs it might be possible to rephrase to avoid the repetition.
  • Can I ask why Kotaku and Paste are called out in the lead? Is it because they are prominent review vehicles? If you're just citing them as examples I'm not sure we need them in the lead.
  • concurrent with the events of BioShock 2's story mode: do we need "mode"? Does Bioshock 2 contain events in other modes that are not concurrent with Minerva's Den?
  • leaves a letter in which he apologizes for trying to bring her back using the Thinker, and saying he has decided to let her go: "apologizes" and "saying" are parallel so should match in tense. I'd make it "says he has" but you could make it "a letter, apologizing for" instead if you prefer.
  • Though many companies would treat DLC as a "cash grab", the lower expectations also enabled more creative risks to be taken. I'm not really seeing the connection between the two halves of this sentence. I'm guessing that the intention is something like: DLCs are often treated as opportunities to get money with minimum effort so the development teams are not given much resources, but in this case the limited resources and consequent low expectations allowed the team to take more creative risks". If that's right, I don't see why this team is different from any other DLC team -- is this a general statement about all DLC development, or am I missing something specific here?
  • The final gameplay sequence, in which the player walks through Porter's living space, was important to give players time to reflect on the character's journey. I think this sentiment needs to be attributed to Gaynor, or whoever it comes from. Perhaps "...important to Gaynor, to give...".
  • Not relevant to the FAC, but I was interested to see that Minerva's Den was free to players who already owned Bioshock 2. Surely that means that at least in this case the cash grab effect is somewhat lessened? Presumably the marketing plan is that the DLC attracts new buyers of Bioshock 2, so it's not just a cheap enhancement for existing players; it must draw in new buyers?
  • Kotaku found the gameplay repetitive, especially reusing "tedious" elements from the base game while Engadget said players had to perform certain gameplay sequences repeatedly. Suggest "Kotaku and Engadget both found aspects of the gameplay repetitive, such as the the reuse of "tedious" elements from the base game, and the need to perform certain gameplay sequences repeatedly."
  • Shouldn't "GameSpot" be italicized?
  • Reviews from GameSpot and Eurogamer noted...: avoid "note" as a verb for reporting opinions; see the last bullet in section 3 of WP:RECEPTION for the reasoning.
  • After moving to Irrational Games and his dissatisfaction with the sprawling development of BioShock Infinite: I don't follow this -- two unrelated thoughts? He moved because of his dissatisfaction?

This is in good shape overall; just a few points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, thanks so much for the review. Responses to bullets below.
  • Adjusted the wording and collapsed to two paragraphs of the lead.
  • Kotaku and Paste are called out just to specifically cite exactly which publications actually called it one of the best expansions of all time (since I feel like that needed a bit more specificity.)
  • I have "story mode" because BioShock 2 has different settings for all its components; the story mode takes place in 1968, the multiplayer in 1959, and other DLC takes place shortly before the story mode of the base game. Just trying to clarify (without going into a lot of detail.)
  • Adjusted verb tense.
  • I tried to rework the "cash grab" statement a bit more; Gaynor's talking about how many people see DLC as low-effort cash grabs, but that he found it a bigger creative opportunity.
  • Adjusted statement about the final gameplay area to make it clear it's Gaynor's opinion on its importance.
  • As to why they released Minerva's Den for free for PC players, I assume it was just a value-add thing since they'd probably gotten most of their sales already.
  • Reworded repetitive statement for reception, italicized Gamespot, and removed the "noted" use.
  • Reworked the sentence about Gaynor leaving to make it hopefully clearer that he left to join Irrational Games, and his sour experience there led him to leave.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fixes all look good. Josh, I see you were waiting for more reviews before revisiting; there are a couple of supports now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping - I'll aim to revisit this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I think we need a source review for reliability and formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, images are properly licenced and tagged and seem to be in the right places. OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Red Phoenix talk

edit

Declaring my intention to do the source review needed, per the request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. Prepare for incoming review, with a few spot-checks. Red Phoenix talk 20:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need a bit of consistency in linking and listing websites and publishers in the references. For instance, Eurogamer is not linked in reference 13 but is linked in reference 34. Ref 13 also does not list a publisher, but 34 does (Gamer Network). This isn't the sole occurrence; there are numerous instances of this, looking at the ref list. Less often an issue but still present is that some publishers are linked, such as CBS Interactive, but others, such as Ziff Davis, are not. I would expect to see reference consistency in an FA-level article.
  • Any reason Joystiq (source 26) and Destructoid (source 32) are non-italicized like they're listed as publishers instead of websites? It's inconsistent with the rest of the references.
  • A few sources are also missing archives, and I don't think FAs should be prone to link rot. If this was archived by bot, I've had issues before where I've had to go onto web.archive.org and force an archive.
  • Aside from issues with reference formatting, as an editor very familiar with WP:VG/S, I'm satisfied that all of the references are reliable. I checked on the ones I was not familiar with and am satisfied that reliable sources are being used.
  • Below, I will list my spot-checks:
    • Source 4 is to 1Up.com, a former website owned by Ziff Davis/IGN Entertainment. Information cited is faithful to the source with no close paraphrasing.
    • Source 17 is Gamasutra, which includes an interview with the DLC developers. I checked all five occurrences of this source, and all five are cited faithfully without close paraphrasing.
    • Source 18 is Rock Paper Shotgun, operated by Gamer Network and listed at VG/S. It is faithfully and reliably cited for its one statement in conjunction with the source 17 cite in the same statement.
    • Source 24 is to Wired. Only really cited for the date, but faithfully and reliably cited, no close paraphrasing.
    • Source 34 is Eurogamer, a Gamer Network site listed at VG/S. Faithfully and reliably cited, no close paraphrasing.
    • Source 44 is also to Rock Paper Shotgun, and is faithfully cited. But, usually with reviews it's my understanding we state the review and opinion is of that contributor (if we have the contributor's name), not the publication itself, so instead of Rock, Paper, Shotgun wrote Minerva's Den... we should have "Alex Meer of Rock, Paper, Shotgun wrote Minerva's Den.

So, here's the long and short of it: Spot-checks look good and well cited. No concerns with ref reliability, but reference formatting needs some work for consistency to be FA-level. I think a few fixes ought to have it in shape. If anyone is looking to reciprocate, I'm looking for a source review at the FAC for Sega here. Thank you. Red Phoenix talk 21:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: Thanks for the check. I believe I've addressed all the above formatting and archives; I've removed links for the publishers and standardized website formatting; websites/work are now uniformly linked, and I've added archives for the remaining cites. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Looks very nice; this was a fantastic article to read and review. I can see my concerns have been addressed. Support on sources. Red Phoenix talk 03:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG note

edit

Reviewing from the bottom of the FAC page (wow, two months at FAC :/) All of the basics I usually check for are good, but ... I am concerned that Bioshock 2 is going to need some WP:NBSP work so we don't see a hanging 2. I would do them myself, but many of them are at the beginning of sentences and could be overkill, so will leave that to David. Otherwise, good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy, I think I've addressed the spaces throughout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks like all is in order here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2020 [66].

1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest season in "my" club's history. Everyone's second-favourite team, Ipswich fought on multiple fronts and could have won everything, the league, the League Cup, the FA Cup and the UEFA Cup, but fell short on all but one front. But still they punched above their weight by some magnitude. And with Bobby Robson at the helm, this was an incomparable season in the history of the club. This is a true labour of love so any question will be taken seriously and and worked on with diligence. Thank you in advance for your interest in the article and any time you might spend making this a definitive season coverage. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RetiredDuke

edit

I went ahead and archived all links in the article, except for the ones already in the British Newspaper Archive. Just an heads up, the Times article from 2004 is dead and I couldn't find an archive for it. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers dude. Replaced the dead one, it was easy. Thanks for looking. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images are appropriately licensed and captioned, except:

That's all, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp cheers, comments above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for fixing the link for the first image, TRM. For the second image, possibly if Howcheng, who originally uploaded the photo in 2008, can help, that would be great, otherwise I'm satisfied to assume good faith. Moisejp (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have access to OTRS, but based on what I put in image description page when I uploaded, it was somebody's personal photo of Beattie that they declared as PD. —howcheng {chat} 00:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good, then. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 54129

edit

Leaving the claret and blue at the door for this one  :)

I was dumb, TRM—I didn't realise it was a dab page (even though, yeah, it says), just a stub. But it is a shame not to be able to explain the term.
Sortable's a good idea for price-comparison purposes  :) ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First names for Cooper, Brazil and Beattie? (Reading on, that applies to everyone that gets mentioned)
    Done, and that's an artefact of not actually working on the article in top-to-bottom order. I realise I should do this and will double-double check before I'm done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why had Terry been suspended?
    Well I'm afraid the source doesn't reflect on that, but I strongly suspect that the only reason would have been he was naughty in the previous game (or hit a card limit over the previous games...) I'll see if I can find another source for the game preceding this one to see if sheds any light on the deal. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff! ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major point. Just thought it might sound a little punditry, but we haven't got an article to link to (the nearest is Form (horse racing), but that's eggy). ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, must've been a bullet head. ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check. ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm confused now! So are Ipswich at home, and that's why Rep is in the away team? It's just that, I'm reading Ipswich faced French team AS Saint-Étienne in the quarter-finals in March 1981, the first leg being held in the Stade Geoffroy-Guichard to indicate that Ipswich was playing in St Étienne's stadium, which would make them the away team? No problem with keeping the Dutch bit though. ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)]][reply]
Gah, that's what happens when I try to rush things. It should (somewhat obviously now!!) say "put the home team" and thus now it does. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your patience! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it works for me now, odd. Cancel this one! ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers TRM, bloody good article. ——SN54129 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 many thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all above, I think almost all of them entirely. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers TRM, there's just one thing I'd like clarifying if you could, re. St Étienne. To mop my confused brow! ——SN54129 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 that last point addressed with my apologies for such clumsiness! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thought I was losing it! Good work. ——SN54129 18:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dweller

edit

This is looking good. I noticed a lack of information about Paul Cooper. In such a magnificent season, the fact that he was the club's player of the year, means he was outstanding, yet the text only mentions him when we wasn't playing! Was it that season he saved a lot of penalties? There's generally a lack of mention of defensive players, except when they scored or were absent, which is I know hard to fix, but Cooper's omission is significant. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Paul Cooper (footballer, born 1953).... Sure, I'll take a look to see if I can make more mention of him. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller I noted his (and his defenders') 27 clean sheets and also discovered that he was man of the match in the UEFA Cup final second leg, so added that into the prose too. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I'll continue looking when I get a chance. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller whenever you can, of course. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easily good enough for FAC. Splendid work on the dark side, TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Truflip99

edit

This article looks great from a quick glance and am reserving a spot for comments. Hoping you could provide comments to MAX Yellow Line in return. --truflip99 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Great read. --truflip99 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99 thanks for your comments and suggestions, I've responded to each of them above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Support. --truflip99 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce review by Cas Liber

edit

Looking over...

  • Earwig's copyvio clear.
  • FN 3 used once - aligns with text.
  • FN 61 used once - aligns with text.
  • FN 46 used six five times - aligns with text on 5/6. Last use is to reference, " Leading the way was Wark, who set a UEFA Cup record by scoring 14 goals, including two in the final", which I can't see in source....

  • Formatting of refs is consistent.

So one minor issue above.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber thanks so much for that. I don't know what I was thinking there. I've adjusted it on another article too. Should be fine now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2020 [67].

Spacewar!

edit
Nominator(s): PresN 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The history of video games in many references begins with the first commercial products in 1972, but they're predated by a much more robust game a decade prior: Spacewar!. Appearing out of almost whole cloth, it leapt past prior "tic-tac-toe" or "20 questions" games played by a handful of people as a multiplayer real-time space combat game that led to the first detached controllers and first game tournament. It was the first game known to be played at more than one computer installation, and in fact spread to nearly every possible mainframe installation as the most popular game of the 60s. It directly inspired both of the first two arcade video games, as well as games for years after, and was included as one of the first 10 games of the game canon at the Library of Congress in 2007.

I wrote this article in 2016 as part of a series on the early history of video games, but was stymied from taking it to FAC because one of the major sources was the online research notes of an in-progress book. That 600-page history book finally came out a few months ago, tightening up the sourcing story, so after some additional polishing I'm bringing it to FAC, hopefully as the first of several. Thank you for reviewing! --PresN 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from David Fuchs

edit

I will endeavor to give a full review to this, but initial bits n' bobs:

    • Media:
      • File:Spacewar1.svg links back to File:Spacewar1.png, but the latter could use information from the former (the link clearing it as public domain is dead in the latter.)
      • File:PDP-12 VCF 2001.jpg has a inoperative source link, making it impossible to verify the license.
        • Fixed the first, dropped the second- an internet archive link for the source shows that, while (presumably they) uploaded the image as CC-3.0, the actual website makes no mention of that. --PresN 18:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • References:
      • I'm not entirely sure what referencing scheme is being used in the article, nor when a citation uses a short ref versus full citation info in the "Sources" section. I feel like aggregating the references into a single section and using {{rp}} for the page numbers where necessary might be a more consistent and elegant solution.
        • On the same note, I'm a bit uneasy about the size of the page ranges for some citations; it's not easily verifiable where materials come from if you're giving a dozen or more pages for the content. Splitting references into smaller, discrete page citations would be better.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The referencing style is "use cite x templates", + "put books in their own section so as not to repeat that information over and over." It's the same as WP:CITESHORT, though I could change it to use last name instead of title if you want. I don't like Rp as it splits the page number away from the work being cited.
  • The largest page groupings for books were 9 and 12, which I've now chopped apart; any other "large" page groupings are magazine articles, and the only one that's noticeably long is the Byte source and most of that is printed source code. --PresN 18:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a spot-check of statements attributed to current refs 2, 5, 9, 14, 21, 26, 27, 30, 36, and 37.
  • 9 threw up a metadata error at Archive.org. Might be something temporary or something on my end.
  • Ref 14 doesn't adequately support With the added features and changes, Spacewar! was essentially complete by late April 1962. It was certainly being played, but it's unclear in what state.
  • Ref 30 doesn't adequately source In addition to Galaxy Game and Computer Space, numerous other games have been directly inspired by Spacewar!. (The other games aren't mentioned, and the Times article mentions it's important but not what direct influences it had.)
-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: Sorry for the delay; 1) fixed ref 9; 2) reworded the sentence to be better supported by ref 14; and 3) reworded the sentence + added cites to refs 31/32, which more directly mention that other games were inspired by it. --PresN 04:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further spot-checks to 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 33.
  • Ref 10 doesn't support In response, Russell began providing various excuses as to why he could not do so. Likewise it doesn't seem to be needed for One of these was the lack of a trigonometric function routine needed to calculate the trajectories of the spacecraft. This prompted Alan Kotok of the TMRC to call DEC, who informed him that they had such a routine already written. Kotok drove to DEC to pick up a tape containing the code, slammed it down in front of Russell, and asked what other excuses he had. Russell, later explaining that "I looked around and I didn't find an excuse, so I had to settle down and do some figuring", started writing the code in December 1961, the same month that the PDP-1's display was installed.
  • That whole chunk is cited to refs 2 (Creative Computing) and 4 (Smith p. ~53), with the quote coming from ref 2. I've removed 10 from that section, and moved around citations to make it clear where the quote came from. --PresN 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other checks were fine.
    • Prose:
      • Spacewar! is a space combat video game developed in 1962 by Steve Russell in collaboration with Martin Graetz and Wayne Wiitanen, and programmed by Russell with assistance from other people, including Bob Saunders and Steve Piner. Can we just shorten this to Spacewar! is a space combat video game developed in 1962 by Steve Russell in collaboration with Martin Graetz, Wayne Wiitanen, Bob Saunders, Steve Piner, and others.? It's unclear from the lead what the difference between developed/programmed is, and it seems a really lengthy first sentence to get through.
      • If you take out the dashed aside, this sentence doesn't make grammatical sense: Three of them ... referring to their collaboration as the "Hingham Institute" as Graetz and Wiitanen were living in a tenement building on Hingham Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, came up with the idea for Spacewar!.
      • The second paragraph in Development Graetz learned that MIT would be acquiring a PDP-1 computer and thought the three of them should create an interesting program to run on it. Wiitanen suggested that a game would be particularly engaging. seems redundant; you told us MIT was getting this computer and they wanted to make a game a section ago.
      • Though Tuck felt that Computer Space was a poor imitation of Spacewar! and his game a superior adaptation, many players believed both of the games to be upgraded variants of Spacewar!. "Both of the games" means Computer Space and Galaxy Game, correct? It's unclear from the structure of the article.
—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to coordinators: I've had Covid-related issues for the last few weeks; I'll be addressing these points shortly and have not abandoned this nom. --PresN 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Sorry for the delay; adjusted the lead, rewrote that sentence; removed the redundancy; clarified. --PresN 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

Brilliant topic. How have I never heard of this?

  • "Ships are destroyed when hit by a torpedo, colliding with the star or colliding with each other." Tense shift? Tricky. Even if it's grammatically accurate (I'm not sure?) it's a little jarring.
  • "to being executed in batches" Jargon?
  • I've tweaked one sentence to become " These interactive graphical games were created by a community of programmers, many of them students and university employees affiliated with the Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC), led by Alan Kotok, Peter Samson, and Bob Saunders.". The ambiguity is whether the "community" or the TMRC was led by those three - as I've written it, it's the community. Previously, it was (I think) ambiguous.
  • I know some people recommend against the use of the word brainstorm. I'm not going to insist on anything...
  • "and in some versions there is an increasing probability of the ship exploding with each use" In the lead, it wasn't clear that this was only in some versions.
  • I'm surprised that you drop the ! after first mention (excluding the very last!). Is there something in the MOS about this?
  • If Expensive Planetarium and Expensive Typewriter are the names of specific pieces of software, shouldn't they be italicised?

That's what jumps out at me from a first read. Double-check my edits! (I'm taking part in the WikiCup.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: See more at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Early history of video games if you're interested!
  • Tweaked
  • Replaced with "on a schedule", and linked to batch processing
  • That's correct, thank you
  • Replaced with "pondering"
  • Fixed
  • I've gotten contradictory opinions on this before; I'm looking through the MOS now, though, and I can't find any guidance regarding punctuation in proper nouns outside of article titles. I'm going to go ahead an switch it to be Spacewar! universally, and see if any reviewers have a different opinion.
  • My understanding, per MOS:ITALICTITLE, is that software programs that are not artistic works like a game are not italicized, e.g. Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Word are not italicized, but are capitalized as a proper name.
--PresN 21:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Bump, sorry- any other issues? --PresN 04:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm pretty happy with how it's looking now, but I'm holding off to see what others think for now. If there's no activity for a little while, I'll revisit. (Sorry, I know that's not very satisfying.) Josh Milburn (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Hey, sorry, it's been a month and one support, but this is moving towards the bottom of the FAC list. Are you willing to give this another look? --PresN 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy to. Ping me again if I haven't gotten to this in a week... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • @Nikkimaria: Can't recreate source website; that said, while the original source code and game are public domain, that screenshot was of a possibly public domain recreation of the game in another programming language; to avoid issues, replaced the first with a picture of the original public domain game, and removed the code image until I can find a better source. --PresN 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HaEr48 (support)

edit

Very interesting topic. Great work. My feedback below:

  • "Somebody [[[Marvin Minsky]]] had built some little ...: Do you mean to have triple bracket around Marvin Minsky, or is it a formatting error?
  • In background, would it be possible to add some properties of the PDP-1, as context for the general reader? E.g. its capabilities and limitations in terms of computing power or storage, its input/output. For example.
  • The ships follow Newtonian physics: Does the source say it this way? (can't find the exact source in the cited ref no. 2). There's more to Newtonian physics than just remaining in motion after accelerating
  • What does rotating do? E.g. if I rotate a ship by 180 degrees, does the ship then move in the opposite direction, or does it now move backwards according to the previous direction?
  • For the #Development section, Any detail on what the programming and the original code is like? Was there any programming language, or an equivalent? I'm a bit surprised to read that someone gave Russel a trigonometric function by slamming some tapes, can some context be added in #Background about programming at the time?
  • Suggest splitting #Legacy to #Distribution for the initial spread (similar to how most game articles have #Release section) and focus #Legacy on the long term impact (such as inspiration to other games, or its consideration as one of the most important games)
  • Similar to #Release section in commercial games, suggest the #Distribution section to contain details of how the game was distributed. Did people just request a copy of the tapes (or whatever distribution method existed at that time) from the authors? Did the authors never sold it commercially? Also suggest adding a sentence of two to the lead about these
  • The image "Spacewar! on the Computer History Museum's PDP-1 in 2007": may be more appropriate in #Legacy?

-- HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a note, I plan to claim this review for Wikicup points. HaEr48 (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HaEr48: Thanks for reviewing!
  • Ah, that used to work, the parsing of those square-bracket templates changed from under me... corrected.
  • Added a little bit about input/output, but the exact specifications of its computing power are too much detail for an article about a game that ran on it.
  • Dropped the term and tried to explain a bit; the gist is that if you move in a direction you keep moving that direction even if you stop accelerating or if you rotate. So, in your example, if you thrust for a bit, stop, and then spin 180 degrees, you're now going backwards relative to your orientation.
  • Added a sourced line that it was written in the PDP-1's assembly language. I'm not sure what you mean about the tapes, though? I've now added some links and a picture that I think will help, but it's punched tapes- long strips of paper that are the code. It's the same thing as if someone had slammed down a floppy disk in the 90s, or a CD in the 00s- he said he couldn't start the game because he didn't know how to program the trig (presumably for how to rotate images?), and they went and found code someone else had already written.
  • Yeah, that was the context I was missing, thank you. Thanks for adding a link to punched tapes in the background.
  • Disagree with splitting Legacy- there's no clean break between distribution and legacy, as the game was changed as it spread. Added a couple sentences about how it spread, but it wasn't really "distributed"- someone saw the game, made a copy of the code, and took it back to another installation, where they used it directly or wrote their own version for the non-PDP-1 they had there. Or maybe they only saw the game and didn't have the code, or maybe they read Graetz's paper about it (mentioned in the article), or maybe they just wanted to make their own version to see if they could. It made it to Stanford because Steve Russell moved there a year later and brought the code with him. There's few records of most of this- see the Kinephanos source for the best tracing out there- there's just dates when the game was seen running on a system somewhere. It certainly wasn't sold- never mind that it went against the "hacker" mindset, it's a game that could only run on a few dozen computers that cost the equivalent of a million dollars and were only found in research labs. Who exactly was going to buy it? Hopefully it's a bit clearer now- I don't want to have too much digression into the state of the programming community in the early 1960s, or even how programming was done at the time or now, though some is obviously needed.
  • I see. I suggest changing the title to "Distribution and legacy" then?
  • Agreed, moved to Legacy and replaced with a picture of the front panel of the PDP-1, including punched tapes, which I think will help with comprehension of some of the terms used. --PresN 02:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. Happy to support this article. Well done. HaEr48 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • I would not bother including publishers for periodicals (e.g., The Computer Museum) but if you do, you should do so consistently (you don't with, e.g., Creative Computing). Same for websites (e.g. Geek.com).
  • You don't need retrieval dates on courtesy links (e.g., Rolling Stone). You're not citing the webpage, there, you're citing the print publication. The link's not needed at all (though good to have).
  • ISSNs are, again, not necessary, but if being used should be used consistently.
  • Your date formatting is inconsistent - you sometimes spell out (e.g., archive date on Creative Computing) and you sometimes use numbers (e.g., Bill Pitts source).
  • Kinephanos is (seems to be?) an academic journal - it should be cited like one.
  • Page numbers for the Kruglisnk source?
  • Your Stanford Magaine citation looks incomplete.
  • Have you had a look at this? Other than that, a look through the first ten pages of Google Scholar raises no concerns - though this is 1) A hard thing to search for and 2) Probably something that has been covered in a fair amount of academic work.

Sources all seem appropriately reliable. No spotchecks done. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I think it's cleaned up now?
  • Publishers are always a hassle- Creative Computing published itself, so the publisher field is omitted as it's the same name... to make it clean, I've dropped all periodical publishers.
  • Dropped retrieval dates for magazine/journal references
  • They are now- 3 magazines don't have them (The Computer Museum Report, Saga, Stanford Magazine).
  • Should all be spelled out, the Bill Pitts article was a yesterday addition that was not consistent- now fixed
  • Fixed Kinephanos, I think- their numbering is weird, they don't stick their "special issues" in volumes and only have one issue per volume normally
  • Was there as 86–111; changed to 86–89 as the rest of it is code/details on code, which isn't the part I'm citing.
  • I think it's right now? It's awkward, the issues are just "month1/month2 year", not numbered.
  • Yes, that source is a guide to programming in a language, and has as an example program a version of Spacewar. It wouldn't be a platform not already listed in the article, just a different programming language, so isn't useful. --PresN 14:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff - I've had a fiddle around with some references (digging out page numbers, etc.). Please check my edits! It'd be great to have page numbers for the MSDN articles. I'm also seeing a few "publishers" for websites - worth removing, perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Edits verified; removed website publishers for consistency. --PresN 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - sources looking good to me now. If spotchecks are required, let me know. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs did spotchecks, so I think we're good there. --PresN 05:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the peanut gallery - I don't understand the request to remove publishers. There's an expectation that citations use a consistent format, but not that there's an equal amount of data to display between all citations. There are all sorts of fields that only make sense for certain citations - secondary authors, translated titles, original publication dates vs. dates of the copy used, etc. If some magazines have a known publisher, and some don't, that's totally fine and not something that needs "fixing". SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't request their removal - I said that I wouldn't include them, but if they were included, they should be included consistently. As for why I wouldn't include them: it just seems an odd thing to include. Is it something called for in style guides? I've never seen publishers included for academic journals outside of Wikipedia, for example. Josh Milburn (talk)
      • I probably wouldn't bother with publishers either, I'm just saying that "consistency" doesn't make any sense if there isn't a consistent amount of information to share. If you think that publishers shouldn't be included In General, that's fine of course, I just think that if there were 5 magazines and 1 of them had a relevant publisher and the other 4 didn't, then it would be totally fine to have 1 magazine include the publisher. SnowFire (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think we really disagree. But I do note that, first, a rule that says something like "Include publishers if there are any" could be consistently applied, and, second - if we're splitting hairs - surely every published magazine has a publisher. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2020 [68].

Operation Rösselsprung (1944)

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an offensive that included the only Waffen-SS parachute operation of World War II, the mission of which was to kill or capture Josip Broz Tito, the leader of the Yugoslav Partisans. It was a coup de main operation, involved direct action by a parachute and glider-borne force landing at Tito's headquarters at Drvar in modern-day Bosnia and a planned linkup with ground forces converging on the town. The operation failed due to fierce Partisan resistance, the failure of German intelligence agencies to share limited intelligence on Tito's exact location, and lack of contingency planning by the junior officer commanding the airborne force. It has gone through GAN and Milhist ACR, and a bit of spring-cleaning, and hopefully balances the material available in Western, German and Yugoslav sources. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • The maps are all stated to be PD-Gov. Although I'm not an expert on post-Yugoslav copyright law, most European countries (unlike the US government) retain copyright on most government works. I don't see how these maps are part of legislation, laws, decrees, or administrative proceedings, so I don't think that they are free use.
  • They are definitely free use. They are official materials created by the Yugoslav government (the Yugoslav National Army) for the purpose of officially informing the public about the history of the war, per Art 8.2.1 of the copyright law of Croatia, which is a successor state. In the case of the Serbian successor state, per Art 6.(2) of the copyright law of Serbia they are official materials of the Yugoslav National Army (a state body) in performance of its public function of informing the public about the history of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, B&H only exempts "official texts in the domain of legislation, administration and judiciary (laws, regulations, decisions, reports, minutes, judgments and alike)" This is not related to legislation, administration or judiciary so still protected. Slovenia exempts only "official legislative, administrative and judicial texts". So it does appear that Croatia and Serbia have more expansive waiving of government copyright, but Commons copyright rules don't make it clear whether the more lenient jurisdiction or the more strict one should be followed. buidhe 05:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Titova pecina prije rata.jpg—apparently there's no freedom of panorama in Bosnia. The cabin is the focus of the image and it may be sufficiently original for copyright protection.
  • Article 52(1) says "The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted." It says nothing about "only non-commercial reproduction", where are you getting that from? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.[2010 Article 52(2)]" buidhe 07:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What this says is that "non-commercial reproduction" of publicly located structures is OK. But for Wikipedia purposes, "free" requires it being OK for commercial use. buidhe 00:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb. It is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • "the German XV Mountain Corps and their allies" I don't think that you mean that they were allies of the German XV Mountain Corps.
  • "he was designated Marshal of Yugoslavia and prime minister." Why the upper case M?
  • "(0.62 mi)"! Maybe insert sigfig=1?
  • "The Unac River ran along the base of the ridge line above the cave" This reads as if the river ran above the cave.
  • " the Tito Escort Battalion which was responsible for his personal safety." I think "his" → 'Tito's'.
  • "At the time of Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung)" Is there a reason why the translation to German is not given in the lead?
  • Optional: consider making the current sections 2, 3 and 4 sub-sections of "Background".
  • "Apart from Partisan headquarters and related organisations close in and around Drvar" Maybe delete "close"?
  • "there were between 12,000 and 16,000 Partisans" Genuine and open question: what is the justification for the upper case P in this particular usage?
I appreciate that and all of the other cases in this article - however oddly they read to me - follow what seems to be the RS style. (Although you boot some of the Medieval RSs equivalents straight out of my articles ;-).) It is this one, singular, case where an upper case is particularly debatable. But if you are content with it, fair enough.
  • "The nearest large Partisan formation to Drvar was the 3rd Lika Proletarian Brigade" Was "1st Proletarian Corps" not a Partisan formation? Or are you not considering it "large"? Or does "immediate vicinity" mean more than 10 km away?
I struggle to see 'all 10 km or more away' as synonymous with "in the the immediate vicinity". I think that the latter needs tweaking.
I have tweaked this para, have a look and see if it is clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10 kilometres (6.2 mi)" sigfig?
  • "and 8th Corps" 'the'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Three organisations attempted to" Possibly insert 'German' (or 'Axis')?
  • "both the Chetniks and Ustaše Militia" 'the Ustaše Militia'?
  • "after von Weichs had issued his orders" What orders? None have been mentioned.
Reads better.
  • "An ad-hoc Kampfgruppe Panzergrenadier Sturmbattalion manned by officer cadets" "manned" reads a little oddly. Perhaps 'made up of' or 'consisting of'?
  • Foreign words should use eg {{lang|de|xxxx}} wrap arounds, not ''xxxx''.
MOS:FOREIGNITALIC states "The {{lang}} template and its variants support all ISO 639 language codes, correctly identifying the language and automatically italicizing for you. Please use these templates rather than just manually italicizing non-English material."; MOS:OTHERLANG "Non-English words or phrases should be encased in {{lang}}, which uses ISO 639 language codes, thus: {{lang|fr|Assemblée nationale}}". WP:NONENGLISHTITLE says "It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms. Such words are equivalent to jargon, which should be explained somehow."; which to me suggests that, for example, that instead of kampfgruppe, 'battlegroup' might be the better word, when it is not part of a formal title.
I think linking is sufficient. Battlegroup can have a more formal meaning than kampfgruppe, which is a more ad hoc organisation. Lang templates now throughout. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with significant demolition and mining of roads" Is "significant" necessary?
Hmm. I see your point, and no alternative springs readily to mind. I wouldn't use it, but it's not my nomination.
  • "penetrate deeply into Partisans’ rear" 'the'.
  • "had become apparent by now, serious reorganisation of Partisan dispositions was now required." Consider deleting the second "now".
  • Aftermath: the detail given about Operation Flounced seems undue to me.
I still don't see what it is doing in the article at all, but now trimmed it doesn't, quite, trigger my personal criterion 4 threshold.

A lucid explanation of a complicated series of events. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Gog. I reckon I've addressed all your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. A couple of points above where I have come back at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed those additional points now, Gog the Mild, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

I've always been interested in this topic, but for some reason never enough to seek out a proper account of it - make of that what you will! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The infobox states that this was a "German operational failure" while the last section states that it was simply a failure. Could this be simplified to "German failure"?
  • I'm not entirely comfortable with the behaviour of Tito's mistress being labelled "hysteria" - it's hardly irrational for a civilian to panic or become distressed while making a difficult escape from a surprise attack by elite troops, especially given the terrible fate she faced if she was captured. I'd suggest using a different term.
  • "The drop zone was within fields of fire of the Partisans to the west of Drvar, and they suffered many casualties during the drop." - who the "they" is here is unclear (the paratroopers, I think?)
  • "The ground forces were also subjected to Allied air attacks by the Balkan Air Force throughout the day" - I'd suggest noting here (rather than just in the last section) that this was the result of the British mission calling in air strikes Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Another Yugoslav topic and WWII battle keep them going.

  • Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung, Knight's move) --> " The Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung, Knight's move)"? And unlink German is too comment.
  • The British and Soviet military missions to the Partisans were also Brtish is a too comment term.
  • At the time of Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung) --> Unlink German.
  • British ranks had before and during WWII a hyphen between the words.
  • with the Corps headquarters located in the village of Mokronoge, 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) east of Drvar Per MOS:UNITNAMES "kilometre" here should be an abbreviation.
  • Trubar villages some 10 kilometres (6 mi) south and southwest of Drvar Same as above.
  • Leutnant Kirchner of that unit had Kirchner who? Same with Zavadil?
  • On Hitler's orders, SS-Sturmbannführer --> "On Adolf Hitler's orders, SS-Sturmbannführer"
  • cave near the village of Bastasi, 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) west of Drvar "kilometre" should be "km".
  • southwest of the centre of Drvar, nearly 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) Same as above.
  • destroy the British military mission in the village of Prnjavor 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) Same as above.
  • referred to as Kampfgruppe Willam after its commander, Oberst Willam Willam who?
  • landed in front of the Bastasi cave 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) to the west of Drvar "kilometre" should be "km". Also convert isn't needed here it's already convert before.
  • About 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) further east on the road to Mokronoge Same as above.
  • aiming to cover the 20 kilometres (12 mi) to Drvar as quickly "kilometre" should be "km".
  • task of reaching Mliništa (20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Ključ) Same as above. Also convert isn't needed here it's already convert before.
  • had reached positions some 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) "kilometre" should be "km".
  • Tito was delivered by the Royal Navy escort destroyer HMS Blackmore Sea of blue here.
  • I'm not a fan of a one-sentence section.
  • was initially located in a cave below a ridge line about Merge ridge and line.
  • a rail line ran along the ridge line above the cave Same as above.
  • break through Partisan resistance east of the Merge break and through.
  • The second wave of parachute troops were dropped --> "The second wave of parachute troops was dropped"?
  • 3rd Krajina Brigade and was pushed back all the way to its start --> "3rd Krajina Brigade and was pushed back to its start"?
  • despite the fact that the 92nd Motorised Regiment --> "even though the 92nd Motorised Regiment"
  • with the aim of securing the main supply road from --> "to secure the main supply road from"
  • overnight on the evening of 24 May 1944 I do not believe the year is here necessary. It was already mentioned in a couple of sentences before.
  • took Bosanski Petrovac without a fight about 8:00 I think you forgot a nought here at the time?
  • Why is this the 1944 called? If there is another "Operation Rösselsprung" then we should add an "about" template.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, CPA-5. All done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks to me as a support. I hope more of WWII battle-related articles will come in the near future; hey wait there is, Nick-D has nominated another WWII battle-related article. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SR by Factotem - Support

edit

Unsourced statements

  • Nitpick: It's not unambiguously clear that the infobox start date of 25 May is supported in the article. Suggest beginning the "Operation" section with "The offensive began at 05:00 on 25 May..." and end the para with "...were flown on that day."
  • Some of the bullet points in the "Ground forces" end without references, which makes them look unsourced. The optics of this look bad because there are refs embedded in the bulleted list. Is it possible to end each bullet point with a ref? Alternatively, I would accept confirmation here that the ref at the end of the first sentence in that section (#26) is the ref for all bullet points, which is usual for lists like this.
  • William Elliot apears in the infobox but is nowhere else mentioned in the article, so is unsourced
  • I can't find in the main body of the article any support/sources for the strength figures given for either side.

Technical checks

  • All look good; no "p" miscounts, endashes where they should be, publisher locations all good.
  • Where they exist, I've checked the Gbooks links. I personally think it's a mistake to add these; there are mismatches in editions, but the different editions all appear to have the same pagination, so nothing to which I can reasonably object here.
InternetArchiveBot has been adding links to archive.org, not to gbooks. Every such change I've checked on articles in my watchlist has been consistent with the rest of the details listed in the article bibliography. I'm so bored in lockdown that I checked the article history, and it was you who added the gbook link in this edit (if I knew what the emoticon for light-hearted climbing the wall smiley face was, I'd insert it here). I deleted the link myself. If you choose to put the correct link, the only thing I'd really have a problem with would be an edition mismatch with the rest of the book details. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously haven't been paying enough attention. I used to put them in early on, but rarely do it now. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links checker appears to be down, so can't do that.
Ext link checker working again now and reports no errors (not even the 404 err mentioned below, which is odd) Factotem (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • GBooks link for Greentree's Knight's Move = 404
  • Naimark, Norman M. and Gibianskiĭ, L are editors, not authors. The one ref cited to that source appears to be to a chapter written by Vladimir Volkov
  • Nitpick: you could add orig-year=1966 to the information for Stein's book in the bibliography
  • I'm not at all able to comment on the foreign language sources, particularly the Yugoslav. I would nitpick the translation of Geschlagen as Lost for Rendulic's work. My far from fluent knowledge of German tells me the German word for lost is Verloren, and that Geschlagen is better translated as beaten, but not an issue.
  • The Yugoslav sources are formation histories in the main published by the Yugoslav government. Given they, like the German accounts, are prone to romanticism at times, I have used them judiciously. Odić is the principal high quality source in Serbo-Croatian, and is highly reliable. The title of Rendulic's book is covered in an answer below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, publishers of Kumm's work used as a source, has a reputation for publishing 'romancer' works, but Kumm is cited only twice for basic and, as far as I can tell, non-controversial facts.
  • Similarly, Verlag Welsermühl, publisher of Rendulic's work, is, according to the WP article on Erich Kern, "a far-right revisionist publishing house that sought to portray a pro-German version of Second World War history." Another concern I have with citing Rendulic's work is that he is listed as a participant, which makes him a primary source. He is cited only once, though it's not clear what exactly is being cited to him (sentence is double-cited). Can you clarify what in the sentence "After three days of fighting, the combined forces returned to Vis. The Partisans suffered losses of 67 dead, 308 wounded and 14 missing, and Allied units suffered 60 dead, 74 wounded and 20 missing, with the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jack Churchill, being captured by the Germans." is sourced to his work?
  • Post-war, Rendulic was used extensively by the US Army as a source for many operational studies of the European war, and nothing that is being used from this book is self-serving or romantic in any way. The bit in that sentence drawn from Rendulic is the capture of Jack Churchill, the rest of the sentence is sourced from Pribilović. I've moved the citations closer. There are several possible translations of Gekämpft, Gesiegt, Geschlagen, but I've changed it to "Fought, Won, Defeated". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any information about K. Vowinckel, publishers of Schraml's work, or indeed about Schraml himself. As a work published relatively recently after the war, I might be suspicious that he too would tend towards a romantic view, but he's only cited twice, for information that does not appear to me to be controversial.
  • Eyre has also published a book based on his article. I had a look at both and didn't think the level of detail of much of the information was necessary for the article. The rest is already covered by other sources. I could put them both in a Further reading section? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add them to a Further reading section myself, but your choice. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Factotem. See if I've addressed everything to your satisfaction. Just a query about the final point. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supporting on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, while I would ideally like to see a scan from someone outside the MilHist space before we promote, I see no reason to prevent another nom at this point. There are a lot of noms in the list though, so I'd encourage everyone to have a go at more reviews, even if outside their comfort zone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consistently review three times as many articles as I nominate, although admittedly they are mostly in the Milhist space. Across more than eight years I've had 52 FAs and have reviewed 152 articles. Surely prolific reviewers can be cut some more slack? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dispensation to nominate another article wasn't contingent on your reviewing more articles than normal, just an encouragement to do so given the number of opens ones at the moment -- the suggestion was also, as I said, for everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Very interesting. A few comments.
  • In the first lede paragraph, you refer to "German ... and allied forces" and then, later, "and co-located Allied military missions". Is there any way of avoiding the first "allied"? I don't think the risk of confusion is that great, still a different word might be better.
  • I'm not as familiar with WWII in the Balkans as perhaps I should be so the first paragraph comes to me a little unclear how it fits into the big picture of the war.
  • The sourcing scheme seems a bit hard to understand in the "Ground forces" section.
  • "who resisted fanatically" how so more than any other resistance?
  • Well, soldiers can resist weakly or strongly, and in some cases fanatically. In this case, the defenders were serious hard-core communists who knew they would get no quarter from the Germans. It is how their resistance is described by Eyre, and it is the only use of "fanatically" in his paper. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about the strikes by the Balkan Air Force in the first paragraph of "Aftermath" seem a bit duplicative of the first paragraph of "25 May". I wonder why you refer to it as "newly-formed" in the second reference to it.
  • "Tito, his principal headquarters staff and the allied military personnel escaped, despite their presence in Drvar at the time of the airborne assault." Should allied be capped?
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Wehwalt, always nice to have a non-Milhist editor with many FAs under their belt look over one of my noms. Just a couple of queries above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2020 [69].

Lythronax

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC); Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC); IJReid (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the first FAC about a tyrannosaur, one of the most famous dinosaur groups, since 2008's Gorgosaurus. It is also one of the few dinosaurs ever mentioned in a presidential proclamation, for rather unfortunate reasons. We have cited all relevant studies, and luckily many nice, free images were available to use. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

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

I will probably make a few copy edits as I go. Shout if I mess anything up.

Thanks, I have it listed at the copy edit request page, maybe I should just remove it from there (or add another article)? FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sort of article I might pick up myself from GoCER, but I didn't actually find anything to copy edit!
Agreed and changed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IJReid, seems you missed signing as nominator? FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the UMNH referred to Lythronax as a "great-uncle" referred or refers?
I can see it either way. The website cited is written in the style of a press release, but it is undated. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US government was subsequently sued" Do we know the result or progress of this? Is it still ongoing?
Seems to be pending: [70] But the details of the case seem a bit out of scope. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it won't get resolved any time soon, it is a pretty recent case... Disregarding NPOV for a minute, hopefully the US will have a new president before any damage can be done... FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "24.0–26.2 ft" 1. Is this false precision? 2. I find decimal feet very odd. Are they normal within paleontology?
This is the {{convert}} template doing its thing. I don't think ft is ever used in palaeo. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then add |ftin .
I've changed it to represent what should be proper sig figs. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unique among tyrannosauroids except" Is there a way of phrasing this that doesn't involve the unfortunate "unique ... except"?
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5.1 in" |sigfig=1 ?
5.1 would have the proper count of 2 sig figs as 13 is 2. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proper count is that which best conveys accurate information to the reader. If the source gives the measurement to the nearest centimetre (Which as the article does not state 13.0 cm I am assuming it does) then I would like a rationale for giving the conversion to the nearest tenth of an inch.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A detailed phylogenetic analysis accompanying the 2013 description of Lythronax by Loewen and colleagues" Was it the "detailed phylogenetic analysis", "the 2013 description" or both that were by Loewen and colleagues?
Both. Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both of these results were suggested to stem from duplication of characters" Is there a typo here? If not, perhaps a smidgeon more explanation.
I'm not entirely sure how to word that the duplication of characters means that the same feature was described differently in multiple phylogenetic characters making it more "weighted" for the analysis because of how they run. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if one of the nominators could respond to the query.
IJReid is actually one of the nominators, just forgot to sign, I think. Both he and Lythronaxargestes have better grasps at the details of phylogenetic analysis than me. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IJReid. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Maybe something like 'It has been suggested that both of these results stemmed from an over-weighting of some features by... '? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it in with a bit of a tweak now to the entire sentence (also impacts comment below, if it makes that one worse I can undo the change to the end) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the placement of Bistahieversor pulling Lythronax closer to Tyrannosaurus than otherwise would be resolved" I am not sure that "would be resolved" is readily comprehensible.
Reworded, is this better? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much. Thank you.
  • "with Tyrannosaurus being descended from North American forms before such migration took place" Optional: This may be a little clearer with 'from North American forms from before such migration took place'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they recovered the north-south divisions of tyrannosaurids suggested by Loewen and colleagues." I am not sure what "recovered" means in this context.
Reworded all occurrences of "recovered". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lythronax was distinct from most other tyrannosaurids due to its shortened skull" comes over a little oddly. Consider rewording. (Eg, 'Lythronax differed from most other tyrannosaurids in having a shortened skull'.)
Took your suggestion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had appeared at least by 80 million years ago" Should that be 'had appeared by at least 80 million years ago'?
Agreed, changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "turtles like Compsemys" Optional: "like" → 'such as'.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A fair number of" Optional: → 'Numerous'.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent article. A first class job of clear explication. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think all the issues have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the changes look good. Two discussion points left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just the minor point re the precision of a measurement left to discuss. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should also now be fixed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reads well. One of the very best articles I have come across on Wikipedia. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, great that it came off as such, because dinosaur articles can often be hard to understand if one isn't very well-versed in paleontology already. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Several of the diagrams would benefit from being scaled up
Any specific ones in mind? None stand out to me, but probably just a consequence of my screen size. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeletal diagrams and the sea level change chart in particular. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "upright" parameter to these images (including the skull image File:Lythronax.png). Are they better? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
I have added alt text to all images in the main body of the article. Please note that this is my first attempt at writing alt text for an article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rinchenia_mongoliensis_profile1.jpg: on what source was this based? Same with File:Patagonykuspuertai.jpg, File:Alioramus_Life_Restoration.jpg, File:Stokesosaurus_by_Tom_Parker.png, File:Carcharodontosaurus.png, File:Neovenator.png, File:Allosaurus_Revised.jpg, File:Torvosaurus_tanneri_Reconstruction_(Flipped).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about the navigation template? I'm a bit surprised that they are considered to be within the scope of the article, especially since it does not seem to have been a problem previously (cf. the FA review of Brachiosaurus). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering about this, got the same comment on Ichthyovenator's FA review[71]. Since we didn't make any of those images and thus wouldn't know what sources were used in their creation, should we just cite the most reliable skeletals we can find for each species on their respective Commons image pages? That is, if they are indeed considered within the scope of the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The navboxes are part of the article. Any source that can verify the representation would be appropriate, even if not the exact one used by the original creator. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified and sourced all of the unsourced images individually. Some can be definitively sourced because the image review discussions have been archived. Others match up to state-of-the-art skeletal reconstructions. One image has failed verification and has been posted for revision at the appropriate image review page, but I'm hoping it's not a big deal (since it is a navbox image after all). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The offending image has been corrected. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, guys, I was away over the weekend so didn't see this until now. And yeah, it's enough if a source is added that an image can be checked up against, even if we can't be sure what exact reference the artists used originally. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Looking now...

  • between 5–8 m - should be " between 5 and 8 m" - ir " 5–8 m"
  • Similarly the measurements just following.

Otherwise reads well and is comprehensive (only caveat being I am familiar with terms so not best judge of accessability) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77

edit
The Lythronax paper frustratingly does not include measurements (MYDD!) so this information is not available. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do they give the measurements of other teeth or say something like the teeth decrease in size towards the back of the mouth? You could also say "the biggest teeth were" instead of "the teeth differed in size" so it doesn't leave it open-ended   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It already says "with the first five much larger than those following" just before. Oh, wait, this is about the lead. Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to use the abbreviation because the UMNH acronym is already explained in the previous paragraph. If it makes more sense, I can take out the entire note. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is interesting as it shows how it was reported at the time, and also it gives an easy to understand analogy. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diabloceratops. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure it's important enough to mention the other one here (but it's ok now it was added), but the document is available online for all to see. I doubt Trump either wrote, read, or understood any of it, though... FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, there is no result yet. Going into the legal nitty gritty is probably out of scope. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it will probably drag out for years. But once it's settled, I think we can mention the outcome. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should clarify it's an ongoing lawsuit at the very least   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added that it is ongoing. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This means "anterolateral". I think we still need a better way to word this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's worded right now makes it sound like a contradiction (how can something face forward and to the sides at the same time?)
That is what anterolateral means though. We also had "almost/nearly forwards" and "between the front and the sides" at one point, any of those better? FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
nearly forward is better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took your suggestion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded entirely. I think "basal" and "derived" are best defined together under Classification. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref fixed and format standardized throughout the whole article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PaleoGeekSquared

edit

Thought I might pitch in! Nice to see this fan-favourite tyrannosaur get to FAC. Very minor comments and nitpicks below. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By odd coincidence, we now have two simultaneous dinosaur FACs which have active editors named after them (Lythronaxargestes and Ichthyovenator)... FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing! Haha. Shame that Ichthyovenator wasn't a co-nominator for that article as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very close repetition of "robust", perhaps use another word in one of the instances?
First occurrence reworded to "heavily-built". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery:

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

  • Citations out of order on first sentence.
Yeah, I see it suggested sometimes, but I don't think it is a requirement. I think it's just optional. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done regardless. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lythronax had a relatively short snout and a broad skull (over 40% of the skull's length)" - The skull was 40% of the skull's length? This should probably be rephrased, not sure if it's meant to refer to the snout or skull width.
I'm not entirely sure how this was reached, I think IJReid might know. 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Breadth/width 40% of length. Rewrote. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification:

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Late Cretaceous (around 95 million years ago)" Link Late Cretaceous and suggest adding period in front, as in lead.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiology:

  • Looks good to me, no comments.

Paleoecology:

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, Supporting now; overall an exceptionally-written article! It's comprehensive enough, well-illustrated, and the prose has good flow, draws you in, and is very easy to understand even in the most technical parts. I'm definitely going to take several tips from this article on how to write my own FAs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it shows that we need more dinosaur collaborations! FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

The links all work, and all sources are reliable. I checked the non-academic sources for what they're used to support, and found no issues. A minor formatting issue: you are inconsistent about giving publisher location for At the Top of the Grand Staircase; the first citation has the location and the second does not. That's the only thing I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added location to second cite of that book. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2020 [72].

Mary van Kleeck

edit
Nominator(s): Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mary van Kleeck, an American social scientist and feminist of the 20th century. It is currently a Good Article (since November), and as a first time FA-nominator, I sought the mentorship of Coemgenus before nominating the article. Van Kleeck was a fascinating figure but there is not a great deal of scholarship on her, so the article is comprehensive but still relatively short. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from 100cellsman

There are no length requirements for Featured Articles, so I wouldn't worry about it being short.🧍‍♂️⭕⭕ (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As noted above, I've agreed to mentor Ganesha811 in this nomination and I wish to add my support for the article after she made the few changes I suggested before nominating it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Mary_van_Kleeck_LOC_hec.10458.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Same with File:VAN_GLECK,_MARY_LOC_hec.10457.jpg
  • These images are from the Harris & Ewing Collection given to the Library of Congress. Harris & Ewing was a US photo studio from 1905 to 1977, when it closed. I'm not the original uploader for either image, but the library (and hence Wikimedia) claim there are no restrictions on these images and that publication is permitted (see here). The LoC also claims both images were published between 1913 and 1918. Subjectively, her age appears to be consistent with those dates. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I'm not sure there is any way to state more definitively that they were published in that range without heading to Washington and doing original research at the LoC. Given that, what do you advise? Should the images be removed or should the Wikimedia record simply be modified to reflect the lack of definitive evidence? I'm new to FAC so I'm not sure what the best course is here. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0394).jpg: source link is dead
  • Fixed. Refound link (here) and updated Wikimedia record accordingly.
  • This one is problematic. I uploaded a higher resolution version of this image, but the original was uploaded without a lot of good information, as you say. I'm not sure when the original date is. A digital display record of the same image exists at the LoC, but has no further information. I think, that unless you have another suggestion, this image should be removed from the article (and probably Wikimedia too) until its rights situation can be ascertained. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Removed and replaced with File:"Men wanted today to work on pulpwood cutting, logging and in saw mills" - NARA - 515003.jpg, which is an US Employment Service poster. Should be good on rights with this one.

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

Hello. I will leave some more comments later. (Note that I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.) On first glance this is what I saw:

  • Of Dutch origin, Van Kleeck was a lifelong New Yorker, - This reads strangely. And the link leads to "Dutch American".
  • Fixed. Rephrased the sentence (and the following one). The link leads to Dutch American since Van Kleeck was a Dutch American - I think that makes more sense than any other potential link. What would you suggest? Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, be consistent when you capitalize or lowercase "van Kleeck" in the middle of sentences.
  • Fixed. Yeah, I did another runthrough to make sure these are right and caught a few.
  • undergraduate studies at Smith College - where's Smith College? Relevant because the previous sentence mentions her being a lifelong New Yorker, so this implies Smith College is elsewhere.
  • Fixed. Added "in Massachusetts" to clarify.
  • President Wilson - president of where? We can't assume all readers are Americans.
  • Fixed I actually disagree that this is needed. While all readers may not be Americans, I think it is clear from context that we would be talking about the American president here - to help clarify this, I added "U.S." before Army in the preceding sentence, and "American" before War Department in the preceding clause. The following sentence also mentions her/this action's Americanness. Writing "American President Wilson" or "President of the United States Wilson" seems a bit awkward here. If you feel strongly, though, I can edit again to reflect your views. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also jumping down to the end:

  • An excerpt from that questioning follows below: - "below" is redundant. In almost every version of the article, the text that follows is located below.
  • Fixed. Good call, thanks.
  • Van Kleeck died of heart failure during surgery to replace a broken hip on June 8, 1972, in Kingston, New York, aged 88 I would consider rewording this, since it currently reads awkwardly.

I don't think length is a problem (it has 14,000 bytes of readable prose, so it's already pretty long). I will check more later. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not forgotten about this. I am studying for a test tomorrow but hope to have some more comments afterward. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, thanks for the comments so far! I'd welcome any other comments you have. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It seems as though I have indeed forgotten about this. Let me take a look at the rest of the page shortly. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 More comments:

  • Eliza Mayer of Baltimore - do we know Van Kleeck's mother's occupation? Asking only because we only have the father's occupation as well.
  • Response: I don't know of any sources that explicitly an occupation for her. In the absence of other evidence, I assume she was a homemaker. I do recall a source that Eliza was her father's favorite child, the youngest and only daughter, but that didn't seem relevant enough to Mary van Kleeck to put in this article.
  • Flushing High School - the fact that this is in NYC could probably be mentioned, since the context is that she grew up elsewhere.
  • Fixed. Added "in New York City".
  • where she thrived - studying calculus - should be either a spaced en-dash, or an em-dash per MOS:DASH. Check the article for other instances of this as well
  • Fixed. I didn't see any others but I'll keep a weather eye out for this and other style issues.
  • As part of this work, van Kleeck carried out investigations of enforcement of the labor laws governing the workweek, then limited to 60 hours, a provision which was frequently ignored by employers - This wording feels awkward. I understand the message here, but the second half doesn't flow well. I suggest something like "which was limited to 60 hours at the time, though this provision was frequently ignored by employers".
  • Fixed. Adopted your wording, which I agree is clearer.
  • , which was the start of a relationship which would last for forty years. - the word "which" is repeated in a short span here; replace one of these words, or cut the first "which was" completely.
  • Fixed. Deleted 'which was.'
  • The organization had been founded the same year - I think "the same year" can also be cut or reworded. Unless you were intending to say Van Kleeck gained support from the Russell Sage Foundation in 1907, shortly after its establishment in the previous sentence. In which case, definitely reword it, because this is repetitive.
  • Fixed. Cut 'the same year', moved phrase 'shortly after its establishment' in previous sentence. I think it flows better now, but let me know what you think.
  • In 1916, van Kleeck persuaded the Foundation to create the Division of Industrial Studies with her as its head. - This is not directly sourced. Is it related to the next paragraph? If so, move this sentence to the following paragraph instead.
  • Fixed. This was actually just a missing citation, which I've now added from a previously added source. In any case I agree the sentence works better as the lead of a new paragraph, and have moved it accordingly.
  • , according to the Encyclopædia Britannica - what is the purpose of this fragment? (Especially since you already have a reference.) If it's particularly important to include this in-text attribution, this can stay. If not, cut it.
  • Response: this was added at Coemgenus's suggestion as part of the mentoring process. They wrote: ""she became a notable figure in the study of industrial labor conditions" --someone will probably ask you to attribute this in the text, showing that it's the view expressed in a reliable source and not your own opinion". Hence the fragment. I'm happy to cut it if you think it significantly detracts from the article.
  • She recommended the creation of a Women's Bureau in the American War Department, and as a result President Woodrow Wilson appointed[14] van Kleeck to lead a new Women in Industry Service group, a sub-agency of the Department of Labor.[20] - ref 14 has an unusual placement here. Is it being used to cite the fact she was appointed, as opposed to elected or something else?
  • Reponse: it is placed there to reflect the fact that she was appointed directly by President Wilson, and not some other executive functionary - this fact is reflected in source [14], but not in source [20]. Is there a standard protocol for sourcing cases like this?
  • In December 1918, the group published a wide-ranging report entitled Standards for the Employment of Women in Industry, which was later used as the basis for the groundbreaking Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which applied basic working standards to men and women throughout the country. - this sentence needs to be split or reworded. It looks like a run-on sentence to me.
  • Fixed. Split sentence after the report name to avoid run-on.
  • Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover's administrations - since these are multiple administrations, should be "Harding's, Coolidge's, and Hoover's".
  • Fixed.
  • including the President's Conference on Unemployment in 1921 - How come this is part of the preceding sentence (about serving on various committees) instead of the following sentence (about the unemployment conference itself)?
  • Response: Honestly just for flow. I think it's difficult to make the second sentence work as a non-run-on, and the phrase you highlighted in the previous sentence connects the two neatly. However if you feel there's a better way to structure this paragraph I'm very open to suggestions. :)
  • I didn't even notice. I was thinking you can split the Conference on Unemployment text into two sentences, but on the other hand, that might give too much weight to that particular detail. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • she resigned after one day in protest due to her belief - this needs punctuation, or rewording. I take it she resigned in protest after one day? Otherwise this is very confusing.
  • Fixed. Reordered phrases so it now reads "She resigned in protest after one day due to her belief...".
  • What's the NRA?
  • Fixed. - National Recovery Administration - I expanded the acronym in text.
  • She lost the election and turned her focus to nuclear activism and disarmament work.[15][3] - Was she a third-party candidate? In any case, the ref order should be fixed so [3] is before [15].
  • Response/Fixed. Switched ref order. Yes, she was a third-party candidate, as described in the previous sentence.
  • Van Kleeck died of heart failure at the age of 88 during surgery to replace a broken hip on June 8, 1972, in Kingston, New York.[10] - this sentence is trying to pack too many details into a single clause. Also, shouldn't we mention her age closer to her date of death? E.g. "Van Kleek died on June 8, 1972, at the age of 88 in Kingston, New York. The cause of death was listed as heart failure, which occurred during surgery to replace a broken hip" (I do not recommend this wording, but this is an example of what I am talking about.)
  • Fixed? Rephrased. Removed "during surgery to replace a broken hip" entirely, simply because it doesn't seem needed and is awkward to fit in. Moved her age to new, short final sentence. Let me know what you think. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all my comments for now. Ping me back after you resolve these, and I will have another look. epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, pinging as requested! Thanks for all the comments. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Support on prose. I think all my concerns have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

edit
  • I will try to comment on this article, but there seems to me a problem due to differences in American and British usage. You refer to "advocating a radical agenda for social workers and laborers". In Britain a social worker is a specialist profession which assists and supports vulnerable people, especially children in danger of abuse. You seem to be using the term in a broader sense, but I am not sure what. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles, this is a great point. I think it's really a question of difference in historical meaning rather than US-UK difference. Nowadays the American conception of a social worker is pretty much what you described. Historically, though, (at least in the United States) social work was a field which was concerned with the improvement of society through specific reforms. A 'social worker' from 1930 might today be described as a social scientist, a social reformer, an activist, or some combination of the above. I'm not sure what the best solution is to address this discrepancy between the historic use of the term and its contemporary, more modern definition. Generally, social work in the past focused on communities and societies, and contemporary social work focuses on individuals. Let me think about it, and if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Van Kleeck's experiences with and research into capitalism led her to become a passionate socialist." This is not WP:POV. It was her interpretation was led her to socialism.
  • Fixed, I hope. I rewrote the paragraph with material from an existing source, 'Beyond the Rank and File Movement: Mary van Kleeck and Social Work Radicalism in the Great Depression, 1931–1942.' There should be more detail and less POV issue. Let me know what you think.
  • "a joint postgraduate fellowship from the College Settlement Association". In this and the following paragraph you say a good deal about her research but nothing about the publication of the results.
  • Response: I'm afraid this is because I just don't know much about her early research. I know that she never received a PhD, but sources are generally vague about this period of her life and it is possible that much of it was never published in any formal way, or has just been lost.
  • There is information about slightly later books she wrote at [73], Catherine Reef, Working in America, p. 410. Some of her dates are different from yours, but as she cites no sources that is probably not significant. You may be able to get access to the passage by googling her, but I can email you the page if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks. I was able to get access, and I've added a sentence about her publications in this period. I've also expanded a paragraph later in the article about her 1920s work with the Sage foundation, with some discussion of the specific studies they carried out, to give a better sense of her research as you discussed.
  • "The organization had been founded by Margaret Olivia Sage to support social work and progressive reforms". As discussed, I do not think the link is to social work as she understood it.
  • Fixed. Changed to "social activism and progressive reforms through dedicated scientific research", without the link.
  • "working girls should be able to access accelerated studies, published in May 1915". I am not sure what accelerated studies means here - courses at a younger age or ones that they were unable to undertake due to discrimation or lack of finance.
  • Fixed. She meant 'evening school', or what we refer to now as 'night school', without barriers due to lack of finance. Edited to reflect this.
  • I've heard both, but the existing wiki article I linked to uses the term night school, so that's what I went with. Upon reflection, since Van Kleeck herself used the term evening school, I've changed it to that.
  • "a plan for the uniform creation and calculation of employment statistics across the United States, work in which van Kleeck played a key role". I would avoid saying "creation" of statistics - it sounds dodgy.
  • Fixed. Removed 'creation.'
  • "she opposed the New Deal on left-wing grounds". This is too vague.
  • Hopefully fixed.' See above about the whole paragraph.
  • "nearly 1,000 conference attendees organized to unofficially censure Hodson" The figure means little without knowing the total number of attendees.
  • Response: - I can't find a figure for the total number of conference attendees. While it would be nice to have, I actually disagree that the 1000 figure is meaningless without it. 1000 people is a large number for a single event in pretty much any context, and given that it's accurate according to the source, I think it adds to the article. It lets the reader know that Van Kleeck's views were shared passionately by many in attendance, even if the exact ratio of supporters to opponents is unknown. However, if you disagree strongly, I'm happy to take it out - it's not a big deal in the context of the whole article.
  • "She lost the election" It would be interesting to know what the votes were, maybe in a footnote.
  • Response: Agreed. I remember looking for the vote totals when I was first writing this section, but couldn't find anything. I'll take another look now. Does anyone know of a good source for New York State legislative races, historically?
  • "her focus to nuclear activism and disarmament work" Presumably anti-nuclear.
  • Fixed.
  • "she came under sustained FBI surveillance and government suspicion". It would be helpful to clarify what she was suspected of - secret membership of the Communist Party? subversive activities in support of the Soviet Union? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. She was suspected of being a 'fellow traveler' and possibly a secret member of the Communist Party, according to the secondary sources and the questions she was asked before Congress. She was never accused of anything specific. I rewrote the sentence to the following: 'As a result, she came under government suspicion sustained FBI surveillance as a 'fellow traveler' and possible secret member of the Communist Party, although no evidence of this was ever presented.' Let me know if you think this adequately clarifies the matter.

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review at the WikiCup.

I'll wait until Dudley's comments are responded to, so that I don't start picking up the same points. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A petty point, but could the lead be reduced to three paragraphs? (Without losing any words.)
  • Fixed. Recombined to form three paragraphs.
  • "advocating a radical agenda for social reformers and laborers." I am not sure that this quite works. Do you mean something like 'advocating a radical agenda of social reform for laborers.'?
  • Response: in this case, I meant a radical agenda for both social reformers (social workers) and laborers, separately. I wanted to encompass her influence on social workers and the rank-and-file movement, and her labor studies advocating labor power like Creative America (1936).
  • The quote boxes across the middle of the article really doesn't work. Can I recommend taking them out of the box and making them ordinary block quotes.
  • Fixed. Stylistically, I prefer the quote boxes, but I see that according to MOS:Block Quotes that they are discouraged, so I've changed them.
I got caught by that on my first ACR.
  • Fixed: The definition I was going for was 'flourish', but that's a better word anyway, so I've changed it to that.
  • "She served as the president of the SCACW in 1903." Optional: delete the first "the".
  • Fixed.
  • "dedicate her career to service" This could do with a little further explanation. In British English for the period it would be read as domestic service.
  • Fixed. Changed to 'public service.'
  • "investigations of enforcement of the labor law" → 'investigations of the enforcement of the labor law'?
  • Fixed.
  • "her role as industrial secretary" Possibly needs a 'the' or an 'a'?
  • Response: I don't think so? I'm not certain, but from what I can tell 'Industrial Secretary' was a title for the organization and so I don't think would take an article here.
  • Link "social economy".
  • Fixed. Done.
  • "Mentored and trained by Florence Kelley and Lilian Brandt,[14] prominent older labor activists and social reformers, van Kleeck was hired directly by the Foundation in 1910 to lead its Committee on Women's Work,[3] and was instrumental in the passage of New York laws prohibiting long working hours in 1910 and 1915." Optional: split into two sentences after "Work".
  • Fixed. Split as requested.
  • "she became a well-known figure in the study of industrial labor conditions and women's employment in industry, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica." Is there any reason why this particular fact needs in line attribution?
  • Fixed. This was added at the suggestion of Coemgenus as part of the mentoring process - epicgenius also made a comment on it (see above). Given that two are opposed and one is in favor, I'll remove it for now.
  • "Van Kleeck's department became an organization known for expertise on industry and labor, training graduate students and developing new methods of investigation." Consider changing to either 'Van Kleeck's department became an organization known for expertise on industry and labor, and for training graduate students and developing new methods of investigation.' or 'Van Kleeck's department became an organization known for expertise on industry and labor. It trained graduate students and developed new methods of investigation.'
  • Fixed. Changed to first suggestion.
  • "Its work was characterized by "careful empiricism, collegial review, and cooperation with state and private agencies." The MoS states that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in original).
  • Fixed. Added source name in text.
  • "the possibility of employment of women" Should that be 'the possibility of the employment of women'?
  • Fixed. Added 'the.'
  • "she became the first woman in America appointed to a position of authority in the federal government." The source given doesn't support this. It adds "since we entered the war".
  • Image captions: some of these form sentences and so should end in a full stop (period).
  • Fixed.
  • "which applied basic working standards to men and women throughout the country" I struggle to understand what is meant by this. How can "basic working standards" be applied to a person?
  • Fixed. I suppose I meant applied to their workplaces - weekly hours limitations, safety standards, etc. Edited to reflect.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "according to economic historian Mark Hendrickson" → 'according to the economic historian Mark Hendrickson' to avoid false title.
  • Fixed. Hadn't heard of false title before but that's very interesting, thanks for the link.
Then you may like this, allegedly from the NYT style guide. "Do not make titles out of mere descriptions, as in harpsichordist Dale S. Yagyonak. If in doubt, try the 'good morning' test. If it is not possible to imagine saying, 'Good morning, Harpsichordist Yagyonak,' the title is false."
  • Optional: run together the last two paragraphs of "Later career". In fact, could you review the paragraphing generally? There are a lot of two or three sentence paragraphs.
  • Fixed. I've combined those two paragraphs, as well as a couple of others. In general, I prefer a greater number of shorter paragraphs, but I think the majority of Wikipedians lean the other way, so I've combined where appropriate.
  • "a socialist disposition for industry" I don't think that disposition works there. I am even less convinced that "socialist" and "centrally planned" should be used as synonyms.
  • Fixed. Expanded to discuss her views on socialization as presented in these two books according to the source.
  • "delivered to an overflow crowd". "overflow" - could this perhaps be a word more readily understandable to readers who do not use American English?
  • Fixed. Changed to 'packed.'
  • "his reaction alarmed more conservative members of the NCSW and led William Hodson, the president of the NCSW" Suggest "the president of the NCSW" → 'its president'.
  • Fixed.
  • "While she was initially opposed to American entry into World War II, viewing it as an imperialist misadventure, van Kleeck advocated for the inclusion of women in government and the labor force during the war" Am I missing something? I fail to see the connection ("While") between her initial opposition to the war and her "advocate[ing] for the inclusion of women in government and the labor force during the war".
  • Response: In my view, the connection is that both clauses are about Van Kleeck's experience during WWII. I wasn't able to find much information about her work during this time (possibly because she was losing influence and prominence). In any case, no big deal, so I've split this into two sentences.
  • "Van Kleeck retired from the Sage Foundation at the age of 63 in 1948, and ran for New York State Senate the same year as a member of the far-left American Labor Party." Suggest splitting the two unrelated facts into separate sentences.
  • Fixed. Done.
  • A general point: when throughout the article you refer to "labourers", do you mean all 'workers', or just the sub-set of workers who are laborers?
  • Fixed. Very good point. The terms are not equivalent - my bad. Replaced 'labourers' with 'workers' where appropriate.
  • "As a result, she came under government suspicion sustained FBI surveillance as a 'fellow traveler' and possible secret member of the Communist Party," Are there commas missing here? Or an 'and'?
  • Response: I'm not sure what you mean. I'm trying to distinguish that by the US government's definition, she was indeed a 'fellow traveler', but there was no actual evidence of her being a Communist Party member despite their suspicion. I'm very open to other suggested wording.
It's a grammar point. Possibly the issue is the want of an "and" after "suspicion"?
  • Fixed. You're right, that was the issue. My brain was inserting an 'and' where there was none and should have been. Added now.
  • Is it known where she was buried? (If she was.)
  • Response. According to findagrave.com, she was buried in Saint Luke's Church Cemetery in Beacon, Dutchess County, NY. Findagrave is not considered reliable, though, according to WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. I can't find a reference to her burial site in a reliable source.
Ah well, as I say too often, if the sources aren't there, then the sources aren't there. Is it worth mentioning that her heart failed while she was in hospital for hip surgery?
  • Response: That fact was removed as part of a cleanup suggested by epicgenius in FA review (see above). I'm not sure it's necessary to re-add, as it's not really a notable or particularly interesting way to die - fairly standard for an older person. However I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, as long as you, epicgenius, other reviewers and I can come to consensus. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, solid work. Cheering to see this article at this standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound fixes. Nearly there. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no indication of prior FACs by this editor. If so, this is astonishingly good work, excellent mentoring, or both. In any case I hope that there will be many more to follow. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words! Thank you also to Coemgenus for their mentorship. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

As this is a first time nom from the nominator, we should probably have a spot check as well as a source review. Has this been done? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I may be able to do a spot check - @Ealdgyth: the standard first timers random spot check? Give me a couple of days and I'll either do it or confirm that I won't be able to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unless I missed something, this is a first time nom for the editor at FAC. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review at the WikiCup.

  • Year Book of the Dutchess County Historical Society 1. Why is "Dutchess County Historical Society" given as the author? 2. It needs an OCLC - 228773633.
  • Fixed. OCLC added. The Dutchess County society is given as the author because there is no individual author given, and the year book was published by the society as a whole. The DCHS is listed as the author on Google Books and OCLC.
Fair enough. Collective authorship is not unknown. (I had a work in my last but one FAC by Hattendorf & Navy Records Society (Great Britain))
  • ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated.
  • Gender and American social science : the formative years should be in title case, as should the titles of all books.
  • There should not be a space before colons.
  • When chapters within books are separately referenced (or articles within journals), the page range of the former should be given. For example with " "The "Self-Applauding Sincerity" of Overreaching Theory, Biography as Ethical Practice, and the Case of Mary van Kleeck" in Gender and American social science : the formative years". (Where it is pp. 293–326.)
  • Fixed. The three issues above relate to one source, which I have now fixed in accordance with your comments.
There is still at least one inconsistently hyphenated ISBN; at least one colon with a space before it; and at least one book title not in title case. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moore, cite 43, is a master's thesis (and it should so state in the reference). WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that " Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Is this the case here?
  • Response: Frankly, no. There was already some discussion of this on the talk page here. The source is used to cite only one fact, that van Kleeck assisted in the development of St. Gregory's church in retirement. However, given the guideline, perhaps it would be more appropriate to remove this altogether, which I've done.
It is sad when one has to do that, especially over facts not in contention. Does the thesis itself cite a source which would support this and is reliable?
  • Cite 19 does not commence on p. 706.
  • Fixed. Begins on page 709, thus corrected.
  • Cite 1 should specify a page range, 70–71, not just the page on which the information in question starts.
  • Response: Sorry, which one is this?
Year Book of the Dutchess County Historical Society, Volumes 23-30, now cite 2.
  • Citations should only refer to pages containing information that supports the text. Eg, cite 19 d refers a reader to 706–709; but the only one of those four pages which supports the text cited is p. 709.
I don't think you can. (After getting into a complete mess with < > style references in my first GAN I only ever use harv refs. When I start work on a new article, the first thing I do is change all of the cites. If you wish, ping me separately and I'll talk you through the pros and cons.) You will have to set up a separate reference for each page or page range you refer to. Yes, it's a pain. And to verify :-( .
  • The excerpt from the Senate subcommittee questioning is unreferenced.
  • Fixed. The reference is source 42, from the preceding paragraph. I've duplicated the source to put it by the transcript directly as well.
I thought that you might. And now you are expecting me to wade through 17 pages of turgid testimony to find the one with the excerpt on. Oh no! Set up another cite with just the page in question on it please.
  • Cite 28: Credo Reference requires registration via a library to access and this should be indicated in the reference.
  • Either all references to books should provide a publisher location, or none should.
  • Cite 37, a and b: each cite should specify the page(s) of the book (The Altruistic Imagination: A History of Social Work and Social Policy in the United States) being referred to. Check to see if there are other instances where this is missing.
Spot check - pass
edit
  • Cite 1: 1. Does not confirm "Born in Glenham, New York".
  • Fixed. The citation for that information is the former [3] citation (Sophia Smith collection), which was at the end of the sentence. Given the confusion, I've moved that citation up to make it [1].
I suspected as much. (I do that fairly frequently.)
  • Cite 2: The text states that "Robert Boyd van Kleeck was of Dutch origin", the work that the subject was. The inference is a bit of a stretch, but I'll accept it.
  • Cite 3 refers to an archive of sixty-seven linear feet of boxes, which can be retrieved for examination on a week's notice. Each reference should identify the source to at least the level of the file it is in, preferably more finely. As it stands, this information is essentially unverifiable.
  • Response: Former Cite 3 (now Cite 1) is not referencing the boxes/collection themselves, but the Biographical/Historical article about van Kleeck on this page, written by Smith College as part of their collection description. It's a secondary source depending on the primary source, the boxes, so I think that meets our guidelines for verifiability.
Ah ha! There ought to be a way to make that clearer. Let me do some research.
  • Cite 10: fine.
  • Cite 12: a 28 page range does not allow ready accessibility. Please refer each cite to a maximum of three pages; if necessary, cite more frequently.
  • Response: Again, sorry, but I'm not sure how to do this properly within Wikipedia. I tried searching for a guide to citing the same source repeatedly with different page numbers but did not find anything directly helpful. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is vagueness around this. Hopefully some of my comments above both make my expectations clearer and seem reasonable? Eg the one re the testimony. Let me know if not. I think that you are trying to overwork your refs. Eg, again, looking at my current FAC, Battle of the Aegates you will see entirely separate citations for Bagnall 1999, pp. 92, 94; Bagnall 1999, p. 94; Bagnall 1999, pp. 92–94; Bagnall 1999, p. 92; Bagnall 1999, p. 91; Bagnall 1999, p. 95 (twice! a and b in harv refs); and Bagnall 1999, pp. 95–96 (five times). Etc. Which makes verification of each individual claim in the text a lot easier. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 16 c: fine.
  • Cite 43: fine.
  • Cite 19 d: fine.


  • Cite 37 b: fine.
  • Cite 37 b: Does not seem to mention "the organization's annual banquet". But 14 e does; suggest moving 37 b to the end of the paragraph. (Or repeating 14 alongside 37 b.
  • Cite 14 d: fine.
  • Cite 14 e:

Citations match the content of the article they support to a surprisingly high degree. Probably better than I usually manage and impressively so for a first-time FAC. Passing.

I am going to pause here to give the nominator a chance to get to grips with this. (And because my brain is melting.) I would recommend the assistance of an experienced editor in resolving these issues and looking for more. On the plus side, the spot check is looking good so far, the issues are procedural ones. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganesha811. Just for clarity, I have passed the article re "spot checks", but there are still a number of outstanding issues re "source review". All are readily actionable, if a little tedious in some cases. Give me a shout if I have managed to confuse you with any of the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response: wonderful to hear! I see your comments on the source review and I hope to address them when I can, though it may not be for a few days unfortunately. I'll ping you when I'm done working on them. Thanks. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Hi Gog the Mild & Ealdgyth - I'm working on revamping the citations, but unfortunately due to general upheaval at work and elsewhere, my life is more complicated than I prefer, and it may be two weeks or so before I can get it done. I hope this timeline is acceptable - I certainly intend to do the work as soon as I can sit down and dedicate some time to it. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Unfortunately, for probably guessable coronavirus-related reasons, I won't have much time for Wikipedia for the next couple months at least. Given that, unless someone else is willing to pick this up and get the article across the finish line, it should probably be withdrawn from consideration for now. Thank you to @Gog the Mild:, @Epicgenius:, @Nikkimaria:, @Dudley Miles:, and @Coemgenus: for your comments and suggestions. The article is much improved because of them. @Ealdgyth:, I'm not sure if I need to take any formal action or if the coordinators can handle it - let me know. Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth and Ganesha811: As I commented above: "I have passed the article re "spot checks", but there are still a number of outstanding issues re "source review". All are readily actionable, if a little tedious in some cases." If the source review is all that is standing between this, IMO, very deserving article and FA I am prepared to tidy these formatting issues up myself; assuming that you are both happy with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild: - that would be very kind of you. If you are willing to, please do so! Thank you so much. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pressed for time for similar reasons, but if you need help, Gog, tag me in and I'll do what I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Coemgenus. @FAC coordinators: I am waiting on coordinator opinion. I'm not going to put the work in if it's going to be archived anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Gog, I totally missed this in all the ... crises. There is no problem with you doing the corrections. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild: Thank you both again - I really appreciate your support. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Right. From my point of view, the only thing I need is a page number for cite 37 (Ehrenreich 2014). I can identify it to the fourth page of chapter 4, but I can't obtain the actual page number. If you could either insert it or let me have it, then we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - located the page and added it to the article! Thank you again for the work you've done to improve this article. I think given what you said, that unless there are further reviewers with comments, it would be a good time for the coordinators to take a look at this again! @FAC coordinators: Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am marking the source review as passed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2020&oldid=960067825"