Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2023

< 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 2023 [1].

It's a Wrap

edit
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2009 Mariah Carey song that went viral early this year. It's hard to believe the same woman who sang "Without You" is now saying "I should crack you right in your forehead", but here we are! Thanks in advance for any comments. Heartfox (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "Carey and Barry White wrote the breakup song" - this (to me at least) implies that they wrote it together, which they obviously didn't. White only gets a writing credit because it samples a song he wrote in the 1970s.
    Reworded
  • Mary J image captions needs a full stop
    Added
  • ".....Carey's fourteenth studio album Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse (2014). It subsequently debuted at number 100" - word order makes it potentially sound like it was the album which debuted at number 100
    Reworded
  • "Stewart, Wright, Leon Bisquera and Monte Neuble play the keys" - "keys" is a bit slangy, I would write keyboards in full
    Added
  • All notes need full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added

All should be addressed, thanks for the quick comments. Heartfox (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maxna Carta

edit

NB: My comments are not what I consider to be mandatory to receive my support (which as a newer reviewer, I would prefer to give once other more experienced reviewers back the article) however just some initial thoughts.

  • (1a) This article is well written. The prose is engaging and of a professional standard in my opinion.
- "sales following high-profile appearances" - Does this need to be described as "high profile"? Seems redundant. No such thing as a low profile appearance on Oprah Winfrey!
Removed
- Went to correct "mispelling" of "catalog" to "catalogue" only to discover (to my horror) that catalog is an acceptable alternative spelling and does not need to be fixed
- As a style affectation, I prefer U.S. as opposed to US, however per MOS:US either is acceptable provided the same abbreviation style is used consistency which is the case here
- "and the remix was later included" - is the word "later" needed?
Removed
  • (1b) After an initial review, this article appears on its face to be comprehensive.
- Could there be a new section on concept and development? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shine_(Gwen_Stefani_song) for an example. I feel the article could be even more comprehensive with a section on this. Some of the details within background and release do cover this a little, but I am a huge fan of sub-headings as it breaks the article into digestible components and signposts to the reader.
There are only three sentences about concept and development, so I would not consider that enough to put under a separate subheading.
- Otherwise, comprehensiveness seems pretty good to me. Appears you have actually been re-writing this for six months in the sandbox which is why it's hard to find fault. Well done on a thorough re-write. I note you are also the overwhelming contributor by text added also.
Oh no, I have moved the sandbox between multiple projects lol. I have only been working on it since April 4.
  • (1c) Appears to be well researched. I am satisfied that most of the relevant coverage is explored. Consistent inline citation is used throughout where appropriate.
[9] Source integrity good. Article describes song as a "breakup" song, something that is supported by the source.
[37] as above.
[30] as above.
[43] as above.
[50] source integrity good, but if an editor described it as a highlight then maybe "highlight" should be in quotes?
The word "highlight" is used to sum up the reviewer's quote "one of the night's best"
  • (1d) This article is neutral
  • (1e) This article is stable
  • (1f) The copyvio report is solid, and the article appears to comply with copyright and be free of plagiarisim and close paraphrasing
  • (2a) Lead is good. Concise and summarises the body.
- You used "music critics" in lead then "critics" in the body. Changed to music critics for both to ensure consistency.
- I believe "music critics" should be linked to music journalism (I've done this, feel free to revert if you disagree)
  • (2b) Structure is good
  • (2c) Citations are consistent.
  • (3) Media use appears good.
  • (4) Length appears appropriate, the article stays on topic and is not unnecessarily long. Written in summary style. Comparable to other FA's for songs.

These are my initial thoughts at this time. I am leaning towards support but want to see more comments from experienced reviewers and any concerns raised addressed. Well done on a great piece of work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: thank you for the very thorough review, I have replied to your comments above. Heartfox (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Heartfox, I consider the issues I raised to be addressed. Waiting on more reviewing now. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review

edit
  • File:Mariah Carey - It's a Wrap.png has a clearly defined purpose in the article with appropriate WP:ALT text, and it has a complete WP:FUR that justifies the inclusion of non-free media in the article.
  • Everything checks out with File:Mary J. Blige 2012.jpg. It has a clear purpose in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text, and the author and source links work. Everything on the Wikimedia Commons looks solid to me. I would include the year the photo was taken to the caption just to provide some context for readers, but this is more of a suggestion.
  • File:It's a Wrap Mariah Carey.ogg looks good to me. It has a defined purpose in the article, and it has a complete WP:FUR, which along with the caption, does a solid job in justifying how a piece of non-free media is useful for readers beyond just the prose. The sample length is appropriate, and I appreciate the caption.

Everything looks good and this FAC passes my image/media review. I did make a point about adding a year to the Mary J. Blige image, but it is not a big enough point for me to withhold passing this review. Apologies for not being able to do a full prose review, but I thought I should contribute to this FAC in some way, and it is always good in my opinion to get these kinds of reviews out of the way at the start. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this! Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I am glad that I could help at least in some capacity. Thank you for your explanation by the way for this edit. Your edit summary makes sense to me, and I should have looked at the source itself to confirm for myself. This is a fun song (although I prefer others from that album), and I am glad that it has gotten more recognition and is getting the FAC treatment from you. I also liked your FAC statement as it is engaging (and I always find that difficult to do). Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "with minimal instrumentation and lyrics ...". Do you mean to say that it has minimal lyrics? If not, perhaps tweak the phrasing.
    Reworded
  • "is credited as such on "It's a Wrap" in addition to Carey." Consider deleting "as such". I think what is meant is clear from context, and I found it mildly confusing.
    Deleted
  • Why is Nick Cannon named as Heatmyzer in the lead?
    He is not credited as Nick Cannon
Fair enough. But could we be told at first mention that Heatmyzer is an alias of Cannon?
Added
  • "Music critics reviewed the song's composition and Carey's vocal performance." This seems redundant. I mean, what else would music critics do?
    Removed
  • Infobox: Why is Carey only identified by surname under "Producer(s)"?
    Added full name
  • Infobox: "Length" - is it usual to not identify the units used?
    Per Template:Infobox song, "Do not use '3 minutes and 9 seconds'"
  • "After receiving 1,600 downloads". I don't see this in the source given.
    "The tune also sold 1,000 downloads in the same period, though a 60% drop from the week before" → 1,000 + 60% = 1,600 downloads the week before
No. A 60% drop to 1,000 means 2,500 the week before.
There's a reason I'm not in university for math 💀
  • n the paragraph starting "In the remix, Blige adds" are there closing quote marks missing? (Possibly instead of the question mark?)
    Thanks for spotting that
  • "The magazine placed the remix at number 22 in their 2020 list of Carey's best songs." It may be helpful to a reader to indicate how many songs in total they listed.
    Added
  • "Kot thought the production pronounced Carey's vocal delivery." What does this mean? Ie, in what sense are you using "pronounced"?
    Reworded to "augmented"

Nice work - I think you have done this before. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Heartfox (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. A couple of comebacks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

It seems like the article has a consistent source format, with all the key information present. Who are Zonyeé, Dominique, Carter, Lauren and Welner, Natalie? Spot-check upon request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the source review. Do you mind clarifying what your question seeks to address? Heartfox (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zonyeé, Dominique, is in a slideshow; you have to scroll to page 1 of 18 to access the author name. The other two are listed, and I corrected the latter's surname. Heartfox (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question is about these individuals' credentials. I can find the other ones and their credentials (staff editor, journalist dedicated to this topic area etc.) easily but on these three I have to ask here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard, Boston Herald, and Black Entertainment Television are pretty generic (and I would say recommended) sources for music articles, and the authors may just be doing freelance work. Can you kindly point to something more specific if author credentials are an issue? Heartfox (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the lack of information on the authors that bothers me. Sometimes sources have authors of varying reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. Zonyeé is cited for their critical review of a song, as is Carter for their critical review of a concert. As these are opinions rather than extraordinary claims, I do not see reliability is an issue. Weiner has a Billboard email address on her author page, and Billboard has clear editorial processes, so I do not believe reliability is an issue with that author either. Best, Heartfox (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that has me convinced on Weiner. For Zonyee, I can't find much of a web presence - are they important enough to be mentioned specifically? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zonyeé themselves wasn't really a factor in determining whether to mention, but rather the publisher. It is mostly cited to include commentary from Black Entertainment Television (i.e. commentary from a Black-oriented outlet on an Black artist, Mariah Carey) so as to provide nuance to the critical reception and avoid WP:BIAS. Heartfox (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: does everything check out? Heartfox (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • I am wondering if a little more context should be given to E=MC², specifically with the sentence about the promotion ending. The paragraph only mentions "Touch My Body", and I could see some people misreading it was the album's promotion ended there even though there were other singles "Bye Bye", "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time", "I Stay in Love". I understand focusing on "Touch My Body" due to its success. But given the placement of the last sentence, I could see some people misreading "shortly thereafter" as right after this single's release and not further down the line. Apologies. This likely super nitpick-y.
    Reworded
    Thank you for the revision. That is much clearer in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this bit, (Universal Music Group cancelled Angels Advocate for unknown reasons). Did you find any coverage suggesting sales and/or chart performances were contributing factors? From what I remember, the album did not perform particularly great and the singles (outside of "Obsessed") also did not perform particularly well. That being said, it could just be fan theories and speculation, but I thought I should still ask you anyway to get your opinion.
    I could not find anything, but "Angels Cry" and "Up Out My Face" did not get any US radio airplay, so the label was probably like why bother at this point. If the album flopped and the remixes flopped, let's just move on to a safe Christmas album lol
    Thank you for checking. I agree that the way both those singles were treated made it rather clear that the label did not want to put anymore time, energy, or money into the album and Merry Christmas II You was a clear attempt to course-correct and get at least some guaranteed success. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another clarification question. When I listen to the song, it opens with the sound of a drink being poured. I was just curious if any sources discuss this? I doubt it, but it just caught my attention and I wanted to ask.
    I could not find anything that mentions that
    Fair enough. That is what I thought, but I appreciate that you checked. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. All the comments above are incredibly nitpick-y so apologies for that. The article is already in solid shape so I was not able to find anything major to discuss here. Hopefully, my review will provide the push the FAC needs to reach promotion. By the way, I do agree with you that the Zonyeé BET source is high-quality and appropriate for a FA. Either way, once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your time reviewing the article, Heartfox (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2023 [2].

1980 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the year that Cliff Thorburn ground his way to the world title. Coverage of the final was interrupted by the broadcast of live footage of the Iranian Embassy Siege, which caused numerous viewers to complain to the BBC. I'm happy to provide reviewers with the relevant extracts from any of the offline sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Terry Griffiths and Ray Reardon are not linked on their first mention in the body
  • Higgins is not linked on first mention and his forename is missing
  • Meo is not linked on first mention and his forename is missing
  • "From 10 to 10" - is this a score? If so, why is it shown differently to all the others?
  • "featuring "brilliant" potting, according to Clive Everton" => "featuring "brilliant" potting, according to commentator Clive Everton" (or similar descriptor)
  • Wikilink The Times

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

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

Lede
  • Thorburn won the match 18–16, to become the first world champion from outside the United Kingdom in the sport's modern era. Probably wise to state what Nationality he was to compliment this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • world championship to pot black balls after each of the fifteen red balls during a break.[43] After running out of position on the fifteenth black, he managed to pot the yellow, - cuegloss for the coloured balls on first use. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - do you still intend on reviewing this one soon? I tend to agree with Gog that this nomination is in danger of stalling out. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had planned to make some comments tomorrow, of course it's up to you when you believe there is not a suitable amount of comments in general. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, tomorrow is fine. Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took longer than expected, apologies. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. I replied to each point above. Let me know what you think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nudge... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HurricaneHiggins

edit
  • Some clarification may be needed around this sentence: "The World Snooker Championship is an annual professional snooker tournament organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA)." While this was true in 1980, the tournament is now organised by the sport's commercial arm, World Snooker (rebranded as the World Snooker Tour in 2020) of which the WPBSA owns (I think) 26 percent. So the article shouldn't suggest that the WPBSA continues to organise the event.
  • I seem to recall that snooker articles should not comment on the difficulty of shots, as this can be subjective. Maybe rework sentences like "Thorne was on course to make a maximum break in the first frame, but missed an easy black ball", "From 11 to 11, Reardon missed some easy shots", and "Thorburn led 16–15, and missed an easy brown ball".
  • I might also place the sentence "Higgins and Thorburn had an ongoing rivalry during their playing careers and were perceived as adversaries" at the start of the Final section rather than at the end, to give context.
  • "Thorburn had become the first player to reach a second final at the Crucible." I might suggest changing "had become" to "became" and (optionally) mentioning that he lost to Spencer in the first final played at the Crucible in 1977.

Otherwise, happy to support.

Media review

edit

Source and second image review

edit

Images, placement, licences and ALT seem OK to me. I don't think Google Books links need archives. Some newspaper articles have an author and/or a link to the article, others don't - just to give examples, The Guardian for example is sometimes linked and sometimes is not and The Times sometimes has an author named and sometimes doesn't. Likewise, there is no consistency on which articles have the access date and which don't. It seems like source #3 says that snooker spread through India, not necessarily that it was founded there. Likewise source #6 says that China is at the forefront of popularizing it in Thailand, not necessarily that they already succeeded. I guess that #11 supports the article content. I am not sure I see the pricing information in the article in #13 and #14. Where in #15 does it say that the number expanded from 16 to 24? Where in #35 does it say 97 and ninth frame? I note that #38 seems to give Davis a 16-10 win over Thorburn which I don't see in the article. I don't see 3-6 in #39. #49 and #63 seem to link to different articles than the titles say. Where in #54 does it say 23th frame? I don't see any obvious reliability issues, but then I am not familiar with the sources of this topic area so take this comment with care. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reworked the Overview section, added references, and removed some of the text about the expanded popularity, as that only happened later in the 1980s. so, on relection isn't really relevant here. @Lee Vilenski: and @HurricaneHiggins: - would you mind having another look at overview as it's changed quite a bit; some of the issues above may be relevant in other snooker articles too.
  • For The Times articles, I've stated the author where it's given in the source, the others have author=<!--Staff writer(s)/no by-line.-->. There were a couple of other news or magazine sources where I've added this parameter.
  • access date: this is there for website versions of news outlets; I've removed where it was given for links to clippings.
  • Pricing: Source text for the former ref 11 ("Hurricane' has four-year itch") is "Higgins is only seeded 11, but the bookies know better. They have made him third favourite at 7-1 behind 3-1 joint favourites Terry Griffiths and Ray Reardon." The other references there are to support the descriptions of Griffiths and Reardon.
  • 97 break is supported by the other source given ("Champion finds himself on his knees"). Source text: "Willie Thorne (Leicester) led the Canadian champion Bill Werbeniuk, 5-4 after winning the last two frames of the first session yesterday. He made a break of 97 in the ninth frame."
  • Former #38 ("The Crucible Curse – Champions who have failed to defend first title in Sheffield") - the reference to Davis's 16-10 win against Thorburn refers to the 1981 World Snooker Championship, not the 1980 one.
  • {tq|Where in #54 does it say 23th frame?}} - it's from "15-7 at the interval" (22 frames) and "delivering the knockout with a break of 114 in the evening" Unfortunately, I couldn't find a clipping that states this very clearly; so I added an extra clipping but also an offline source.
  • Regarding topic area sources, Snooker Scene (the magazine and website) is usually regarded as definitive. Downer's Almanac, though self-published, is also highly respected. (e.g. "A major undertaking for Downer, whose efforts should be applauded. The almanac has become indispensible during the championship and is as comprehensive a reference resource as any sporting event could hope for." Dave Hendon, Snooker Scene, September 2010; Snooker HQ; The Sportsman; World Snooker Tour)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. Does that mean that the image and source reviews are both a "pass"? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless someone more familiar with snooker sourcing has objections to the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sammi Brie

edit

I see User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences commas that need removal:

  • The tournament was the 1980 edition of the World Snooker Championship, and was the fourth consecutive world championship to take place at the Crucible Theatre since 1977.
  • The competition was promoted by Mike Watterson, and received 70 hours of television coverage by the BBC in the United Kingdom...
  • The tournament was a ranking event, and was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy.
  • Thorne was on course to make a maximum break in the first frame, but missed a black ball after potting eleven reds and ten blacks.
  • Pat Houlihan, playing without his contact lenses due to conjunctivitis, compiled the only century break of the qualifying rounds, 108, during a 9–6 victory over Joe Johnson, but lost 1–9 in his following match to Tony Meo. It's the last comma that's in question, but this should really be split different. Pat Houlihan, playing without his contact lenses due to conjunctivitis, compiled the only century break of the qualifying rounds—108—during a 9–6 victory over Joe Johnson; however, he lost 1–9 in his following match to Tony Meo.
  • Fagan had led 2–0, but from 5–6 lost four of the following five frames Should be Fagan had led 2–0 but, from 5–6, lost four of the following five frames
  • Meo was 5–4 ahead of Higgins after their first session, and at 9–8 was a frame away from winning before Higgins took the last two frames with breaks of 77 and 62 to progress. Should be Meo was 5–4 ahead of Higgins after their first session and, at 9–8, was a frame away from winning before Higgins took the last two frames with breaks of 77 and 62 to progress.
  • Wilson ... won the first frame against Doug Mountjoy on the black as part of a 66 clearance, and took a 4–1 lead before finishing the first session at 5–4.
  • Edmonds had replaced his cue tip the night before the match, and playing with the unfamiliar tip, lost the first four frames, then went 2–7 behind David Taylor before losing 3–10. Change to Edmonds had replaced his cue tip the night before the match; playing with the unfamiliar tip, he lost the first four frames, then went 2–7 behind David Taylor before losing 3–10.
  • Defending champion Griffiths lost the first seven frames against Steve Davis, and ended the first session trailing 1–7.
  • Higgins won six of the eight frames in each of the first two sessions against Perrie Mans, and eliminated Mans 13–6.
  • Thorburn led 16–15, and missed a brown ball that let Higgins in to make it 16–16.

Not a CinS comma but still unneeded:

  • Thorburn won the match 18–16, to become the first world champion from outside the United Kingdom in the sport's modern era.
  • ...with the top eight seeded players, from the rankings based on performance at the three preceding editions of the world championship being placed in round 2 of the draw.

Other issues:

  • This list contains commas in the list entries, so it needs semicolon separators: Qualifying rounds for the tournament took place at Romiley Forum, Stockport, from 5 to 18 April 1980; at the Redwood Lodge Country Club, Bristol, from 11 to 16 April; and at Sheffield Snooker Centre from 12 to 17 April. (The body version of this needs the same treatment)
  • Thorne, having led 3–1, took a 5–4 lead over Bill Werbeniuk with a 97 break in the ninth frame. and he led in the match until Werbeniuk, who compiled a break of 101 in the thirteenth frame, made it 7–7. The period after "ninth frame" should be a comma, or the sentence separation should be made clearer.
  • The failure of first-time world snooker champions to defend their title has become known as the "Crucible curse." Period outside of quotes.
  • overcame the "brittle, edgy side of Virgo's temperament." Period outside of quotes
  • In the evening, Thorburn played cards and drank alcohol with friends until 5:00 am, resuming the match by winning the first five frames in succession, and going on to win 13–10, Remove the second-to-last comma. Last comma should be a period.
  • Having lost the first two frames to Wych, Thorburn built a 5–3 lead at the end of their first session. and after having led 9–3 and 10–6, progressed 13–6. Should be Having lost the first two frames to Wych, Thorburn built a 5–3 lead at the end of their first session and, after having led 9–3 and 10–6, progressed 13–6.
  • their match report as "the best win of his career." Period outside of quotes
  • Their second session finished at 7–7, and Stevens made a number of mistakes during the third session, including missing a black from its spot when he was 8–9 behind, and the session ended with him 9–13 in arrears. Two ", and" in the sentence. Consider splitting after "at 7–7".
  • Thorburn was 5–3 ahead of Taylor after their first session, and having won eight consecutive frames to lead 10–3, was 11–4 up at the end of the second session. Move the comma after "session" one word back to after "and"
  • a claim that author and sports statistician Ian Morrison called "unfounded." Period outside of quotes.
  • Writing in The Times, Sydney Friskin described the match to this point as a contrast of styles: "the shrewd cumulative processes of Thorburn against the explosive break-building of Higgins." Period outside of quotes
  • In the final session, Higgins won the first frame then Thorburn won the next two, before Higgins equalised at 15–15. Try In the final session, Higgins won the first frame; Thorburn then won the next two before Higgins equalised at 15–15.
  • After the match, Higgins said of Thorburn "he's a grinder", Try After the match, Higgins said of Thorburn, "He's a grinder",
  • In the Snooker world rankings Is this capitalization intended?

This looks good if these grammar errors can be addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2023 [3].

Hungarian nobility

edit
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a privileged group of people in the Kingdom of Hungary. Between c. 1000 and 1944, mainly noblemen were appointed to the highest offices in the kingdom but the Hungarian aristocrats never formed a uniform class. The wealthiest noblemen held more than one-third of all lands in the kingdom, but tens of thousands of peasant-nobles had no more than a single plot. Furthermore, there was a sharp legal distinction between "true nobles" and "conditional nobles" (such as the "nobles of the Church"). Although nobility was officially abolished in Hungary in 1947, Hungarian noble families still live in Hungary and the neighboring countries. I highly appreciate all comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit

Saving my place here. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "especially their tax-exemption and the limitation of their military obligations": I think this phrase can go without "their".
  • Done.
  • "Louis I of Hungary introduced...": Seeing as this entire article is about Hungary, I think "of Hungary" is superfluous.
  • Done.
  • "Actually" is a strange word to use. I would delete it for better prose.
  • Done.
  • "The monarchs granted hereditary titles and the poorest nobles lost their tax-exemption from the middle of the 15th century" Two seemingly unrelated topics. Can you either split the sentence or rephrase it?
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka Have you seen these? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did (and I thanked them to you :)). I think I addressed all of them ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither of these two theories are universally accepted" If these theories are not accepted, then the preceding sentence(s) should read something like "According to some scholarly theories".
  • Done.
  • I find it strange that Constantine VII is referred to as Constantine Porphyrogenitus. I am aware that it is a common name, but I still find it odd.
  • Done. (Although, according to my experiences, he is mainly referred to as Constantine Porphyrogenitus when his works are mentioned.)
  • Can we use a death template in place of the (d. 959)?
  • Sorry, I do not know that template.
  • Carrying on with that point about Porphyrogenitus, I do not believe Porphyrogenitus can be considered a surname. As such, if you keep on referring to Constantine as such, I would suggest sticking with Constantine.
  • Alternative solution.
  • "...two centuries later literary sources mention tents still in use" You have not states previously that tents were used.
  • Rephrased.
  • In addition to saying when the Gesta Hungarorum was compiled, I would also briefly say that it was.
  • Done.
  • Personally, I find that the Origins section does not actually discuss much about the Hungarians' origins. A good majority of the section is about other information, such as lodgings and burial practices. As such, I would find another place to move that to or simply create a subsection.
  • The section is not about the origin of the Hungarians, but about the origin of the Hungarian nobility. Consequently, the section adds information about the Magyar leaders and their way of life before the establishment of the feudal kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Actually, as Martyn Rady noted..." The use of "actually" here is too POV/colloquial for my liking. Additionally, the usage of "although" could suggest a contrasting idea, which is not the case here.
  • Done.
  • "Heavy cavalry" linked.
  • "...which enabled their integration" Was this a gradual or more rapid process?
  • Done.
  • Introduce Otto Győr; his sudden mention is of no significance to a casual reader.
  • Done.
  • "Unfree peasants cultivated..." The usage of "unfree" is strange to me. Perhaps a synonym could be found; but when I think of unfree peasants, I think of serfs or indentured laborers. Is this what the article is referring to?
  • Done.
  • " Light-armored horsemen": "Light-armored" or Lightly-armored"?

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • What is the relevance of note 3?
  • It mentions two noblemen who built stone castles. I think it is relevant.
  • "During the following decades..." I suggest replacing "During" with "In".
  • Done.
  • "Historian Erik Fügedi" --> "The historian Erik Fügedi"
  • Done.
  • The article uses "demesne", but then occasionally refers to them as "domains".
  • Now demesne is used when the royal demesne is mentioned.
  • "This first Diet (or parliament) declared the monarch to be of age" How old was he at this time? And do we know the reaons behind the decision to declare the King to be of age?
  • Done.
  • "The monarchs could not appoint and dismiss their officials at will any more" --> "The monarchs could not appoint and dismiss their officials at will anymore"
  • Done.
  • In 1328, all landowners were authorized to administer justice on their estates "in all cases except cases of theft, robbery, assault or arson": What about the latter crimes? How were such criminals dealt with?
  • Done.
  • "Ladislaus the Posthumous was crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary, but the Diet proclaimed the coronation invalid." On what grounds?
  • Done.
  • "Most noblemen adhered to Lutheranism... converted to Catholicism in Royal Hungary in the 1630s" What religion did all these people practice prior to the Reformation?
  • Their ancestors were Catholic.
  • "reconquered territories": "reconquered" or "regained"? The article did not convey to me that these lands were acquired by military force.
  • Clarified.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "%" --> "percent"
  • Done.
  • Latin is linked towards the end of the Cooperation, absolutism and reforms section but is mentioned earlier.
  • Done.
  • Shouldn't Template:Noble kindreds in the Kingdom of Hungary go at the end of the article?
  • Done.
  • The title of Lukačka (2011) should be capitalized.
  • Done.
  • Ditto with Fügedi (1986b)
  • Done.

That's all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That will be all from me; I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Maps are illegible at current size, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • I resized them. Sorry, I do not understand and do not want to understand MOS:COLOUR because I cannot edit maps, pictures, etc. Do you still suggest that any of the two maps should be deleted?
  • File:HetVezer-ChroniconPictum.jpg: source link is inaccessible
  • Changed.
  • File:Hungary_13th_cent.png is tagged for factual accuracy and the source appears questionable - it seems to have copied the image from somewhere (which would make the tagging incorrect) but not clear from where
  • Deleted and a new map added.
  • File:Hunedoara_castle.jpg needs a tag for the original work.
  • Changed. I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work". Could you add a link to such tags?
  • Ditto File:PM_139782_RO_Kemeny.jpg
  • I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work".
  • This is only a requirement for places like Romania which do not have freedom of panorama; in places like the UK, conversely, their FOP laws mean that only the photographic copyright needs to be considered. This is why I did not request such a tag for File:Lockenhaus_-_Burg_(2).JPG in this article: it is located in Austria which has FOP for architecture. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first case (Batthyányi) yes, the picture itself. In the second case (Almásy), no, I do not have source, but it is quite obvious that Almásy is younger than 30, so the picture must have been taken before 1925. I added two new pictures ([12], [13]) Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) And added a third picture ([14]) as well. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can look at the picture itself and use markers such as the apparent age of the subject to make assumptions about when the picture was created. This is not the same as being able to say when it was published. Images can be published long after they were taken, or not published at all. Can you identify publication of those two images? File:Baroness_Emma_Orczy_by_Bassano.jpg will need that as well, and per the tag on it "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Inscriptions on Batthyány's picture say that it was published by Károly Ostermann (Kiadja Osterman Károly) and printed by the Brothers Pollák in Pest 1867 (Nyomt. Pollák testvérek Pesten 1867-Nyomt. is an abbreviation for Nyomtatva /"printed"/) . 2. The source link at Emma Orczy's picture says that it was taken at Bassano Ltd but does not name the photographer. The same link also informs us that the picture was given by Bassano Ltd to the National Portrait Gallery in 1974. Can we conclude that 1974 is the year of publishing? The link also indicates that the picture can be used and shared. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stibor.jpg: which tag is believed to apply to the photo?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your note, so I deleted the picture.

&File:Paul_I,_1st_Prince_Esterházy_of_Galántha.jpg: when and where was this first published?

  • File:Emperor_Franz_Joseph_I-Gyula_Benczur-1896.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
  • Changed.
  • File:Andrássy.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • In 1865 (added).
Hi Nikkimaria, is this one good now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding issues:
  • File:Baroness_Emma_Orczy_by_Bassano.jpg is missing evidence of being published in 1920 as well as a description of the research done to try to identify the author
HI Nikkimaria, is there anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The COLOUR issue remains unresolved; everything else is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I deleted the map although it would have been really useful, and placed two new pictures in the article ([16]). Is this an acceptable solution for you? Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Koronázás_Budán.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Added. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1867 according to the cited source, but quite obviously before 1883 because the artist died in 1882. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I do not know where it was published but quite obviously in Austria-Hungary because it was printed in Vienna according to the inscription on the picture. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: do you think I have addressed your above comment about File:Koronázás_Budán.jpg? I also seek your opinion about a picture I added recently ([17]). Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That image needs a US tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I always forget it. I added. Do you think there are any pending issues? Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: will you have a chance to check my action mentioned above? Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as edited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your thorough image review. Borsoka (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

edit

Given the article is 9308 words long and has a +1000 year span, this might be a long review/FAC but it appears a very worthwhile one. The article is very well written, so this review will mostly be about clarity ... via word reduction and removing the few extraneous aside have seen so far. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • but the kings could promote "a daughter to a son" - rephrase maybe as "...under the Hungarian royal prerogative of prefection the kings could promote "a daughter to a son"
  • Most parts of medieval Hungary were integrated into the Habsburg monarchy in the 1690s. Monarchs The Habsburgs confirmed the nobles' privileges several times"

*We have Habsburg dynasty (article mentions the early modern period) and Habsburg monarchy (article mentions after the 1690s). The House of Habsburg article claims that the held "the throne of the Holy Roman Empire...continuously from 1440". I understand the difference, but maybe explain.

  • Don't like "all noblemen's equality" - equality between the [as outlined above its a very complex strata, not sure of the proper division terminology] classes of nobility. Is "maintained" (passive) right - should it be "reinforced" (active)? Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

  • Masses of Magyars?
  • Around 950, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (d. 959) recorded the Hungarians were organized - wrote that the Hungarians were...?
  • Historians who say - "claim"

Support on prose, though I may have minor queries for the talk page. Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas

edit

Reserving a spot here. Constantine ✍ 06:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Did some minor tweaks.
  • Thank you for them. I made one change ([20]).
  • from the 11th century may I suggest adding an 'until the mid-20th century' here?
  • Done.
  • Most aristocrats claimed ancestry from a late 9th century Magyar leader. the first time reading this, without looking at the link, I got the impression that most aristocrats descended from the same 9th-century Magyar leader. Should be reworded.
  • Reworded.
  • local chiefs were integrated in the nobility. who are these local chiefs and why are they different from the Magyar leadership?
  • Reworded.
Origins
  • "the tongue of the Chazars" can you briefly introduce the Chazars/Khazars here?
  • Done.
  • Tents still in use are only mentioned in 12th-century literary sources I don't understand what is meant here; 'still' confuses me as to which period this refers to.
  • "Still" deleted.
  • regarded themselves as descendants of one of the legendary seven leaders of the conquering Magyars same problem as above; and if this is in a footnote, then it shouldn't be in the lede.
  • It is in the lead because dozens of aristocrats claimed Magyar chieftains as their ancestors.
  • Then I would suggest moving the footnote into the main body. If it is important enough to mention in the lede, it should not be a footnote.
  • It is important enough to mention in the lede because it is mentioned in the main text: "The Gesta Hungarorum, a chronicle written around 1200, claimed that dozens of noble kindred flourishing in the late 12th century had been descended from tribal leaders..." I doubt that a reference to the Káns, Csáks, Bár-Kaláns and Szemere in the main text would be an improvement: examples are always mentioned in a footnote throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • Introduce Martyn Rady
  • Done.
  • The kings appointed their officials from among the members of about 110 aristocratic clans what period is this about?
  • Done.
  • Done.
Golden Bulls
  • {{lang|la|knezes}} is this really a Latin term?
  • Yes, a medieval Latin term.
  • I am pretty sure it is Slavic (knyaz)
  • Yes, it is of Slavic origin but the "knezes" form is not Slavic. For instance, the Latin name of the Hungarian city Győr was Arrabona in Roman times, and Jaurinum in the Middle Ages. We cannot say that Jaurinum is a Hungarian term although it clearly derrived from the Hungarian name. We must say Jaurinum is a Latin term. Furthermore, which modern or old Slavic language should I choose? We do not know whether it is of Bulgarian, Serbian, Old Church Slavonic or Common Slavic origin. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, fair enough. At least link the 'Latin' terms to the articles on the original terms.
Self-government and oligarchs
  • Monarchs took an oath at their coronation, which included a promise to respect the noblemen's liberties after the 1270s. What exactly happened after the 1270s, the coronation oath or the inclusion of the promise?
  • Rephrased.
  • delegates of the noblemen and Cumans briefly explain who the Cumans were.
  • Done.
Age of the Angevins
  • briefly introduce Matteo Villani
  • Done.
  • voivodes and boyars are definitely not Latin terms
  • They are medieval Latin terms.
  • They are both Slavic terms though; perhaps uses in Latin texts, but definitely not Latin...
  • Fair enough, but please link to voivode at Vlach voivodes (leaders)
  • I created a new article about the Vlach voivodes that explains the Slavic origin of the term.
  • That's amazing, thanks.
  • Done.
  • Manorialism is linked because seigneurial is a disambiguation link.
Birth of titled nobility and the Tripartitum
  • Introduce István Werbőczy
Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka and Gog the Mild: Apologies, was unexpectedly unavailable. Will continue reviewing tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 15:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early modern and modern times
  • As before, did some copyedits, feel free to adapt, revert, or discuss.
  • The Croatian and Slavonian magnates also had a seat at the Upper House I assume it means that each magnate had a seat? Perhaps then 'The Croatian and Slavonian magnates also had seats at the Upper House'?
  • Done.
  • The noblemen formed one of the three nations (or Estates of the realm) in Transylvania what were the other two?
  • Done.
  • Relief forces since the siege of Vienna is not mentioned, 'Relief' is unnecessary and possibly confusing.
  • Done.
  • 1.25 million florins is there some way to give this in modern terms (USD equivalent) or by analogy (e.g. compared to the average salary back then)
  • None of the sources cited in the article make an estimation. A relative estimation can be found in the article: 1.25 million florins is equal to one-third of the double of all taxes collected in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'Protestants' at the first mention (restrict the Protestants' rights). Suggest using Reformed Church in Hungary as the link target as well.
  • Alternative solution (link to Protestantism) because many of the noblemen were Lutherans, not Calvinists.
  • maintained that the Hungarian nation consisted of the privileged groups...recognition of the Romanians as the fourth Nation there is a confusingly inconsistent use of the term 'nation' here. In the latter case, it bears repeating that Nation=Estate of the realm.
  • I hope I could clarify the two approaches that existed in parallel from the 18th century. Borsoka (talk)
  • The rise of nationalism is hinted at through the language issue, but some more context would be welcome, e.g., IIRC, Hungarian nationalism emerged in large part through antagonism with the German-Austrian element and the spread of German in the cities, even Buda/Pest, or that the Hungarian nationalism provoked a corresponding backlash in other nationalisms (Croatian, Romanian, Slovak, etc). I would also recommend having a separate section header for this, because it is a seminal event in the history of the Hungarian nobility (and Hungary, which after all was a multi-ethnic state at the time).
  • Is more than enough. Thanks. I made some small corrections.
  • Done.
Other
  • Minor issue, but not all Hungarian-language sources are denoted as such.

That's it for a first pass. A well-written and very comprehensive article on a topic I knew little about. Will have a look through a few sources I have over the weekend, but I don't expect anything major to be missing. Constantine ✍ 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive review. I need some time to address some of your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Borsoka: I have replied above, only minor issues remaining on prose. If I may suggest an additional source, Paul Lendvai's The Hungarians is to my—admittedly limited—knowledge the most comprehensive account of Hungarian history, and the nobility and its evolution naturally takes up a lot of space there. I did a cursory re-read yesterday, and there is a lot of detail that would be worthy of inclusion here. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: sorry for pinging you but I would like to know whether you have time to check my edits and my above comments? Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Had another look. Thanks for addressing my remarks. On Lendvai, him not being a professional historian is, I'd say, not an issue: his work is obviously well referenced to actual historians and published by Princeton, so I'd rate its academic reliability as more than sufficient for our purposes. As a non-expert, I have found it an excellent summary of Hungarian history, with appropriate attention to detail, social, economic, and cultural context, and distanced from nationalist tropes. But it is your article, and it is already quite comprehensive according to the FA criteria, so I will not make it a requirement. As such I am supporting at this point. Constantine ✍ 19:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and again for your detailed and thorough review. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Imma review this version. Reference #267 is broken and Prodan, David (1971) isn't used. Source formatting seems consistent and all the critical information is there. There are so many books that I can't do much source reviewing - but I did check sources 1, 4, 263, 307, 316 which seem fine. 14 does qualify Constantine's use of "tribe" a bit, though. I presume that Prodan, David (1971) is a reliable source if it's used? Florin Curta's page does mention some controversy about his reliability. I am not sure that 203 is a good source for the claim, it seems a bit too analytic. Is there a better source for 342? 403 may be generalizing a bit from one family. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough source review. I am really grateful for it.
  • 1. I fixed reference #267, so Prodan is now used.
  • 2. I surrounded the term "tribes" with quotes, although most specialists accept that the Magyars were organized into tribes before their conquest of present-day Hungary.
  • 3. I assume Curta writes that Prodan was often driven by ideological or political motives (like all historians of his time in the Soviet Bloc). This is true but the sentence verified with a reference to his work contains facts without any ideological stuff. Other works do not contradict him in this respect.
  • 4. Reference #203 only verifies the quoted text, the claim itself is verified by reference #201 (Engel).
  • 5. No, I do not have a better source for #342, but I would like to keep the sentence if it is possible :).
  • 6. Sorry, I do not understand your remark about #403. Neither the source cited nor the sentence refers to only one family. Borsoka (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression re 403 is that the source heavily emphasized one particular family. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right when referring to Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic, the source only mentions the Kálnoky family, but in connection with Romania it mentions several families. I remember that Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic allowed the fomer owners of nationalized property or their descendants to claim their former property, so I try to find further source. Thank you for spotting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I modified the text ([21]). I hope the new version is acceptable for you. Again thank you for spotting the mistake. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2023 (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) 26 May 2023 [22].

Pasqua Rosée

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Rosée is a slightly ephemeral figure in London history. He lived in London between 1651 and 1658 and little is known about him outside those dates. Not too much is really known about him inside those dates either, except that he opened a coffee shop. It was the first one in London, and probably in Britain, and we've not looked back since. Both Tim riley and SN54129 were kind enough to leave excellent comments at PR, and I look forward to any more. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

edit

Claiming a spot. —Kusma (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very nice article, I have only a few minor comments:
  • Lead: "part of Rosée's duties included" slightly redundant, perhaps drop "part of"
  • You talk about the 21st century to introduce a 19th century house (where the pub is), can probably be improved
  • "The reason ... was that either ... or because of" looks slightly untidy to my German eyes
  • The footnote about company rules would also be fine in the main text.
  • Link handbill?
  • Biography section could perhaps be split into a few shorter sections with more interesting titles; quite a bit is about the coffee shop, not the person
  • "the earliest-known advertisement for coffee" this would benefit from some context; I would be very surprised if there was really no earlier advertisement for coffee in Arabic.
    • There is always a possibility that the studies have been Euro-centric on this point, but it's a straight claim in more than one of the sources that this is the first known one. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remembered in doggerel verse under the name Adrianus del Tasso" published under the name Adrianus del Tasso?
  • "sold coffee in Holland in 1664 or Germany" at least an "in" is missing; I assume there is no year associated with the Germany claim?
  • "by 1708 coffee-houses were found in London—with 500–600 in London and Westminster—and several provincial cities" we already know that coffee houses were found in London, so perhaps put the new information first?
  • Does the satire A Broad-Side Against Coffee have a known author or is it at least known to be anonymous? (Either could be mentioned)
  • "The source of the Oxford coffee-house" hmm, it is more the source from which we know about it...

Again, very nice, and I was amazed to learn that London had coffee more than 30 years earlier than Vienna. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Kusma, I'm much obliged to you. Your comments all dealt with in these edits, hopefully to your satisfaction. If there is anything I've not done well, or anything else that catches your eye, I'd be delighted to hear about it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can support now these small things have been dealt with nicely. There is a question whether some of the "Legacy" content (especially the trading and shipping paragraph), while entertaining, isn't a bit out of scope and we should rather do more to send people over to English coffeehouses in the 17th and 18th centuries. On the other hand, currently your paragraph here is much superior to the "Financial markets" section there ("The arrival of coffee triggered a dawn of sobriety that laid the foundations for truly spectacular economic growth", we are told), so we'd do the reader a disservice. If you manage to find a way to not have several rather short paragraphs at the end of the Legacy section, that will also improve the article further. But I think it is acceptable as it is. —Kusma (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken on the short paras, which I've rolled together. I'll have a look over the trading para in legacy and see if I can trim it a little too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I will do a full review later, but as a place-holder, I would suggest changing "The source of the coffee-house in Oxford, Ellis states, is from the Oxford antiquarian Anthony Wood who wrote....." as this reads like a specific coffee house in Oxford has already been mentioned, but it hasn't been. Maybe "An earlier coffee-house may have existed in Oxford; Ellis states that the Oxford antiquarian Anthony Wood wrote....."....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It was some confusion from the lack of clarity in the preceding sentence - I've rectified that, and tweaked the second sentence, so this should all make more sense now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards left Smyrna in late 1651 to return to England; he was accompanied by Rosée; this was" - two semi-colons in one sentence looks a tiny bit odd to me. Any way to rejig?
  • "so many visited to taste this novel drink" - any way to briefly mention a bit earlier (maybe at the end of the preceding paragraph?) that coffee had only arrived in Europe in [whenever it was]?
  • "Coffee houses soon grew" - earlier, "coffee houses" had a hyphen....?
  • "Markham Ellis writes that" - earlier, his forename was Markman......?
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Chris. I’ve still got one point to cover which I need to go back to the sources to get some info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Chris, I don't think we can say when it began being drunk in Europe (depending on where you drawn the boundary, it was probably not long after the Turks were drinking it). The Venetians had it before everyone else because of their extensive trading, but it would also have been available in Greece and Croatia from a point the records don't show. It was certainly available in the early 1600s - Clement VIII gave a papal pardon to coffee in 1615, so it would have been a few years before that. There's no real date it was available in the UK either - there may have been other traders like Edwards who brought some back for personal consumption, but the only record we have is of Edwards - and that's because of Rosee and his coffee house. I think we may just have to leave it as "novel drink" here, without the origin story! - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria, the map was originally my doing, so I'll field this. Hexen #800020 and #E4E4CB are now AA and AAA compliant, I believe, although I've made it solid colour as the cross-hatching might weaken the contrast? (Not sure about that.) Should've thought about it at the time, of course. SN54129 15:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit

Comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...preparing and serving his daily coffee" For clarity, I think this would read better as "...preparing and serving Edwards' daily coffee"
  • "the tercentenary of Rosée's shop" Technically a shop cannot have a tercentenary, but the founding or opening of one can.
  • Ottoman Empire is linked twice in the Background and work in Smyrna section.
  • Any particular reason for using "Edwards's" instead of "Edwards'"?
  • "According to Markman Ellis..." You have already introduced him, so you can simply say "According to Ellis..."
    • Somewhat surprisingly for such a niche subject, two of the main writers on the subject are both called Ellis: Markman and Aytoun, so we have to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markman Ellis considers..." Again, just Ellis is okay.
  • "Increasingly they became, as Markham Ellis writes..." see above.
  • "...resulting uproar meant the proclamation was withdrawn" -> "...resulting uproar led to the proclamation being withdrawn"
  • Note e: "...the outline of Suleiman the Magnificent, the tenth and longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire between 1520 and 1566 is also a possible influence..." I belive a comma is needed after "1566".
  • Rosée's shop.[47]}}[48]: There is a citation/formatting error here.
  • "in celebration of the tercentenary of Rosée's shop" See point above about this.

That is all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diligence. I will be happy to support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TR

edit

Third visit to the article, and continuing to be very happy with it. A few minor quibbles, none of which affect my support:

  • "The original premises of the coffee-house were destroyed ... On its location is a late nineteenth century building": switching from plural to singular.
  • "Edwards and Rosée selected a premises on St Michael's Alley" – two points here. First you should, I think, make up your mind whether the word "premises" is singular or plural. Secondly, for the umpteenth bloody time, as St Michael's Alley was, and still is, in England and not America the preposition you are looking for is "in".
  • "the earliest-known advertisement" – do we need the hyphen here? Not sure, and just asking.
  • "Rosée was not a Freeman of the City of London" – but at the other three mentions of the word "freeman" is not capitalised (correctly so in my view).
  • "In 1698 one trader began publishing share prices from Jonathan's Coffee-House, then from Garraway's Coffee House" – I don't think "then" should be press-ganged into service as a conjunction in formal English.
  • "The original closely built wooden buildings on St Michael's Avenue" – this would be St Michael's Avenue in Winnebago, Minnesota?

That's my lot. A delectable article, meeting all the FA criteria in my view. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 19:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial

edit

Had my say at PR; I can't see anything else to comment on that would be more than just my opinion. Great article. The map is especially good  ;) SN54129 18:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "living in Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey)". Perhaps 'living in Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire (now in Turkey)'? And in the main article.
  • "and he set up Rosée" → 'and so he set up Rosée'?
  • Was the shop open on Sundays?
  • "the clients of which were connected to trade in the Levant". A startling claim. Was it a condition of entry?
  • "A sign hung over his stall, described either as "an image of himself dressed in some Levantine clothing", or a sign portraying his head". It is not clear, to me at any rate, who "himself" and "his" refer to.

Just this trivia. Nicely brewed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. I am impressed yet again at how well you research and relate these recondite topics. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UndercoverClassicist

edit

I feel I am a bit late to this party, with little to add. Excellent article; one of many fine pieces on history's "little people".

Almost nothing to say:

  • the Oxford antiquarian Anthony Wood who wrote in "Secretum Antonii" that "Jacob a Jew opened a coffey (sic) house at the Angel in the parish of S. Peter, in the East Oxon": a few things here:
Does "Oxford" here mean the city or the university? If the latter, suggest clarifying.

::The city. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps mildly ambiguous ('Oxford [specialist]' generally means 'an academic in [specialism] at the University of Oxford', though it doesn't strictly have to: would "Antony Wood, an antiquarian living in Oxford" be better? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don’t think it does. I don’t think there is a problem with how it is written. We’ve already said it’s his diary, so it’s not a work about the university. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is moot: I was trying to draw a distinction between "an antiquarian who lived in the city of Oxford" and "a scholar of antiquarianism at the University of Oxford", but I think Wood seems to have been both. Struck. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"(sic)" could more elegantly be replaced with the template: [sic].
On which: what's the rationale behind giving Coffey a [sic] but not hypocondriack further up?
Fair point: removed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain exactly what "Secretum Antonii" is? Should it be an italicised title, if it's a book, newspaper, journal etc? We've italicised a handbill further up.

::It’s not a title, but more a general name by which his diary is known. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and edited to "who wrote in his diary, known as "Secretum Antonii", in 1671 that": agreed that if it's not a 'proper' title, italicising may not be the right call, but equally I think some kind of introduction as to what this text is would be extremely helpful. Not at all attached to that precise wording: please do edit away. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Oxon" be followed by a full-stop as an abbreviation (for Oxoniensis?

::Not necessarily - none of the other abbreviations have one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POINTS has "Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening (see § Exceptions) but no full point with an acronym". It seems to quite deliberately stop short of joining the dots to say that articles should follow suit, so I'm happy to defer to your style as far as being consistent either way. However, we're not currently quite consistent: S. Peter has a full stop and is an abbreviation, not an acronym. To me, S Peter doesn't read properly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it’s a quote, which has “S. Peter” but also “Oxon”, not “Oxon.” (If it wasn’t a quote, I would have had “St Peter, not “S Peter”). Secondly we have St Michael (not St. Michael) several times above, so we are consistent outside the quote. Finally, I think it would be misleading to have it where we also have the ellipsis: this would look like the end of a sentence, followed by some out of context words. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All very reasonable. 06:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Note B: "The company's rules were that its members had to be "mere merchants", only involved in wholesale trading, rather than other enterprises": the first comma should be a colon (perhaps possibly a semicolon); at the moment, the strict meaning is the company's members had to be "mere merchants" and were prohibited from being other enterprises.

::I’m not sure we need a colon here, but I take your point on the ‘being’, so I’ve tweaked slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out the parenthesised clause gives us "The company's rules were that its members had to be "mere merchants", only involved in wholesale trading, rather than in other enterprises": for the sentence to be grammatical, this main clause ought to be grammatical as well. I'm just about willing to wear she's in sales, with a strictly-defined field as the noun, as a description of someone's job, but I'm not sure I could stomach I'm in enterprises. A comma would fix: "The company's rules were that its members had to be "mere merchants": only involved in wholesale trading, rather than in other enterprises", since then you have two perfectly good clauses. Otherwise, we need something like "rather than conducting other enterprises" vel sim. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am not sure there is a problem with this, unless a reader is trying to force a lack of clarity with something that is clear. To my eye the version with the colon looks grammatically awkward, if not wrong. I have tweaked the sentence again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect; it was always a matter of grammar, rather than clarity. Now unimpeachable for both. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note E: "the tenth and longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire between 1520 and 1566": meaning is clear, but the Ottoman Empire only had one sultan between 1520 and 1566.

**Yep, now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm torn on whether there should be a comma after "Ottoman Empire": without it, the sentence could still technically be read to mean the same thing, making it formally ambiguous. I'd suggest compressing "who ruled between..." into a {{ruled}} template in brackets. Otherwise, "who ruled between 1520 and 1566 as the tenth and longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire"? Given that it's such a long sentence, I'd suggest swapping the semicolon after "Turk's head" for a full stop, but that's very advisory UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments here, they are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

It seems like there are three references in the references section which use the article title instead of an author or producer+year; dunno if this inconsistency is a problem. Some sources have links, others don't, and identifiers are inconsistent. There are lots of ancient sources here; I presume they haven't been superseded? What little sources I know seem reliable, but I can't speak for most of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J-JE. I don’t think the formats of the references is a problem – it’s a format I’ve used before on FAs and is a reflection of the source format, so retains that consistency. When you say some sources have links and others don’t, which links do you mean? The links to Google books or Archive? If so, I’ve linked the issues available for the publication dates I’ve used. For the older sources, you’re right: they’ve not been superseded, or they’ve been used alongside an older reference to give modern reference and a link to the original. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is cited as a "journal or magazine", rather than a book: is that correct? I understand that the web version is the one cited, but it's still the web version of a fairly chunky series of print books. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s fine as is - it’s where it appears in numerous other articles. - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some have Google Books or Archive.org links and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. These are the ones where the works with the right publication dates are available. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 악준동

edit
This article is mainly about people, but the article center quite a bit is about the coffee shop, not the person.Rule this out，this is A delectable article, meeting all the FA criteria in my view.악준동 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is about a person not persons and that one person is notable for starting/owning a coffee shop so it would be a magnitudinous maliginancy against the notability and against the neutrality oilicies not to discuss the raison for his notiobility in some depth. We must call upon @FAC coordinators: to promote this page now, as extended commentary like this goes to the weeds. 2A02:C7C:36B1:FB00:8020:995F:DCEA:D15F (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your comments. Yes, there is information about the coffee shop, but that is unavoidable I think, given it’s the heart of his notability - ‘By their deeds you will know them’ seems apposite here.
IP, Thank you for your enthusiasm for the article - I’m much obliged to you. The coordinators tend to leave nominations open for around three weeks, despite the number of supports, which ensures someone doesn’t get their friends to get it over a certain level, and to ensure it’s open long enough for all parties to chip in with comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, can't have all those quick supports giving the nominator a big head... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2023 (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) 26 May 2023 [23].

Untitled Goose Game

edit
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Goose Game is a 2019 stealth game about being a goose and bothering the people of a small English village. The game, developed by Australian studio House House, was inspired by the style of Super Mario 64 and the mission-like objectives of the Hitman franchise. I love this game and think it'd be great for FA. Got it to GA a few months ago. Excited to hear everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

edit

Claiming my spot, I'll give this a read in the next day or two. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved comments from first read-through

Lead

Gameplay

  • Does gameplay fall under MOS:PLOT or a similar guideline? I'm asking because I genuinely don't know, but if it doesn't then I'd imagine paragraph 1 in this section would need a reference (or removal of the paragraph break between para 1 and 2)

Development and release

  • "which sparked a conversation about geese" → not sure this detail is relevant, since the goose is mentioned initially when it was sent in a chat by someone
  • "who assisted the studio in getting set up properly." → the end of this sentence is a little bit clunky - also what was getting set up here? The studio, for the first time, or this game specifically, or something else?
  • Is there any more information available about the process of the game's development? If not, there's not much you can do here, but it skips right from "The team put the idea aside for a few months until they realised that it had the potential to be a fun game" to the game's publishing
    • A lot of the development itself is actually covered in the second and third paragraphs, the second discussing inspirations and the third discussing other inspirations and the progression of the game's concept. I do agree that this structuring is odd, so I've rearranged some things; take a look and see if it makes sense. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the gameplay evolved into a unique stealth-like experience" → this reads like an advertisement, I'd recommend revising to avoid sounding promotional
  • "House House created a structure using missions with specific targets similar to the assassinations in the Hitman series mostly as a joke" → this is a bit confusing to someone not familiar with Hitman
    • Rephrased to: House House created a structure using missions with specific targets, similar to the mission structure in the Hitman series. House House member Jake Strasser stated "It has a set-up and a punchline. By removing the violence from it, we just let the situations exist as a joke."
  • "which stuck since then. The Untitled Goose Game title stuck with fans" → a tad repetitive (emphasis is mine) and recommend removing "since then"
  • "The only other title they had come up with at one point" → remove "at one point"

Music

More comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release

  • Remove link to iam8bit and move to its first mention, in the "music" subheader
  • The information about the reviewer and the credits at the end of para 3 seems out of place, was that the only reason it was initially rejected for iOS?
    • As surprising as it is, that's my understanding of it; there were a number of other sources I found that reflected the same information, but I deemed it silly to cite so many if they all say the same. I placed that at the end of para 3 because the previous sentence mentions release on Steam and itch.io, so it seemed reasonable to explain why it didn't make it to the App Store after that. Do you think it should be moved elsewhere? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

That's it for me on the first read, I'll go back through and look at sources after these have been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thanks for the review! I've addressed everything, and some responses have questions for you just to clarify things. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through

Comments above; that's what I found on my second-read through. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thanks again for your review, I believe I've addressed everything here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I'm happy with the changes and the state of the article, so I will support. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Prose and source review from Ceranthor

edit

Prose and source comments here. Prose mostly looks good, need to discuss sources more. ceranthor 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Thanks for your review! I believe I've addressed everything, and I had some questions, as seen in my responses. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barring the one comment I responded to above, I'm satisfied with the prose changes as well as the source justifications/the one replacement. Support on prose and sources. ceranthor 22:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much- I've addressed your above comment! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for coordinators As this article is a first-time nomination, it needs to be spot-checked for copyvio and source-to-text integrity. The Night Watch (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • GameSpot: WP:VG/S states it's good to use if the author has a staff writer; all GameSpot sources used are staff authored
  • Rock, Paper, Shotgun: WP:VG/S says it's good
  • Siliconera: Replaced the only Siliconera source per recommendation in WP:VG/S with Eurogamer (regarding coop update)
  • 4Players: Good per WP:VG/S
  • GameRevolution: Good per WP:VG/S
  • Destructoid: WP:VG/S labels this source as situational, saying, "some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such". The authors of the two Destructoid sources are described as "Editor-at-Large" and "Senior Editor", respectively. From this, I can assume the two articles are good. If you disagree, I could try to find replacements.
  • Eurogamer: Good per WP:VG/S
  • GlobeNewswire: GlobeNewswire is just a press release service that published the GDC's press release. Looking at other groups that distribute through them, they seem to be reliable; they're used by Nasdaq, Parsons, FreightCar America, etc.
  • PC Gamer: Good per WP:VG/S
  • GamesRadar+: Good per WP:VG/S
  • Kotaku: The only Kotaku source is a review, good per WP:VG/S

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

Sure. In "References", when you cite articles - the bits between the quote marks - you have some titles in title case, eg "Video Games Are Better Without Gameplay"; and some in sentence case, eg "Hassling farmers, stealing a picnic and solving puzzles in Untitled Goose Game". They should all be in one or the other. My reading of the MoS suggests title case. How they appear in the original is irrelevant. That help? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments thus far! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the other performed slower and softer". Perhaps 'the other more slowly and softly'?
  • "Game Informer praised the game for its silliness and creativity but felt that the game was repetitive and too short." "Game" three times in a sentence is a bit much, maybe replace the last with 'it'?
  • "to become an Internet meme" → 'to become an internet meme'.

That was fun; nicely written. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, thank you for your review! I believe I've addressed everything, including the title case comment- thanks for clarifying that. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

edit

Keep in mind that I don't know much about the reliability of these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I believe I've addressed all your comments, thanks for the spotcheck! As for the reliability, I was previously asked about this, and some are listed higher on this page. The rest of the sources can be checked at WP:VG/S or WP:RS/P. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|url-status=dead can be used to make the archive link display as the default one. Otherwise seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I understand, but seeing as the link is not dead, I don't see why I would need to do so. To clarify, I'm referring to Ref 70. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant this URL Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I understand now, it's been fixed- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 should be removed since it is from the IGN wiki, which is a user-generated service and thus unreliable.
I also saw something with Source 12: "House House cited Super Mario 64 as the initial inspiration for the type of game that they hoped to build." The source says that SM64 was inspiration for the movement, not necessarily what they hoped to build. I think I may need to do a few spot checks on my own just to be sure. The Night Watch (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Night Watch, I replaced Source 7 and fixed the SM64 issue. Thanks for bringing these to my attention, and I would much appreciate any further comments. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and do a quick spot-check sometime today or tomorrow. The Night Watch (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Watch

edit

Spot-checked refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13 and 14 (Borrowed that GamesTM issue) 17, 19, 27, 35, 36, 41, 63, 65

  • Refs 2 and 11 do not say that the developers based the goose off of a stock image. I may be looking in the incorrect spot, but I can't find that information in the sources.
  • Ref 6 is a wiki-source from IGN (same as source 7) and should be replaced/removed.

Aside from those two points, everything else appears good. The Night Watch (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch, thanks for the spotcheck- I've replaced 6 and removed the claim before 2 and 11 because I couldn't find another source to support it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Night Watch (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2023 (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) 22 May 2023 [24].

Coccinellidae

edit
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about ladybirds, also known as ladybugs, lady beetles and ladybird beetles. The FA list could use a beetle-related article and these are arguably the most recognizable of all. Special thanks to Chiswick Chap. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ling

edit
  • Brown, L., ed. (2007) Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holland, Mary (2016). Missing Publisher.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aslam, Muhammad. Is there no date with that? Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing access date
Added two. Can't find identifier. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna teach you how to find identifiers (sometimes you just google!), but dude, it's right there on the article itself. Just look at the article and scroll down just a little bit. It's there in a box under the keywords. § Lingzhi (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a news article. There is no identifier. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian has an ISSN number. You can find it, forex, in the Wikipedia article about that publication. § Lingzhi (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the ISSN number for the publisher itself important? I've never had to do this an previous FACs. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now been informed that for newspapers, it isn't customary to require identifiers. So you're OK. § Lingzhi (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:, Nah, if I'm gonna do a source review, I'll mark it "Source Review". Nominators let all kindsa questionable (sometimes highly questionable) stuff slip through the references section, thinking no one will ever look. And sometimes they are right. I spent hours writing User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck so that reviewers could call nominators' hand (hands?) on slipshod reference sections (though it sometimes gives false positives, esp. w. p/pp errors and ISSN for news). So I just summarized the output in this and other FACs. It just means this: "Clean up the formatting and consistency of your references". § Lingzhi (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ling. I had thought that - I have already posted a request for a source review - but on reflection it seemed wisest to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger

edit
  • Overall, the article seems to be rather short for a family of insects with 6,000+ species.
  • First sentence under Fossil History, "Over living 6,000 species of Coccinellidae..." - please switch "living 6,000" to "6,000 living"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you say what the Sternorrhyncha are a bit more clearly the first time they are mentioned?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't the subfamily Monocoryninae linked anywhere?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no cladograms for the traditional seven subfamily scheme? And could you elaborate more on said seven subfamily scheme?
Clarified, the traditional subfamily scheme is not supported by genetics. There's no need for a cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And/or ones that show all the tribes, either all together or divided by subfamily?
Well there are lot of them. They would take up a lot of room. Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12? LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This still seems like a rather short article for such a large family, but support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KoA

edit
  • I support FA status as someone who has been working on the page a bit (and an entomologist). Everything looks good in terms of being comprehensive but also concise for the FA criteria. Lack of the latter sometimes causes bloat in FA articles, but this article strikes the right balance for this family.
I expanded Coccinellidae#As_pests a bit to cover the specific examples sources typically talk about since one species tends to dominate the pest side of the discussion. Right now the section gives a good overview without being exhaustive, and it's the only section I could find that was lacking a little at this point. KoA (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

edit

Very comprehensive, but some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • and ladybirds in Great Britain.— Just GB? They are called ladybirds in the rest of the UK, Ireland, Australia and South Africa at least, probably best to just say elsewhere in English-speaking countries
  • carnivorous—link
  • oval-shaped square-shaped—oval, square
  • A 2021 genetic study by Che and studied using gene sampling across many species by Che and colleagues in 2021.—???
  • Britian—typo
  • Larvae eventually transition into a pupa;— plural -> singular
  • Pupa may be uncovered, partially covered or fully covered by larval skin—A pupa, or pupae
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a couple more larva(e) pupa(e) issues, all looks good, Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All images seem to be well-placed. Regarding File:Brumoides suturalis (10.3897-zookeys.803.22543) Figure 16.jpg, File:Endomychidae - Brachytrycherus bipunctatus.jpg and File:Palaestes nicaraguae male.png, where are the licences stated on the sources? File:Lymexylon navale (adult).jpg and File:Ladybug larva (Coccinellidae).jpg have a broken source. Do we know the source page for File:Coccinella septempunctata-norarte.jpg? The copyright tag implies that it comes from a website. I think the ALT text should probably use capitalization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zookeys and Biodiversity Data Journal state they are licensed under 4.0 CCL on their homepage. I replaced one image with a broken source. The other was uploaded by the author (and I removed the link). Replaced File:Coccinella septempunctata-norarte.jpg. Capitalized alt text. LittleJerry (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I think Ling did the source review. What kind of source review are you looking for? LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry, apparently not - see above. The usual sort, as in WP:FASOURCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Jo-Jo Eumerus, could you do it? LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Sources seem to mostly have the required information, but I note that some have identifiers like PMID and S2CID and others don't. Some academic papers link the paper itself and others only a DOI. Books are sometimes inconsistent on displaying a publisher or not displaying a publisher. Not source related, but I wonder why the 1976 summer in Europe merits its own paragraph. Spot check on request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some have these identifiers and others don't. Some papers need access via PDF since their are no other identifiers given. I fixed the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, all good? LittleJerry (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly source related, but I still wonder about the 1976 paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder what? I bunched it so it is no longer is its own paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was wondering why that summer is being singled out for a mention. It's sourced to two newspapers - one wonders if newspapers in other countries have similar reports, which makes me wonder if the single-out is WP:UNDUE to this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1976 heatwave is notable enough to have its own wiki article and is covered in more articles than the ones cited (as a google search shows). The "ladybird plague" was a notable feature of it. It is not undue. LittleJerry (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm whether you think the image and sourcing issues have been addressed? LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • Seems to have the minimum required reviews, but I want to read the article, so will do a fourth soon anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there appear to be some dulpinks (not couning those in cladograms and image captions), which can be highlighted with the usual script:[25]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mary (Our Lady) was often depicted wearing a red cloak in early art" Would perhaps be interesting if such a depiction could be shown, since it's so central to the perception of this animal.
I don't think the image would fit in Etymology. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more like the pretty small gallery in the culture section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't add it there. Its is not an actual depiction of ladybugs. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'll press this further, but the gallery doesn't indicate it's only for depictions of ladybirds, the entire section is about their cultural significance. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link morphological.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some technical terms under description that could get some sort of explanation.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name Coccinellidae, created by Pierre André Latreille" State when.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link aphid at first instead of second mention.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "evolved from an clade" A clade.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing interesting to say on their pre-genetic study taxonomic history?
Not much. It already mentions the historical subfamilies. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any picture showing the typical yellow secretions?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eggs, to larva, to pupa and finally adult." Why does it go from plural to singular?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the larvae stage lasts around three weeks while the pupa lasts" Also unnecessary change from plural (larvae) to singular (pupa).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An example of a specialist species those of the genus Stethorus" Missing "are/is"? Also incongruent plural/singular.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a vary of predators" Variety of?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • aposematism needs link and explanation outside the intro too.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "urbanisation threatens these insects though habitat destruction and homogenization" Why both ise and ize? If this should be consistent, check throughout.
FiXed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "out compete" should be outcompete or out-compete.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2022, IUCN Red List" Should probablky say "the IUCN Red List".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coccinellids have been valued in biological pest control" are, present tense, surely?
Its historical. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with many reports of people being bitten as the supply of aphids dwindled" What's the correlation here? I'm sure they didn't try to eat humans instead of aphids?
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning behind the common name seems important enough for the intro.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (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) 22 May 2023 [26].

Weesperplein metro station

edit
Nominator(s): ~StyyxTalk? 13:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Weesperplein. Universiteit, Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Uitstappen rechterzijde. Overstappen op tram 1, 7 en 19." — One of the busiest metro stations in Amsterdam, with a hidden twist under it (literally). It was initially the terminus of all lines of the city. I hope to bring this to FA status after getting through a GAN and a (not-so thorough) PR. ~StyyxTalk? 13:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

edit
  • Hi Styyx, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a check for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "Extensive tests were carried out in September before the station opened on 16 October." - which year? If it was 1977, reword the previous sentence to clarify how a train passed through fully nine months before the station opened.
Indeed 1977, which I added to the sentence. The body does clarify that the structure was mostly complete by 1974.
  • "The station was renovated again during 2017 and 2018. A new elevator and two additional staircases between the hall and tracks were constructed." => "The station was renovated again during 2017 and 2018, when a new elevator and two additional staircases between the hall and tracks were constructed." (merging two short and rather perfunctory sentences)
  • "was used as a fallout shelter with the capacity of 5,000 people" => "was used as a fallout shelter with a capacity of 5,000 people"
  • "The shelter wasn't maintained" => "The shelter was not maintained" (no contractions per MOS)
  • "An extra area for a platform below the one used by East Line was created" => "An extra area for a platform below the one used by the East Line was created"
  • "5,000 of which inside the shelter" => "5,000 of them inside the shelter"
  • "weren't maintained from 1999 onwards" => "were not maintained from 1999 onwards" (as above)
  • "The former shelter can be accessed via sliding doors at the top level of station" => "The former shelter can be accessed via sliding doors at the top level of the station"
  • "Weesperplein was the first station to start being constructed" => "Weesperplein was the first Amsterdam Metro station to start being constructed"
  • "A metro was first rolled into the underground tunnels on 25 January 1977" => "A train was first rolled into the underground tunnels on 25 January 1977"
  • "when the Amsterdam Metro doesn't run" => "when the Amsterdam Metro does not run"
  • "This would make Weesperplein be a station" => "This would make Weesperplein a station"
  • "with 36373 passengers per day" => "with 36,373 passengers per day"
  • Don't suppose there are any newer figures than 2018.....?
Nope. Figures of mainline railway stations are made public every year, but metro stations are not. They decided to publish it once in 2019 using data after the new line 52 opened and never did again. So the only thing I can find is 2018, nothing before, nothing after.
  • "Luchtspiegelingen of Matthijs van Dam" => "Luchtspiegelingen by Matthijs van Dam"
  • "Verplaatsing of Charles Bergmans" => "Verplaatsing by Charles Bergmans"
  • "Located on the station hall" => "Located in the station hall" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude! I've made the changes accordingly and responded to a few. ~StyyxTalk? 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

edit
  • wat leuk iets uit nederlands hier om te zien! and cool to welcome a new nominator as well.
  • as noted in the GA review, the infobox pic could do with alt text, some other pix too
    Added alt to infobox. I think all others have alt texts already?
    indeed, done Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The station was designed by two architects.." suggest starting the article body proper with "Weesperplein metro station was designed by two architects.."
    Done.
    Then next sentence should prob start "It" Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed.
  • i found the first two pix rather dull, perhaps we can spice it up with a metro map, also useful for context
    Where would you want it? The map was in the article before I expanded it from a stub. I actually wanted to retain it in the "Services" section but that messed up the table used there and I couldn't figure a way out of it.
    Yes I saw a version in the stub. Hmmm I'm not bothered where, maybe try a few options out? Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only space for it in #Layout (permalink). I'm very close in getting sandwich when it's on the left. I can imagine it being way worse with Vector 2022 (given that it removes the TOC). I don't want to remove the picture of the unused section since it's not open to public.
    OK let's see what others think about it Mujinga (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • given smooth curves to "guide" passengers - who is saying guide here? does it need to be quoted?
    Well, the writers of the book say so. :p But on a serious note, I don't know if a wall guiding people is normal.
    If you are quoting you need to say who said it, in this case for a single word, I don't think it's worth mentioning the authors. "Guide" makes sense but maybe just change it to ... "direct" ? Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, makes sense.
  • say albert heijn is a supermarkt for those who don't know hamsters
    While Albert Heijn is a supermarket, their To Go brand doesn't have large stores since it's to go. Added convenience store instead.
    good point on to go, I'd suggest saying "an Albert Heijn To Go convenience store" instead of "a convenience store of Albert Heijn To Go". You took away the convenience store link? I'm unbothered either way on that point. Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added the link as well but wouldn't mind if it was removed.
  • "In addition, Weesperplein is the only station to have a third reserve track" - can you explain what that means?
    Explained based on source.
    source also talked about how that could be useful in emergencies, do you think that is worth adding? Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added.
    Cool Mujinga (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replacing bicycle parking racks.[9] - where did the bike parking go?
    This only happened at one of the entrances. Corrected.
    thanks. you missed out "of" and I'd suggest changing greenery to flowers or shrubs, whatever fits the source Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Done. Flowers it is.
    Cool Mujinga (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When all lines apart from the East Line, including the East–West line, were cancelled by the municipality on 19 March 1975,[12] the area was used as a fallout shelter" suggest something more like "After the East–West line was cancelled by the municipality on 19 March 1975,[12] the area was intended to be used as a fallout shelter"
    Done.
  • "were cancelled by the municipality " either here or later I think you need a few more sentences for completeness on why the construction was controversial and why the lines were cancelled, since it's a big part of Amsterdam history
    I think that's already done in #Construction. Let me know if that's not enough.
    for my feeling more is needed, but feel free to wait to see what other reviewers suggest Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was expected to take "4 to 5 years" to finish the station - I don't think you need quotation marks here or if you do, you need to say who said it
    Removed.
  • "The station was reported to be almost completed by June 1974, but that operations would start years later.[20] During the digging process of the station, two former freshwater storage basements were found. Inside the Singelgracht are 33 of such basements, but not much is known of them as they are not in use.[21]" - needs rewriting, "but that" and "33 of such" don't read well
    Reworded first sentence. Is "33 of these" any better?
    "Inside the Singelgracht are 33 of these basements, but not much is known of them as they are not in use" - it's better but I'm still confused, would under the singelgracht be better? Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. It's the part of the city that falls inside the Singelgracht that has 33 basements (so pretty much the entire historic city centre), not just basements physically under the canal. Clarified.
    Great I now uunderstand, I was thinking of Singelgracht as a street not the area Mujinga (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A train was first rolled" is rolled a technical term or Dutchglish?
    I don't think that really makes sense in Dutch (not the way the source uses it). I'm not sure but, rolling stock tends to... roll? I'll have to figure that one out.
    indeed we say "rolling stock" but for my feeling we don't say trains roll, sounds too passive for me. I'd say trains drive or pass by, but again happy to see what other reviewers say. Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Braille patterns were installed on the handrails at the station in 1984 to assist blind and visually impaired people.[28] On 12 July 1999, a high-speed tram of line 51 caught fire at the Weesperplein station due to a blocked disc brake. The tram was carrying no passengers at the time. The smoke caused all levels of the station to be evacuated.[29] Two people were taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation, but were discharged quickly after their condition was determined to be minor.[30]" this is a bit proseline and could be rewritten into longer, joined sentences
    I think it's mostly the part about the fire that is an issue? Done.
    Yeah I agree that's better, nice one. Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supply of new and disposal of old materials was done at night, when the Amsterdam Metro does not run, by using the rails, to prevent congestion of the roads with trucks." - "to prevent congestion of the roads with trucks" reads awkwardly, suggest rephrasing (and you have congestion in the next sentence as well)
    Rewritten. Also moved the next sentence in a different position.
    Nice that's better. "This was done in order to prevent congesting roads around the city with trucks" - I'dm suggest rewriting that to "This was done in order to avoid creating traffic jams above ground" Mujinga (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "The quality of the repairs was found to have " - found by whom, since you then give a direct quote ... also this paragraph is proseline again, needs rewriting
    Rewritten.
    It's getting better but I'm still not keen on "In 2011 ... In 2014 ... In April 2017", feel like too much of a list. Mujinga (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misread it as only the section you quoted needing rewriting and not the whole paragraph. I made a very slight tweak but will look further into it.
    Made another minor change in wording to remove the first "in".
    works for me now! Mujinga (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead: suggesting flipping paragraphs 2 and 3 round
    I was a bit on the edge but I think swapping them around indeed makes more sense.
  • "In 2018, the station was reported to be "somewhat ready" in case a new East–West line was planned" - reported by who and we need the Dutch in the references. also re " like it was originally intended in the 1970s." suggest "as originally intended"
    Done.
  • bearing in mind the discussion in the GA review, I would suggest re-adding GVB as the acronym for Gemeente Vervoerbedrijf, both because you have "GVB tram: 1, 7, 19 Bus transport GVB bus: N85, N86 (night)" and because GVB is what it is commonly known as
    Added (back).
  • auto peer veiewer suggests: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 40 metres, use 40 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 40 metres.
    Was mostly not an issue since I used {{Convert}}. I think the example you mentioned is the only one that wasn't (to avoid repetition).
  • As it stands, I have issues with the article meeting criteria 1a and 1c. I think this is a GA class article which needs a bit more work to get to FA prose standard. Doing the peer review was a good step towards this, shame it wasn't more helpful. So I'd oppose for now but happy to revisit. In future perhaps you could ask the guild of copy editors to have a look. I'd also suggest reviewing FA candidates yourself as a way to see how things work. Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • best practice to give "underground labyrinth" in original dutch as well Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
    Nice work Styyx! Happy to support on prose now Mujinga (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • I thought i'd do a source review and spotchecks, it's my first time doing this so helpful advice would be welcome. I used a variety of checks, including trying out User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. I also read Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You.
  • Looking at this version
  • I can't find the relevant bit of the MOS right now, but the foreign langauge titles need to have an (your) [english translation] afterwards, for example: 3 "Waarom vinden we de stations Lelylaan en Muiderpoort zo onaangenaam? 'Reizigers willen gezien worden'" ["Why do we find the Lelylaan and Muiderpoort stations so unpleasant? 'Travellers want to be seen'"] or similar
    Done, though skipped a few since I don't think translation a few of them were necessary. Let me know if you think a specific ref still needs a translation.
    this looks great now Mujinga (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography is not alphabetically listed
    Ah, so that is the correct way.
  • For ref4 better to have a third party reference, you might have to change the sentence a bit, then for example maybe use this or this.
    Swapped with In de buurt. The other source you gave only confirms the sandwich shop, not the Albert Heijn To Go store.
  • Needing the padlock to show they are paywalled : ref35
    Added.
  • User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck gives "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);" for some newspapers, that is fine because you consistently haven't given ISSN. and it gives "Missing archive link" for delpher links, that's ok because delpher is itself the archive. "van Vollenhoven 2000, p. 8–9. P/PP error? pp. 8–9."
    Added pp.
  • Otherwise sources are high quality and formatting is good, not finding any copyvio as I go Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Source review pass Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for a check at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Source_review_check and Nikkimaria noted that van 't Hoog is a Masters thesis and therefore not a high quality source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Luckily it's not doing very much so should be easy to replace Mujinga (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Imported source from Amsterdam Metro. Note that the source doesn't mention Weesperplein specifically but rather all stations of the line, if that isn't a problem.
    Nice one, that's a better source. I do notice it says Ben Spängberg not Ben Spangberg, so we can do that too. Is it worth adding that "designed, like all the stations on the East line," or similar? Mujinga (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.

Spotchecks - pass

edit

Looking at this version

  • 2a ok
  • 2b quote for underground labyrinth ok
  • 5 ok
  • 7 AGF
  • 8 ok
  • 16 quote can be verified but prob not needed
  • 24a needs to be from 23 seconds to cover the cited info
    Changed.
  • 24b "For the first three years" not covered by source
    The video says "de eerste jaren", so the first few years. Adjusted.
  • 28 all good
  • 32 looks like you are drawing on "Intern wordt geconstateerd dat de kwaliteit van het geleverde werk tekortschiet en regelmatig over moet worden gedaan. Vanwege asbest is bij station Weesperplein een vertraging ontstaan van circa 2 maanden" - I would say "The quality of the repairs was found to have "fallen short [of standards]" and had to be redone several times. The asbestos caused delays in metro operations for two months" needs rewriting. You don't need the quote or should say who said it (namely the internal review). "redone several times" isn't quite right, it would seem the repairs had to be carried out regularly (regelmatig). Although WP:NONENG can be read in different ways, I think it's good practice to provide the Dutch text as a |quotation in the citation when putting direct quotes in the article body (although in this specific case I also don't think you need the quotation) - this is something I did at We Are Here (collective) as an example
    Reworded the sentence a bit.
  • 33 all good
  • 38 all good interms of verifiability, but can you add the Dutch quoted in "|quotation" in the reference, per NONENG
    Added quote.
  • 39 the quote should be given in Dutch but also i think it's a bit of stretch from "Een van de stations ligt er al. Een beetje dan" to "somewhat ready". and the quotation again isn't supernecessary here
    Removed quoting. Somewhat done seems like a better translation.
  • 42 same thing for quotation per NONENG, I can find it in the source as " als je door het plafond heen omhoog kon kijken" although I'm not sure if it needs quoting actually
    Removed quoting.
    Having taken away the quotes you need to rephrase what it says otherwise it's plaigirising what the soruce says Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually really like the wording of the quote and couldn't come up with anything better, so I went through the other route and added |quotation.
    The issue now becomes who said the quote. Right now it looks like wikipedia is saying that, so you need to add who said it, or (probably easier to be honest) rephrase Mujinga (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done now, I think.
    The quoting issue is resolved but now it switches to a concern over criterion 1a, quality of prose. Currently we have "Luchtspiegelingen by Matthijs van Dam has 12 panels showing Weesperstraat and Sarphatistraat seen from below, with roads, cars and clouds, giving the feeling of looking through the ceiling of the station. The panels were placed on the ceiling of the platform in 1977, but were removed in 2010 due to fire safety measures. The panels were installed back eight years later in 2018, on the ceiling of the station hall." - I'd suggest editing to something like "Luchtspiegelingen by Matthijs van Dam is composed of 12 panels showing Weesperstraat and Sarphatistraat seen from below. The view of roads, cars and clouds gives the illusion of looking up through the station to the outside. The panels were placed on the ceiling at platform level in 1977 and were removed in 2010 due to fire safety concerns. They were reinstalled eight years later, this time on the ceiling of the station hall." Mujinga (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I can better that wording.
  • 44 all good
  • 49 primary source but purely informational so OK
  • References are generally lining up well, a few quibbles including the quotations Mujinga (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one query open on spotchecks, regarding 42 Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

edit

Will hopefully start on this tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend a caption for the image in the infobox, the Commons description of "Lower floor of the Weesperplein metro station with the tracks" would suffice.
    Added.
  • Recommend using the "rebuilt" parameter in the infobox to mention the rebuildings in 2011 and 2017-2018.
    2011 was not a very significant renovation, but added 2017–2018.
  • "The first metro train went through the station in January 1977." This may be misleading, as upon reading this you'd assume that was when the station opened, and you only clarify in the following sentence. Can this be made more explicit? For example, maybe say the first test train reached the station in January 1977?
    Changed.
  • "An additional platform below the existing one was also built for a potential East–West Line, but was instead used as a fallout shelter with a capacity of 5,000 people when this line was cancelled in 1975."
    Done.
  • Can we have a few sentences for the context in which the station (and by extension, the metro line) were designed? We just immediately start with the station being designed, with no context as to when and why the metro line was first planned and funded?
    Added a new section on the background of things.
  • "An aerial photo" should be "Aerial photos" since we have two.
    Not needed anymore.
    I like your solution better, actually. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the first few years, units that came into the Weesperplein were put onto the other track with a switch that was located just after the station to run the other direction to Bijlmermeer." This is kind of awkwardly written, and I'm not certain what it means. Was this trains just reversing direction, or was there a different line to Bijlmermeer? The name Bijlmermeer doesn't appear anywhere before this sentence, so there seems to be context missing.
    Indeed just turning around. Made a change for that. Also added info on the line(s) that ran through the station at the time (which is sourced to Ref 27, conveniently already there, so no source hijacking).
  • "While all other metro stations on the East Line have an island platform, an exception was made for Weesperplein as it was supposed to be the station where two lines would intersect each other." Please incorporate a link to Interchange station here.
    Didn't know that existed, great one.
  • "This also resulted in a larger station hall." is a very short sentence, which could be merged with the previous sentence.
    Done.
  • "In addition, while the rest of the metro system runs on double-track, Weesperplein is the only station to have a third reserve track in between those two. This track can be used in case of an emergency." Try something like "Weesperplein is the only Amsterdam Metro station to have a third track, for emergency use."
  • Do we have any photos which show this third track? Is it between the two station tracks? The track layout is somewhat unclear to me.
    No photos; it's not really at the station but rather on the edge of it. It's in between the tracks as you said, but that is already made clear in its current form ("[...] third reserve track in between those two"), so I don't understand the suggestion above to rewrite the sentence.
  • Amsterdam Amstel station is linked at the second mention in the body, but not the first; this should be reversed.
    Swapped.
  • Will continue today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got busier than I expected today, but will continue tomorrow. Expect to nitpick prose and content a bit more but likely to support once that's done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure guilder is not supposed to be capitalized.
    Done.
  • "Served by metro lines 51, 53 and 54 of the Amsterdam Metro," The first instance of "metro" can be deleted here.
    Done.
  • Consider putting the adjacent stations and services template into the infobox, as with Grand Central Terminal.
    Done.
  • "In 2004, the equipments were removed" the equipment was removed.
    Done.
  • Good job with the background section, it really enhances the article by giving context.
  • "Testing of the regular metro operations started in late August 1977" Remove "the" as it is not needed here.
    Done.
  • "For the first few years, units that came into the Weesperplein" Recommend "trains" instead of "units".
    Done.
  • "At Bijlmermeer the line would split into two, with one ending at Gaasperplas and the other at Holendrecht." Suggest rewriting as "At Bijlmermeer the line split into two, with one line ending at Gaasperplas and the other at Holendrecht."
    Done.
  • "The section towards Centraal station was opened later on 11 October 1980 and Weesperplein no longer was a terminus for the lines." This was an extension of the line beyond Weesperplein?
    Yes.
  • "On 12 July 1999, a high-speed tram" Why do you use tram in this paragraph, instead of metro?
    The mess of this system, you could get stuff like this. :) Clarified.
  • "but were discharged quickly after their condition was determined to be minor." But were discharged quickly after their injuries were determined to be minor.
    Done.
  • Suggest linking Asbestos abatement where you talk about asbestos being found in 2011.
  • Why are we only introduced to GVB in the 2010s section? Weren't they the operator ever since the station opened?
    Added earlier.
  • There are no bus connections during the day, only at night? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Trainsandotherthings! I wasn't at home for the past week and was only now able to implement your final suggestions. ~StyyxTalk? 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I will give this another readthrough tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been busier than normal irl but I will get to this later today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, finally had time to sit down and look at this, and I am happy to support on prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "The repairs conducted at the station during a renovation". Optional: delete "The".
    Reads better without.
  • "Weesperplein and other metro station on the East Line". Should that be 'stations'?
    Correct. Done.
  • " it was supposed to be the station where ...". "the" → 'a'.
    Done.
  • "In 2018, bicycle parking racks outside one of the entrances were replaced by flowers." Not sure why this is in "Design". It may be appropriate for "2010s".
    It's the "Layout" section, and one could argue that the entrances are a part of that. Not going to fight too much on this one.
  • "The doors are waterproof" → 'The doors are watertight'.
    Done.
  • "The doors ... undergo annual testing". Still? In spite of the shelter not having been maintained since 1999?
    Yeah. The source actually also adds the "still" when saying that.
  • "Based on a 1960 report concluding the need of a rail system within Amsterdam to move large amounts of people". This needs rephrasing, for both grammar and flow.
    Rewritten.
  • "The bureau released five reports until 1966". "until" → 'by'.
    Done.
  • "laid out plans for ... The plan was presented". plans or plan?
    I mean, I assume they had multiple plans but only the final one was presented. Changed.
  • "250 million guilder." Is it known approximately what this would have equated to in US dollars?
    That would be a lot of conversions (and confusion). Using this converter by the International Institute of Social History, it appears that 250 million guilder in 1968 was worth 113.45 million euro at that time, and would have been 605 million euro in 2021. And then covert that to USD, but which value?
Personally I would go with the standard annual average conversion rate, but if you want to drop it, that's fine.
  • "while operations were expected to start years later." Is it known how many years later?
    Nope. I haven't found anything specific.
  • "During the digging process of the station" → 'During the process of digging the station'.
    Done
  • "not much is known of them as they are not in use". Is it known, approximately, either when they were used or when they stopped being used?
    Added mid-19th century. I don't know if the wording is correct now though.
  • "A train was first rolled into the underground tunnels". "rolled" implies that it was not moving under its own power, is that correct? If not, perhaps 'driven, or 'operated in' or similar.
    It was moving on its own power. Funny enough, then mayor Ivo Samkalden was driving the metro (with an actual driver present of course). Don't know if that's worth adding.
Your call, but it seems worth half a sentence.
  • "Weesperplein no longer was a terminus for the two lines" → 'Weesperplein was no longer a terminus for the two lines'
    Done.
  • "Two people were taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation". Delete "the".
    Done.
  • "which delayed metro operations for two months". Delayed or prevented?
    Prevented. Though operations had been halted for the renovation in general anyway, but the asbestos extended that.
  • " Concrete was replaced with glass to make it spacious, lighter and clearer." Do you mean ' Concrete was replaced with glass to make it seem spacious, lighter and clearer.'?
    Yeah.

Very neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"to make it seem spacious, lighter and clearer." Try 'to make it seem lighter and more spacious.'
I am supporting anyway, but will leave you with the three thoughts above. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

The artwork image should probably be tagged with commons:Template:FoP-Nederland. Where in the source of File:Weesperplein aerial photo, 1975.jpg is the licence given? ALT text might be a bit undescriptive. Images seem to be well-placed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 May 2023 [27].

White Horse (Taylor Swift song)

edit
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2008 song by Taylor Swift when she was 18. After revamping the article I believe it now is up to FA standards. I'm open to any and all suggestions to improve it further. Thanks, Ippantekina (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "a narrator is heartbroken on realizing the boyfriend" => "a narrator is heartbroken on realizing that her boyfriend"
  • " what they deemed [...] but some deemed" - suggest using a different word in place of one of those
  • "To this extent," - not sure this is the correct wording. I'd be tempted to remove these words and just join this sentence onto the previous one
  • "part of the lyrics to "White Horse" dated in December 2006" => "part of the lyrics to "White Horse" dated from December 2006"
  • "Songwriting for "White Horse" completed weeks after" => "Songwriting for "White Horse" was completed weeks after"
  • Done.
  • "all the fantasies she had about a boy turned out completely falsified" => "all the fantasies she had about a boy turned out to be completely false"
  • "the former [...] and the latter" - there's nothing in the preceding clause to indicate what "the former" and "the latter" are
  • "Some lyrical motives" => "Some lyrical motifs"
  • "express the narrator's lost of innocence" => "express the narrator's loss of innocence"
  • "she donned a white evening gown as sang" => "she donned a white evening gown as she sang"
  • "sitting on floral-patterned couch" => "sitting on a floral-patterned couch"

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisTheDude, I've addressed your comments accordingly. Let me know if the article needs further work! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Music critics lauded "White Horse" for what they deemed a somber production and a portrayal of universal feelings from heartbreak, but some found the lyrics." - think some words have gone AWOL there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops.. added the missing word. Ippantekina (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

edit
  • "An understated country pop ballad, it is driven by a finger-picked guitar and includes piano and cello accents." - would replace "it" with "the song"
  • "In reviews of Fearless, music critics lauded "White Horse" for what they deemed a somber production and lyrics" Can cut "In reviews of Fearless" as that's implied. I think you could rephrase to "Music critics lauded [...] for its somber production and lyrics[...]"
  • Done.
  • "but some deemed the lyrical imagery uncreative." - I'd just simplify to some deemed the lyrics uncreative.
  • Done.
  • "In the United States, the single peaked at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number two on the Hot Country Songs chart, and was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). " - don't need the comma before "and was certified"
  • Done.
  • ", and received certifications in the first two countries." - don't need the comma
  • Done.
  • "the track was produced by Swift and Chapman, and mixed by Justin Niebank at Blackbird Studios in Nashville.[6]" - don't need the comma
  • Done.
  • "According to a note published in the liner notes of Swift's 2019 album Lover, part of the lyrics to "White Horse" dated in December 2006.[7] " - I think you want "date to" not "dated in"
  • Done.
  • "co-writer Liz Rose helped her complete the song in nearly 45 minutes.[8]" - nearly isn't the right adverb and I don't think it's necessary, you can just say in 45 minutes or less than 45 minutes
  • Done.
  • "Swift said she was inspired to write "White Horse" by the moment she realized all the fantasies she had about a boy turned out completely falsified" - should be "false", not falsified
  • Done.
  • "The subject" - I think you need to mention that he's anonymous somewhere
  • Done.
  • "Whereas both "Love Story" and "White Horse" feature prominent fairy-tale lyrical imagery, Swift said it was important to regard fairy tales with "both sides": the former represented her optimistic and idealistic viewpoint on romance, and the latter her disillusionment with the said notion.[13]" - should be a semi-colon not a colon
  • Done.
  • "Swift intended to leave "White Horse" out of Fearless " - "leave off" works better than "leave out of"
  • Done.
  • "She changed the decision when the producers of Grey's Anatomy wanted to feature the song in the series.[14]" - I think it's worth a brief mention of which season and which year
  • Already included.
  • ",[39] and peaked at number 111 on the Billboard Global 200.[40]" - don't need the comma
  • Done.
  • ", and instead express the narrator's lost of innocence from a more reflective point-of-view.[49]" - don't need the comma
  • Done.
  • "the latter depicts a girl whom someone was unfaithful with" - I'd move "with" to before "whom"
  • I'd keep it as it is currently to keep the parallel between "unfaithful to" and "unfaithful with"
  • ", on CMT,[78] and was the first video to debut at number one on the network's weekly countdown.[79][80]" - don't need any of these commas
  • The first comma is after a date. The second one's done.
  • "she donned a white evening gown as sang the song sitting on floral-patterned couch.[81]" - typo? Supposed to say "and sang" I think? If so cut out "the song"
  • Done.
  • ",[87] and on a November 2010 episode of Dancing with the Stars.[88]" - no comma
  • This comma is after a date.

Mostly ready on prose. Most of my comments are minor points from a first pass. ceranthor 02:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ceranthor:, thanks for the review. Per MOS:COMMA I added the commas after every date i.e. "on March 5, 2009," "on February 7, 2009, on CMT". In other instances i.e. "peaked at number 13 [...] and number two [...], and was certified" I think the comma adds clarity to separate the items, considering "peaked at [...] and [...] and was certified" is rather clunky. Not sure if this violates any conventions? Ippantekina (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ippantekina: Not sure I follow - I don't remember making any comments about commas after dates. For the latter point, commas are not used if not a compound sentence, ie. for one of the examples I cited above, "the track was produced by Swift and Chapman, and mixed by Justin Niebank at Blackbird Studios in Nashville," the comma is incorrectly placed because "and mixed" uses the same subject. The comma would be appropriate and necessary if the sentence read "the track was produced by Swift and Chapman, and it was mixed by Justin Niebank at Blackbird Studios in Nashville." Does that help to clarify? Please let me know if not. ceranthor 15:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Other than that I pointed out two instances where the comma is after the date. I'll address the rest soon, Ippantekina (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I've addressed your comments accordingly. Let me know if the article needs further work :) Thanks much, Ippantekina (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: nudge-- Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. ceranthor 02:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Unlimitedlead

edit

Just came back from the Eras Tour; it was heavenly! Comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do the lead and the body not mention when the music video was released?
  • "The end product is a collection of songs..." Shouldn't the "is" be "was"?
This has not been fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: ? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead Whoops, missed this one. I think "is" is ok because the album is, well, now still a collection of songs of that description. Ippantekina (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would refer to Char Carlson as an audio engineer, not just as an engineer.
  • "Swift recalled that at a meeting set up by her agency with executive producers Shonda Rhimes and Betsy Beers..." I would say "the show's executive producers" to avoid confusion with the producers of the song.
  • "...she had hoped" -> "...she had hoped for"?
  • "...worthy;[54][55] "This is a..." Why do you use a semicolon here when you previously used colons?
  • Why does note a not end in punctuation?
  • Yes!! Mentions of the Eras Tour! Very nicely done; it is encouraging to see that these articles are being punctually updated.

That is all from me! Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina Sorry to bother, but have you seen mine and Heartfox's comments yet? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi yes Unlimitedlead, apologies for my delayed response and thank you for the review. I have addressed your concerns accordingly. You can have a read-through again and let me know if I've missed out anything :) Ippantekina (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • There is an inconsistent title capitalization style
  • Davies url-status=live
  • What makes SheKnows a high-quality source?

Heartfox (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox I've amended the ref titles accordingly. Regarding SheKnows it is not the best source for more serious critical analyses/reviews, but I think it should suffice in this context (reviewing a concert). As it is part of Penske Media Corporation (who publishes Rolling Stone and Variety) it definitely is an acceptable source. Ippantekina (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest citing the Edmonton Journal instead, which also notes she performed "White Horse" during the Red Tour. SheKnows wasn't part of PMC until 2018, and not all PMC publications are reliable for everything. For example, at WP:RSPSS there is a consensus that Rolling Stone is unreliable for political coverage. Heartfox (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the save! I've added the Edmonton source accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Heartfox (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • I have a comment on the structure of the "Critical reception" section. It seems like the second paragraph is focused on the reviews regarding the rerecording. The last sentence is on ranking the original in lists so it does not really fit this paragraph.
  • Hi, I structured the section like this: first para-positive contemporary reviews, second para-positive retrospective reviews, third para-negative reviews. Hope this makes sense!
  • Done.
  • Steve Blackmon should be mentioned in the prose. He is currently only mentioned in the "Personnel" section. The same comment applies for Jonathan Yudkin so I would double-check that all the personal are mentioned in the prose as well as the separate section.
  • Done.

I believe that is everything from me. I hope this review was helpful, and best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aoba47, thanks for your comments. I well noted them but will be delayed in my response. Please wait for a few days and I'll get back to you. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 thank you again for taking time reviewing this article. I have addressed your comments accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help! Great work with the article, and I support this FAC for promotion. I do have a soft spot for this song so it is nice to see how much work you have put into this article. I hope you are doing well and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass

edit
  • Is there any direct source link for File:Taylor Swift - White Horse.png? It only appears on fan-editable websites like Genius and RateYourMusic for me, which is a bit unusual.
Pass for media review. The Colletti image was apparently verified to be licensed under the stated license during the upload, so the dead link is not an issue for me unless someone else raises it.--NØ 10:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the media review, MaranoFan! I was struggling with finding an appropriate archiveurl but since the file was transferred to Commons with a bot, I believe it should be fine. Unless an administrator or FAC coordinator has issue with that, I might as well remove it upon request. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

edit


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 May 2023 [28].

Cherry Valentine

edit
Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) and JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an English drag queen and mental health nurse who competed on the second series of RuPaul's Drag Race UK. The article has been edited and reviewed extensively — following the subject's death, the article received well over 100,000 views, appeared in the "In the news" section, was promoted to Good status, and appeared in the "Did you know" section. I think any major issues would have been flagged by the community by now.

I'd like to think the article meets FA criteria and I'd appreciate feedback from reviewers to get this entry promoted. I'm happy to co-nominate this article for consideration with fellow WikiProject Drag Race editor User:JuanGLP. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47

edit
Addressed comments

This is a placeholder and I will either post further comments later this week or over the weekend. I do have a few quick comments below:

  • I do not see a clear reason why the birth date and death date need to be cited in the infobox when both should be presented and cited in the article itself. I see the death date cited in the article, but I do not see the birthday present or cited in the article.
  • The lead seems too short for the article. I have not read through the actual article itself so it may match, but it is something that jumped out at me so I was curious about your opinion on this?
    • I've added a second sentence. Unless you think gender identity or cause of death should be included in the lead, I'm not sure what other details might be necessary or helpful to readers. Definitely open to ideas! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful so far, but this is mostly a placeholder as I have not done a a real read-through of the article. It is great to see a LGBT biography in the FAC space, and best of luck with it. Please ping me by this time next week if I have not posted a full review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to continue discussing any concerns or requests you might have. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find the infobox image in the source link in the WP:FUR, but I am not sure if that is just an issue on my side.
  • No worries. I just wanted to make sure that this comment did not get lost in the shuffle. Thank you for your patience with my review and apologies for the amount of comments. You have done great work with this article and it is solid shape. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A majority of the information in the tables is not present in the prose. By this I mean, his appearance on God Shave the Queens, all of the music and stage stuff, and their award nomination. This should all be incorporated into the prose.
    • I've expanded a bit on God Shave the Queens, music releases, and the "Good Ones" music video appearance. I've actually removed the stage table (not secondary coverage) and the award table, since the WOWies are presented by production company World of Wonder and I couldn't find any other coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for addressing this point. I would think primary sources would be okay for the stage events, but I could also see an argument about them not being notable if they did not attract secondary coverage. I am not familiar enough with biographical articles so I will leave this up to you and future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had some additional time today so I wanted to do at least a few read-throughs of the article. I hope these above comments are helpful. I will likely take a break from the article until later in the week so I can have a fresh perspective on it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Please feel free to take another look when you have a moment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick responses. I will look through everything above and will read through the article again later in the week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be too nitpick-y so feel free to disagree, but for this sentence (Ward qualified as a mental health nurse in 2015.), would it be beneficial to link "qualified" to qualification types in the United Kingdom for readers outside of the UK?
  • I do not think "love for" needs to be quoted and I believe it could be paraphrased.
  • Ward's appearance in Jodie Harsh's "My House" music video is not mentioned in the prose. I have the same comment for "A Little Bit of Love" and "Stay Here Forever".
    • I've added mention of "A Little Bit of Love" (not specifically that a recording was released but how the cast performed the song). There's not really secondary coverage for "My House" (unless this is considered a reliable source?), but the video exists. Similarly, there's not really secondary coverage for "Stay Here Forever", but the track exists. I suggest we leave mention in the tables but not in the article body as a necessary detail? But, of course, I'll make whatever changes are necessary to meet FA standards. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree as I think that anything in the tables should be represented in the prose. It may not have gotten secondary coverage, but I still think it is worthy of a very brief mention in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says Ward died in Hornsey, England, but I do not see that supported in the prose. I do not think specific details regarding Ward's death need to be provided in the prose, with sensitivity to his suicide, but I would still include the city along with a source to support this information.
  • For this part (and Michelle Visage said Ward was) I would clarify that Visage is one of the show's judges. While this may be common knowledge to Drag Race fans, I could see this being confusing for unfamiliar readers.

I believe this should be the end of my review. The lead still looks short to me, but I do see your point. I am not sure what else to really add so I will leave that up to other reviews. Once my comments have been addressed, I will look through the article once more, but I doubt I will find anything major. Just to be clear, my comment about the infobox image is different than Nikkimaria's image review. I am not focused on the copyright, but I do not see the image in the source link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 Thanks for clarifying about the image. You're right, I don't see the image either (User:Meena did the upload, not me). I would be fine if someone just deleted the image so someone could eventually upload one properly. @Nikkimaria: What do you think? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is value in having an image of the subject, but we do need to be able to track down where the image came from. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this tweet (or this URL) work? That's all I can find via Google Image. I am not stuck on this particular image, though, if uploading a different one is easier. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked on Google, I see some articles using the image: [29] [30], though I believe the first one is just the image but cropped. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 03:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would reccomend citing the tweet directly as that appears to be the original source. I am not sure if either of the two other websites are really notable or high-quality by Wikipedia standards. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the URL at File:Cherry Valentine 2020.jpg. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing and supporting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @Another Believer, is one of the best users on Wikipedia, that is both helpful and kind. 🎉 — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 16:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. If you would like me to collapse my comments, feel free to let me know. I agree about Another Believer. They are one of the first Wikipedia editors (if not the first) I talked to when I first joined this site back in 2016 and they really made me feel welcome and helped me a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both, for your kind words. @Aoba47: Collapsing would be much appreciated, mostly so I can easily see what still needs to be addressed. Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I have collapsed the comments so reviewers can still look through them if they would like. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

edit
@Nikkimaria Better? Tried my best to fix. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not there yet unfortunately. Still missing a tag, and the rationale should add who is believed to be the copyright holder, how it (doesn't) compete with the copyright holder's usage, why text is not sufficient, etc. Once you add a tag you can look at other examples of images using it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what to do here. @JuanGLP: Are you familiar with fair use image tags and rationales? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Meena: Putting this discussion/request on your radar, as the editor who uploaded the image. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am not allowed to help, but I have added a fair use licensing template. Is it the right one? Spinixster (chat!) 03:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinixster No need to apologize for helping! I'll let others determine if the template is correct since this is not my area of expertise. Thanks for taking a stab at fixing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - is the licensing resolved here? Hog Farm Talk 17:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite - as above, the rationale is missing copyright holder and info on respect for commercial opportunities. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to resolve this issue. Any suggestions for where I can go for help? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a publicity shot. Do you know if they had a website or social media feed when they were alive? - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, sorry. I didn't upload the image and I'm at a point where I wish someone could just replace it with one that isn't problematic for whatever reason. I'd hate for this to be the reason for potentially failing FAC. Again, any assistance with the image issue here is much appreciated as this is outside my expertise. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've run some reverse image searches, and while there are some other copies out there, they are on Twitter etc and don't show copyright information. There are others of her with the same dress/makeup etc which were taken by the BBC (as far as I can see), but it would be guesswork to say that the Beeb were definitely the source of the image. You may be better off uploading a different one which you know the provenance of. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with uploading images of people under fair use, dead or living. @Nikkimaria: Perhaps a solution here is just to delete the infobox image? Unless there's a fix, I'd rather the article be unillustrated until someone who knows how to correctly add an image does so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of options here which are from the BBC, which may be options. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not attached to this image, an alternative with clearer provenance would be a good solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this article's promotion is dependent on a new upload or not, but I've nominated File:Cherry Valentine 2020.jpg for deletion. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update:  Done The image has been deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisThe Dude

edit

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

edit
  • After failing to impress judges with her performance -- perhaps you can include a month and year or indicate that the show had resumed after the pandemic for the beginning of the third para.
  • Cherry Valentine had to lip-sync - the preceding sentence only says she failed to impress the judges in the Rusical, perhaps you can specify that she had to lip sync because she was bottom two or something along those lines, for those unfamiliar about the concept of Drag Race
  • a documentary show about the tour -- a documentary about the tour (it is already mentioned as a series)
  • inquest -- suggest linking
  • with donations benefitting "Cherry's legacy fund and mental health charities close to George's heart" -- would it be better if this was paraphrased in straight prose instead of the quotation?

That's all from me. This was a very good read. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Marker for me. I'll be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should “Traveller” be capitalised? (I ask from a position of complete ignorance, and only because I read something on the BBC and they don’t).
  • "moniker" is slang, so "stage name" would be better
  • Do we need to use "Cherry Valentine" at every mention? “Valentine” should suffice after the first mention
    • There's some inconsistency here across Wikipedia. I'd say, generally, quality articles about queens use the full name throughout since they don't have "true" last names (examples: Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, India Ferrah), and because most queens are actually referred to by their "first" name (example: everyone calls Detox Icunt "Detox"; no one would call her "Icunt"). There are some exceptions, depending on the subject's name preferences and what sources do. When I see sources like BBC using "Cherry Valentine" throughout, BBC using "Cherry", and Gay Times using "Cherry", I tend to prefer not to refer to Cherry Valentine as "Valentine". ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This switches between "he" and "she" at various points, and it's not clarified until a bit later when you say "Ward used he/they pronouns when not in drag". It's a bit off to have his early life description, then career, than back to him growing up, being a T/traveller, coming out and being a drag queen. You should think hard about moving the first two paragraphs of Personal Life into the Early life (which is all those paragraphs deal with). You can go straight from the end of his career to his death
    • I see where you're coming from, but I think I disagree, only because these paragraphs in the Personal life section refer to multiple projects mentioned in the Career section. I think it would be confusing to readers to mention Drag Race and Gypsy Queen and Proud in the Early life and education section. If you feel strongly about moving content, I could try taking a scalpel to the Personal life section and relocating the content which describes his upbringing, but leaving mention how the subject's experience relates to their career. What do you think? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let me draft up an idea for you in my sandbox - if you don’t like it, that’s fine and you can go with yours, but it may help. What I would prefer is if the question over their entry to drag and the his/hers pronouns be explained before the pronoun is swapped around in the rest of the article. That would avoid the confusion I initially had while reading. I’ll ping you a copy when I’m done, which will be in the morning. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at this to show my suggestion. The moved around bits are in green, just so they're easier to see where they end up. I've cut out some of the bits that are not needed (when he talked about his early life, we don't need to know who he told - that's not important, what he said is the key bit. Other bits sit quite comfortably in the career section. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat Very helpful, thank you. I've made these changes, based on your suggested text relocations. However, I think we might disagree about where to place the following two sentences:
  • Described as genderfluid and queer, Ward used he/they pronouns when not in drag.
  • As part of the LGBT community, Ward hid his Traveller heritage because he feared he might receive "hate or backlash".
I'm not convinced these belong in the Early life and education section. I understand you're trying to address pronouns earlier in the article's prose, but we should not imply the subject made his preferred pronouns known at a young age. What do you think about leaving these two sentences about gender and sexual orientation in the Personal life section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Not much to pick up on, but the stuff in the 'personal life' section sits out of place for me. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Jo-Jo Eumerus

edit

Source formatting seems consistent (although Attitude is once linked and the other time not) and all the critical information is there. Are The Tab and Daily Telegraph RS? From what I know, British newspapers have a dodgy reputation. Spot-check upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus I don't see The Tab at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I do, however, see that Daily Telegraph is acceptable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That The Tab isn't listed there merely means that it hasn't been assessed yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, just wanted to confirm that I checked the list re: reliability. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Also, the source is just being used to verify the documentary's existence. Plenty of other sources could be used for this and the "claim" is not controversial. If you have a preferred source in mind, please share a link and I'll be happy to replace the citation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, if it's only for that it can stay. I won't push the issue with Daily Telegraph if nobody else sees a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: chipping in here as a Brit to say that "British newspapers have a dodgy reputation" as a generalisation definitely isn't true. Sure, there are some iffy tabloids, as there are in many countries, but the "broadsheet" papers (of which the Telegraph is one) are very highly regarded -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm. I've seen a fair amount of people living in the UK disagree even on the Telegraph, so I had to ask extra. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, could I take you up on the offer of a spotcheck, as one half of our nominating team is, I believe, new to FAC? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

  • 5: OK.
  • 1: It says that Valentine was raised, not born, in Darlington. I presume we are using Darlington's coordinates to say that it's northeast England?
  • 6: Where does it say that he was introduced to Manchester's drag scene?
  • 3: OK (the newspaper editors ought to note that Huntington's disease is not a "brain injury", though)
  • 8: I am not sure I see the bottom two and elimination bits?
  • 10: Where does it say that it's the second series and that Valentine became 12th?
  • 13: I don't see the NHS and vaccines mentioned in it.
  • 16: OK, but I note that the source text is quite similar to the article text (WP:CLOP), a bit of rewrite may be warranted.
  • 11: OK.
  • 15: Where does it say that it was the fifth?
  • 18: OK.
  • 20: I presume this is mentioned somewhere in the video?
  • 40: OK.
  • 25: OK, but I notice the same CLOP issue with source 24.
  • 35: OK.
  • 26: OK.
  • 31: Where does it say "hanging"? Also, if his family disowned him after the come-out, it should probably explicitly say so in the article.
  • 32: Where does it and 33 say "Bimini Bon-Boulash", "Cheryl Hoyle", "The Vivienne" and "Baga Chipz"? I don't see the Visage quote.
  • 37: OK.
  • 41: OKish.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new for this, but I will try to help and find the sources for this nomination.
  • 1 - Added citation that mentions C. Valentine was born in Darlington, UK.
  • 16 - I did try to re-worded, take a look if it's good.
  • 20 - Added citation from an article instead of the video citation.
  • 25 - I did remove citation source 24.
  • 31 - Added citation from PinkNews stating the cause of death is from hanging.
  • 32 - Added citations.
I hope this solves everything. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 02:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 - Added citation mentioning about the drag scene.
  • 8 (now 10) - It is mentioning about their unused drag names?
  • 15 - As @Another Believer says, it mention's on the article's name.
Currently fixing source 3, 10, and 13. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 02:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A citation was added to the Daily Star, which is deprecated. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 (now 15) - Added source mentioning about the vaccine rollout.
  • 32 (now 36) - Replaced with a better source
Still looking. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 03:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I checked the source review from @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, and completed the list. The only source I got stuck on is source 10. Not many sources mention C. Valentine placing in 12th place. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is not a controversial claim, per RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). Also, there are sources which describe Cherry Valentine as the "first eliminated" contestant, and since the article's prose specifically mentions the series had twelve contestants, the subject's placement is implied. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Anything else needed here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text supported to 24 and 16 has to be rewritten; closely paraphrased text doesn't stop being a problem just because the link to the source is gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but can you clarify specifically what requires fixing? Between your feedback, User:JuanGLP's attempts to fix, and changes to the order of references, I'm a bit confused. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was reviewing this version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Better? Hopefully I'm understanding correctly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2023 [31].

Wood River Branch Railroad

edit
Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known shortline railroad in Rhode Island with a very interesting history. 5.6 miles in length, it opened in 1874 and connected rural Hope Valley, Rhode Island, to the national rail network at Wood River Junction, Rhode Island. In addition to shipments for local residents, the company served a number of mills, a factory, a coal dealer, and a lumbering operation; later, a grain mill became the primary customer. Passengers and mail were also carried until 1927.

Money was always short, and the railroad had some very interesting events as a result - one man became president in 1904 to make sure the railroad kept running so his mother wouldn't be isolated at her Hope Valley home. The railroad was almost abandoned after major flooding in 1927, but a deal was worked out where Southern New England's dominant railroad, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, intervened to keep the line going. In 1937, grain mill owner and former speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives Roy Rawlings bought the railroad for $301 (not a typo). The company finally came to its end in 1947 when the grain mill and several other buildings were consumed by a series of fires. A few remnants of the line can still be found today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention I intend to claim this nomination for WikiCup points. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria, does that address your concern? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We still need some kind of tagging added for this to be addressed. If there is reasonable certainty (appreciating that we can't prove a negative), then the tag suggested above should be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

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

Lede
Prose


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lee Vilenski:, just reminding you about this review. I know you're working on your own FAC as well, so no rush. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cyclonebiskit

edit

Placeholder for future review. This kind of article is outside my wheelhouse so some of my comments will WP:AGF on styling and information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Made a minor correction per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • owner of a grain mill that was the line's biggest customer. – is this referring to the mill or the business owner? If the latter it should be whom not that
    Referring to the mill, which by the end provided 85% to 90% of the line's traffic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little of the line remains today. – A specific date is strongly preferred per MOS:RELTIME. The last year mentioned in the body is 2017.
    2017 is the date Karr published the second edition of his book. Kennedy published her book in 2018, so I will use that as it's more recent by a year. I'll make the change later today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stopped being lazy and now actually done this. I also noted that the most recent RIDOT State Rail Plan indicates part of the right-of-way is now used for streets. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formation and construction
  • Residents in the Hope Valley area first asked the Stonington – are you referring to "the Stonington" as a company? I didn't see mention of a company/operator up to this point. You seem to go back and forth referring to "the Stonington" as the line and an entity throughout the article.
    I can see why it might be confusing, but "the Stonington" and "the Stonington Line" were the two names commonly used for the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad, both as a line and as an entity. I modified an early sentence to read "Southern Rhode Island's first railroad was the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad (commonly known as the Stonington Line or simply the Stonington), which opened between Providence and Stonington, Connecticut, in 1837, connecting to New York City via steamboat." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early operations
  • While upon opening the line quickly began to show a significant operating profit... – The wording feels a bit clunky. Maybe change part of it to "...the line quickly showed a significant..."
    I agree, rewrote this as "The line quickly began to show a significant operating profit, but this was all but eliminated by interest payments on the $57,000 of bonds, totaling $4,000 annually." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Waltrus years
  • He recalled one instance when he gave a New Haven Railroad executive intent on abandoning the line "some doughnuts, a glass of milk, and let him talk to my mother ... we decided not to abandon it". – The second half of the quote doesn't flow with the first part. I'd suggest rewording to not have it be part of the quote.
    I've taken out the second part of the quote and instead paraphrased. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wood River Branch Railroad was temporarily placed under the control of the United States Railroad Administration with the rest of the nation's railroads in 1917 – Is there a reason why this happened? I'm guessing it's due to World War 1 but this needs to be made more clear if so.
    Yep, the World War I nationalization of the railroads was because the private companies could not cope with the major increase in traffic. Explicitly stated as much in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
End of passenger operations
  • The floods mentioned can be linked to Great Vermont Flood of 1927 (which itself requires a lot of work). I found a USGS report that provides an overview that could be of use, it's not necessary though.
    The problem is that article only discusses Vermont, but it was clearly a region-wide event (I ran into this previously for a different flood and had to create 1936 Northeastern United States flood because no central article existed). I'd much prefer linking to a similar article for this flood event, linking to the Vermont one will confuse readers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and also asked Richmond and Hopkinton to cancel the railroad's taxes if it could be reopened. – Is Richmond and Hopkinton a company, rail line, two people, or two towns? I'm assuming towns based on later text but it should be made clear here.
    Your assumption is correct, and I've made it clearer in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk)
  • ...the Plymouth locomotive (numbered A100)... – is this the gas locomotive leased by New Haven?
    Owned by the New Haven. The Wood River Branch couldn't afford to buy it, so the New Haven bought it for them and leased it to the Branch. That's why it was taken back when the railroad closed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demise and legacy
  • ...which paid the company $26,558,75 for the right to salvage the line... – I'm assuming the typo that needs fixing is for $26,558.75 and not $26,558,750?
    Yes, typo on my part. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little of the Wood River Branch Railroad remains. Portions of its right-of-way remain extant as of 2017... – restructure to specify the year first before describing its state per WP:RELTIME
    Reworked, the paragraph now reads "Portions of the railroad's right-of-way remain extant in the form of a trail as of 2018, and the abutments and a pier from a Wood River Branch Railroad bridge remain in the Wood River. Some segments of the right-of-way have been reused for streets. A handful of preserved mill buildings that were once railroad customers survive as of 2017." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Locomotives
  • Originally built in 1872, by 1898 Wincheck was irreparable. – was this from wear and tear or accidents?
    Will take a closer look at Kennedy later today, but likely wear and tear; Wincheck was not new when the railroad acquired it. The Hope Valley Advertiser says that in 1898 Wincheck was "in a state of innocuous disuetude, and fit for the scrap heap, these many months" [33]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now clarified; Kennedy writes that Wincheck was retired in 1896 when it was inspected and found too worn out to keep running, due to wear and tear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section only details five locomotives but indicates there were ten. I also don't see mention of the A100/1872.
    The funny thing is the numbers weren't consecutive and some were skipped. Cinderella was 6, and then became 9 (allegedly the number was repainted upside down by a painter who had a reference that was also upside down). Gardner Nichols was 1, Wincheck was 2, and Polly was 5. 3, 4, 7, and 8 were never assigned to any locomotives. From 1919 until the 1927 flood the New Haven routinely assigned several different 4-4-0 locomotives it owned to the line as well, with numbers in the 1500 to 1700 range. I will add a paragraph for the Plymouth locomotive today with some details I didn't want to include in the main section of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made use of the notelist to point out to the reader that some locomotive numbers were skipped. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Station listing

Those are my initial comments on the article. It was a fun read. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Thanks again for the review, I believe I've addressed all comments. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes address my concerns and I'm happy to support. Great work here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source and general review (Support)

edit

I have received scans of the three books from TAOT via email and will be doing some source spotchecks, as the article is almost entirely cited to offline sources. I am also doing a full review on talk and expect to support. Nikkimaria might you glance at the citation formatting? I am curious as to whether some of the lesser known newspapers (eg The Day), published via google books, need to have location specified. Also, Trainsandotherthings, is The Windsor Daily Star the Windsor Star from Ontario? I ask because there is a Windsor in CT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Day probably should have its location specified if I forgot to do so. My rule is to specify the location if it's not in the title (so no location for Hope Valley Advertiser for instance, because duh). Windsor Daily Star is from Ontario; Roy Rawlings became a press sensation with his $301 railroad and the story was picked up across eastern North America. Believe I've added all the necessary location parameters now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three book sources, I have checked all text cited to Heppner and Karr, and a sampling of pages from Kennedy (1, 38–39, and 99–104). No significant sourcing issues found (too-close paraphrasing, failed verification, OR, or source-to-text integrity problems); the article uses sources appropriately. Still working on a few prose issues and still anticipate supporting once prose nitpicks are ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The gauge doesn't appear to be sourced anywhere
    I knew this would come up. The entire U.S. rail system with very few exceptions has been standard gauge for over 150 years. It's hard to cite because most sources just assume this is common knowledge, but I added a citation to Poor's manual which states the gauge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links, but if you are going to include them you should do so consistently
    All retrieval dates for Google Books links have been removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN20 has a typo

Support from PMC

edit

Putting myself down to comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's been some expansion since the GA review, so going through again from the top.

  • Tweaked one sentence in the lead to be less wordy and placed an "as of" template
    No objections on my part. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history with the mill owners feels a bit backwards to me. First we say that the arrival of rail transport allowed major growth in mills, then we say that land transport was expensive, then they decide to have a railroad. Which came first? It might make more sense to establish 1) mills are a big industry in the area, 2) road transport is pricey 3) let's get a railroad 4) wow that's great for business and now we're even bigger.
    When I say the arrival of rail transport, I'm not referring to the Wood River Branch Railroad, but the Stonington Line. The Stonington's route was close to the shoreline (and parallel to the Pawcatuck River), so while mills on the Pawcatuck could bring their cargo right to the nearest train station without much trouble, mills farther inland had to get their cargo to the railroad by wagon. The completion of the NYP&B led to a boom in textile mills, now that they had access to the major market of New York City. But Richmond and Hopkinton had very poor roads for many years, so for mills in that area, even just getting to the existing railroad was difficult. Open to suggestions on how to convey this better. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, okay. Maybe something close to what you've said here, distinguishing the Stonington prosperty from the Wood River people. Like... (off the cuff sans referencing) "The arrival of the Stonington allowed mills with access to it to prosper. Mills farther away had to use poorly-maintained roads to access the Stonington, increasing their costs significantly. Local residents realized that a railroad would solve this problem."

That's pretty much it at this point, I think other reviewers have been quite thorough so most potential issues have been ironed out already. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response to the larger comment above, but even at this stage I'm satisfied enough to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • Cite 7 has a p./pp. error.
  • Any reason why Poor (1882) is missing both an OCLC and a publisher location?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the p./pp error in cite 7. I have no idea why the OCLC matters for a freely accessible PDF from 1882, but I have added it regardless along with the place of publication (New York). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2023 [34].

Thomas A. Spragens

edit
Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky (my second such FAC nomination), who oversaw the college from the late 1950s until the early 1980s. After working for the government during World War II, assisting several presidents of Stanford, and leading Stephens College for five years, Spragens took the Centre job and kept it for 24 years. He oversaw integration of the college and the merger with the nearby Kentucky College for Women, nearly doubled the number of students and faculty, lessened the intense ties between the school and the Presbyterian Church, oversaw construction and upgrades of several campus buildings, and helped to start a collegiate athletic conference. Many thanks go to Rockhead126 for finding and uploading an image of the subject. I'd be grateful to receive any and all feedback! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I reviewed this for GA and remember thinking it was in pretty good shape. Some comments:

  • "was an American administrator and a figure in higher education". He doesn't have a particularly easy career to summarize, but I think the second half of this is unnecessarily vague. I took a look at Andrew Sledd, also an FA, and at John C. Young (pastor); they have "an American theologian, university professor and university president and "an American educator and pastor who was the fourth president of...". Could we go with "educator and the 17th president of..." here? That seems the highlight, and the other roles are all covered in the first paragraph of the lead.
  • "it also led to chapel becoming optional for students": suggest "it also led to attendance at chapel becoming optional for students", assuming that's what's meant, and a similar change where this is mentioned in the body.
  • I recall asking you to remove some "also"s in the GA review; I think there are still too many. When the prose is clearly a recounting of events or achievements, "also" isn't necessary -- the reader already expects that each sentence is adding something to the list. I would cut the second and third instances in the lead -- the second doesn't add any information, and the point of the third, in "During his time at Centre, Spragens was also involved in several other organizations and pursuits", is already conveyed by "other". Looking at that sentence, though, I think you could cut it completely -- it's a topic sentence for the list of Spragens' roles, and I think it would be more concise to just start with "He was selected by two governors..."
  • "Spragens was also an effective fundraiser for the school, as he made it one of his top priorities upon taking office, and his Fund for the Future Campaign ultimately raised $34 million for the college." This is a bit imprecise. "As" connotes causation here, but he wasn't effective because he made it a priority. However, I looked at the source and it doesn't really say he made it a priority; it says he played a major role in it which is subtly different. Perhaps just mention his success?
  • "He attended Lebanon High School and was recruited by then-president Charles J. Turck to attend Centre College": just curious here: there's no mention of a sporting talent of the kind that might get a high-school student recruited these days. Why would a college president attempt to recruit a high school student? Was that (is that) normal behaviour in US colleges?
    • I admit the circumstances were quite unusual - nowadays recruitment on the part of a college president would be very strange as well. In Spragens's situation, him and three of his classmates who were in an all-male singing quartet who had some regional recognition, and Dr. Turck spoke with them to see if they would attend Centre to succeed the "Centre College Quartet", all four members of which were seniors at the time. Spragens's three friends went to Centre but Spragens opted for UK instead. The info is in the second paragraph of page 2 of the source; I would have quoted it here but I didn't want to re-type the whole paragraph. If you think adding the reason behind this recruitment to the article would be helpful, I can do that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Up to you -- I think the story would add a bit of colour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, I've added it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war's conclusion, Spragens left his government positions in favor of a role at Stanford University. Beginning at Stanford in summer 1946, he worked as an assistant to..." Could be more concise. Suggest "In summer 1946, Spragens left his government positions to work at Stanford University as an assistant to...".
  • And I would make it "assistant to the college president" just in case a reader unfamiliar with US college terminology thinks this refers to Harry Truman.
  • Is there a suitable link for "Synod of North Carolina"? Or for "Northern Synod of Kentucky"?
  • There's nothing about how he got hired at Centre -- if the sources don't cover it there's nothing you can do but I thought I'd check.
    • CentreCyclopedia doesn't say anything specific, nor does his interview (FN 2) or the Weston book. Everything I've seen just says he "accepted an invitation" or some variation of that wording. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article, which continues here. The use of CCTV for instruction while at Stephens seems prominent and might be usefully added to the discussion of his time at Stephens. Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added information from both parts of that article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early in his term" is vague, which would be OK, but the next sentence starts "The following year", so presumably we don't need to be vague?
    I have looked up the specific year and added it in place of "Early in his term". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This change was received well by much of the campus community." The source is not neutral, so I would suggest adding this to bolster it.
  • This could be used to give the date of Walker's hiring.
  • "This plan was met with widespread praise, including from The New York Times." I don't think the source is neutral enough for this. I would suggest digging up the NYT clip to support this if you want to keep it. If the source gives details I can probably find it for you if you don't have access.
  • "raised nearly $34 million for the college": the source has "about" so I would stick with that -- we've no way of knowing if it was just over or just under.
  • "In addition, Centre was selected to obtain a chapter of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society, of which Spragens himself was a member." Wordy; how about "A chapter of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society (of which Spragens was a member) opened at Centre during Spragens' tenure"?
  • I don't think we need the mention of Catharine's death.
  • "the college's enrollment nearly doubled, from 380 students to 700, and the size of its faculty followed the same trend": any reason we can't give the numbers for the faculty?
  • "a member of committees in Danville's First Presbyterian Church": I think this is too minor to be worth mentioning.
  • "This came to fruition in 1969, when the college": I don't think we need the first phrase; it's connective tissue which the reader doesn't need. Suggest just "In 1969, the college..."
  • "He is largely credited for his successful fundraising efforts and for the numerous buildings that were constructed during his presidency": I don't know what "largely credited" means.
  • "many of the students formed committees and teaching groups among themselves": doesn't seem relevant to this article.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: thank you for the review! I have responded to your comments. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have struck most; there are a couple of replies above. I'll be traveling for a couple of days and may not respond quickly till Tuesday or Wednesday, though I might have some scraps of time here and there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie I believe everything is now addressed! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "During this time, he was selected to be a part of a commission that produced a report, "The Church and Higher Education", to the Synod of North Carolina, which was completed in July 1955.[7]" I would mention inline which church is being referred to, since you have not mentioned any great religious involvement.
  • The date he concluded his term at Stephens is mentioned in the infobox but not sourced in the text.
  • "resignation on November 16, 1981" it looks like he had already resigned, and this was just the date it became effective. This source might be useful if you wish to discuss the circumstances of his resignation. Also see here and this with [35] this its continuation. It strikes me that there may be details here you'd care to include. It just seems to me that given that his major claim to notability is his presidency of Centre, occupying 24 years, that more could be said than four paragraphs.
    • Many thanks for linking those sources; I have used those and some left by Rockhead126, and had another look through Newspapers.com myself in order to add more information and bring the article up to par with respect to the comprehensiveness standard. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. I'll look in on it again when you're ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt I believe it's ready for another look! Thank you for your comments thus far. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He enrolled in, and attended, the University's College of Commerce (now the Gatton College of Business and Economics) for a year and a half, but afterwards transferred to the College of Arts and Sciences and majored in economics.[2]" The source is from 1982. Can it validly tell us what the present name of the college is?
  • "At Stephens, he implemented a plan which saw the use of closed-circuit television as an aid within classrooms, for which the school received "wide notice".[3]" I would, instead of "as an aid within classrooms", which reads awkwardly, say something like "an academic aid" or some such. You explain it in the next sentence.
  • "He was a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools ..." he was or the school was? If the latter, so what?
  • He was, but I misread the source and he was a member of the above-named association's commission on colleges and universities. I have updated this in the article for accuracy but I can remove the whole bit if you think it is too trivial or irrelevant. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the eventual goal of abandoning its current facilities and constructing new instructional, residential, and athletic buildings at a site nearby U.S. Route 63.[11]" Should "nearby" be "near"?
  • "which would prevent payment to players and eliminate gate receipts;[28]" I would end the sentence here. There would not have been payments to players as forbidden by NCAA rules (I know from that NYTimes article that Centre was an NCAA member). Do you mean athletic scholarships?
  • I recall this wording being similar to the one used in the source; I know that Centre did not give athletics-specific scholarships during the time Spragens was there anyway. I am headed to the library soon so I will double-check what the wording in that book was and adjust this sentence accordingly. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am having more trouble than anticipated getting my hands on the Craig source again (which was used to source this bit) so as I wait I have hidden the "payment to players" portion of the sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in personal life about his involvement on a higher education study committee might find a better home elsewhere.
  • The Legacy section seems to wander a bit. I might focus on his improvement of Centre and put the items such as Kent State chronologically in the recounting of his presidency.
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when you want me to take another look. Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I believe it's ready for another look, just a few things that weren't done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "was an American administrator and the 17th president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, from 1957 to 1981" => "was an American administrator and served as the 17th president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky from 1957 to 1981" (as presumably he wasn't only an administrator for those 24 years)
    • This is much closer to how I originally had it phrased and I am hesitant to change it back for a few reasons: I recently stumbled upon EEng's essay Wikipedia:Location, location, location!, one part of which is about the "served as" construction and how it could almost always be simplified to "is" or "was"—I know this is just an essay but I agree with the sentiment—and I am hesitant to remove the comma after "Kentucky" as it should be there per MOS:GEOCOMMA. The two solutions that I have in mind are removing the date range altogether or changing "and the 17th president" to "who was the 17th president" - which do you think would work better? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three-fourths of Centre's facilities" - I am assuming that saying this rather than "three quarters" is a American English thing?
  • "He was selected by two governors to be a part of commissions which studied higher education within the commonwealth" - as a Briton when I hear that last word to me it refers to the Commonwealth. I have to assume that here it means something else.....?
  • "Turck's hope was that the four of them would attend Centre and replace the "Centre College Quartet", the members of which were soon graduating" - as an irrelevant aside, speaking as the father of an 18 year old who is currently going through the agony and stress of applying for university in a country where the only way to get in is by being really really good academically, I find the notion that someone could not only get into university but in fact be personally sought out by a university just because he could sing well to be mind-blowing.......
    • It is certainly a little strange; then again, the fact that he was president of a semi-major liberal arts college for 24 years while only holding a bachelor's degree is also strange to me (and something that I had to double- and triple-check when I was first writing this article)! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he began in this role on exactly one month later" - word "on" is not needed
  • You convert a couple of sums of money into current terms, but not others, even others in the same paragraph......?
  • "He was Presbyterian," - who was? The father, or the son who was the subject of the immediately preceding sentence?
  • "which required the president and most board members be Presbyterian" => "which required the president and most board members to be Presbyterian" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment

edit

This nom has stalled for a few weeks following the three supports above - pinging reviewers @SchroCat, Ceoil, and Tim riley: from my last FAC to see if anyone would be willing and able to give this nom a look—no sweat if not. Thanks all! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

I've been generally trying to review less so there's less coordinator recusals to work around, but I'll take on a source review here shortly. Hog Farm Talk 18:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He had spent a total of five years as the Stephens president," - this is a bit odd here. You see to be using this 1952 source as back-calculating from the 1957 ending date, but we've already established that he started in December 1952, and the 1957 date of leaving Stephens is noted, so I think this can just go away
  • There very last sentence of the legacy section is unsourced, but the content appears to be covered (and sourced) elsewhere in the article, so that is probably fine. Just noting this for posterity as proof that I did look over this article
  • "Centre remained a member of the conference until 2011, when they left, along with six other SCAC schools and one independent school, to form the Southern Athletic Association" - not seeing where the source breaks down the conference memberships of the eight schools?

Other spot-checks are fine, waiting on nominator reply above (although I will be out of town for work and have only limited wiki time for next week). Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: thanks very much for the spot checks - I have removed the quote from your first comment and added a source based on your third. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow up with this when I return home on Wednesday or Thursday evening. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Provost Edgar C. Reckard finished the academic year as interim president; Spragens was formally succeeded by Richard L. Morrill on June 1, 1982.[40] He worked as a fundraiser for, and advisor to, the college for six months following his resignation" - I'm not comfortable with the sourcing on this. The sources for this are from November 1981, and so can't provide assurance that the planned fundraiser/advisorship actually occurred for six months, or that Morrill actually took over on that exact date.
  • I have added a newspaper source from the day Morrill began at Centre (June 1, 1982) and added another source where Spragens says that he finished the 1981–82 academic year as a consultant to the college. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" He hired Shirley Anne Walker, a French language professor who became Centre's first black faculty member on September 1, 1972" - I'm trusting that Weston supports that this actually occurred as planned, but the August 1971 linked newspaper story seems to indicate that this would have happened on September 1, 1971?
  • That is strange, and I double-checked the Weston source which does indeed say 1972, but the newspaper clipping is unmistakably from 1971, so I removed the Weston cite from that sentence and changed the year to 1971. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"His funeral was held at the First Presbyterian Church in Danville, on March 4, 2006" - same as above - the source can only support that the funeral was planned for that date, not that it actually happened on that one.
  • I am having trouble finding sources from after his funeral (I feel like it is at least somewhat unusual to run a news story about a funeral, though I could be wrong), but I feel that it would be a little silly to remove this altogether just for that reason. Do you have any ideas? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing many more issues, will revisit after these are replied to. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: replies above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: - I don't really have strong feelings either way with the funeral. Pinging previous reviewers (@Mike Christie, Wehwalt, ChrisTheDude, and SchroCat:) to make sure that it's not a sticking point for them, but it's really a fairly minor thing. IMO the Walker issue is a little more of a weird one - we have one RS saying 1972 and an contemporary source saying 1971 ... I'd honestly suggest to avoid anything wacky to just go with the general flow of the 1971 article and say that she was the first black faculty member and was appointed in late 1971, as the newspaper source does support the appointment. Hog Farm Talk 23:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding to ping): Sometimes one can get around issues by saying "announced" or "scheduled" or something like that. I see the source actually says "memorial service", though; in the UK this would not necessarily mean a funeral, but rather a separate later service. Is it definite that it really refers to a funeral here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm @Mike Christie I have replaced "on September 1, 1971" with "at the start of the 1971–1972 academic year", if that is an acceptable replacement to avoid mentioning a specific date. If I replaced "His funeral was held at the First Presbyterian Church in Danville, on March 4, 2006." with "His memorial service was scheduled for March 4, 2006, at the First Presbyterian Church in Danville", would that be good given what the sources say? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those work for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm @Mike Christie Both changes have been made. (Sorry for all the pings!) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with these changes as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General
  • You've got several inflation equivalents there, which I always think useful. There is a bit of the MOS or documentation somewhere that says to match the precision of both figures (ie.$1 million should equate to $5 million, not $5.5 million). Details of how to tweak the inflation template are at Template:Inflation#Rounding.
Lead
Early career
President of Centre College
  • "can still be seen": There's a part of the MOS that says to avoid constructions like this – it's about them dating unless they are given a date to frame them. Depending on the date of when that source is, I'd suggest "were present into the 2020s" or whenever.
Legacy

Hope these help! - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thank you for the comments! I have changed all but one thing (clarification above), and rounded all of the inflation templates to match the number of sig figs in the source with two exceptions, which round to an inflation equivalent of "##.0# million" and therefore just show up as a round "## million". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

A general observation, but particularly important regarding File:President Thomas Spragens and Harrison Salisbury at 1975 Centre College symposium.jpg I presume steps were taken to verify that the schoolbook bears no copyright notice? I would recommend that the ALT text be properly capitalized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus As far as I can tell that picture was clipped from a newspaper, not a yearbook, though the several yearbooks that were used were all without a copyright notice (I went though and checked all of them, they’re available cover-to-cover digitally). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a newspaper may be more likely to include some kind of copyright notice. @Nikkimaria:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be a notice anywhere in the paper AFAICT, but any idea who the Roy Strickland credited in the caption is? Could this have been republished from somewhere else? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I can't say for certain at this point, though based on the newspaper caption my guess is that he was employed by Centre in some capacity. If you're hesitant about this picture being included I can remove it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria @Jo-Jo Eumerus this image has been removed as requested. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2023 [36].

Irish nationality law

edit
Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how it's almost St. Patrick's Day, I thought it'd be a good time to put this article forward for FAC. This article is about the history and regulations of Irish citizenship. Given the manner in which independence was achieved, it's interesting to observe how closely tied Ireland and Britain remained after independence and how that is reflected in nationality law. I completely rewrote the article last summer and recently took it through a GA nomination successfully (thank you Morogris). Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Support by Ceoil

edit

Very much Support here. The writing is crisp, clear and easy to follow: no small feat given the danger of slipping into dry and complex legalese. I also like the skillful way the evolution of the laws are intertwined with the country's ever changing relationship with the UK, giving full historical context. Only two quibble are

  • Can you explain the modern difference between Irish citizenship and nationality in the lead. - many readers will be using the article for basic advice.
  • Hmm since there isn't a practical difference, would that not be more confusing to readers? Irish law doesn't actually define the two terms separately and so I'd also struggle to think of a relevant bit to place in the lead.
  • Lead again: Although most of Ireland gained independence in 1922 - "most" is vague, maybe 26 of the 32 counties.
  • Done.

To note, the sources are all first class. The page is really well done and clearly explains the complex legal history in language clear to laymen. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson

edit

I'll get to this in the next couple days. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider condensing or removing the third-level headers.
  • Reduced some of these headers and moved a few of them to higher levels.
  • Any particular rights of citizenship, other than abode and suffrage/officeholding?
  • Nothing exclusive to Irish citizens actually comes to mind. I could mention eligibility for the Defence Forces or welfare benefits, but those are open to all EEA citizens. It would be odd to mention things like eligibility for the House of Lords in an Irish article, but even that is open to all Commonwealth citizens and not exclusive to British/Irish citizens. Visa-free travel to other countries has nothing to do with Irish law and would not fall in scope for this article (but I will add a link in See Also). Is there anything in particular you think should be highlighted?
  • Done.

That's all from me for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through it, Horserice (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me; while I'm still doing some lookthroughs all I'd insist on changing at this point are the prose parentheses, either to commas or linking where appropriate. For example, change "entitled to (but not automatically granted)" to "entitled to, but not automatically granted,", "a wider British nationality (British subject status)" to "a wider British nationality" unless you think that would be an MOS:EASTEREGG and that particular wording is important, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed parentheses where appropriate. I did leave the current phrasing for "a wider British nationality (British subject status)" as it is though because there's a lot of commas otherwise. Horserice (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Airship

edit

First-class article. Can find literally nothing to have a flap about; personally, I would turn the list in the honorary citizenship section into prose, but honestly either is fine. Great job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Formatting of FN65 doesn't match other similar sources
  • Location tag included to mark info as coming from the British Home Office. Would have included that for the Forrester source but location was already in the publisher name (US DoJ). All other similar references to Irish government sites omit this since I thought it'd be unnecessary because the default assumption should be that relevant info cited to a government source in this article indeed comes from the Irish government. Website tag included because it had an article and so it seemed appropriate to wikilink to.
  • FN88 is missing author
  • Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of Publications
  • Fixed.
@Nikkimaria: - is this a passed source review? Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

edit
  • "Taoiseach Seán Lemass intended to award United States president John F. Kennedy with honorary citizenship". That's not grammatical. You could have 'Taoiseach Seán Lemass intended to honour United States president John F. Kennedy with honorary citizenship', or 'Taoiseach Seán Lemass intended to award United States president John F. Kennedy honorary citizenship'. I think the second option, or a variation thereof, is to be preferred.
  • Whoops, fixed.
  • Why is "Historical background information on nationality" not in title case? Similarly "The captive dominion: imperial realities behind Irish diplomacy, 1922—49"?
No, Gog is not wrong here. WP:LOWERCASE refers (only) to the titles of Wikipedia articles. The titles of works are covered by MOS:TITLECAPS. If Horserice wishes to argue that they are not works, then all such titles should be in sentence case for consistency. And a case made that they are not "works". How the originals are presented is not relevant. (Or many citations to newspaper articles would be in ALL CAPS.} Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the Lowry article to title case. Since the MoS doesn't define what it considers to be a "work", I'll point to APA, which I believe distinguishes between when to use sentence case or title case by whether something is a published composition. The Home Office article says it's published for staff, and so I'd say it should not be considered a "work". Horserice (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • " Its regulations apply to the entire island of Ireland, including the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the United Kingdom." This is tendentious and misleading. The Republic does not have the power to apply its regulations in NI.
  • Under the Good Friday Agreement, the British government acknowledges the right of Northern Irish residents to hold Irish citizenship. This was given effect by the 19th and 27th amendments to the Irish Constitution, and rules governing that acquisition and loss are provided for by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956. Since the British government has given its consent for this, I would say that the sentence as written is accurate.
  • There are rules concerning Irish citizenship acquisition that apply to Northern Ireland. How else would you describe it?
  • I would delete it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and any statement that the law of one country applies in another country would require specific acknowledgment by the country accepting that a foreign law applies in its territory. Britain is one of the many countries whick allow dual citizenship, so accepting the right of Northern Irish residents to hold Irish citizenship is just stating that a general principle applies in NI, and if an NI citizen applies for Irish citizenship he or she is subject to Irish law in that regard, just as any foreign national applying for British citizenship would be subject to British law in that regard. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me point to para 1(vi) in the Good Friday Agreement under Constitutional Issues on page 2. That clause states that people from Northern Ireland hold an entitlement to both British and Irish citizenship, regardless if either country holds sovereignty over that territory. The addition of the specific phrase "would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland" shows that both countries intended to extend the application of their nationality laws to that territory indefinitely. If NI were part of a united Ireland, British nationality law would continue to apply there as agreed upon in this treaty. Without that specific phrase, then I would be agreeing with you that Britain would have just been acknowledging a general principle of dual citizenship. Horserice (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that NI residents have a right to the nationality of both countries regardless of which has sovereignty is important and worth stating, but it is a treaty which mutually binds both countries to follow agreed rules on citizenship, not one which makes Irish law apply in NI. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the immediate period following Irish independence in 1922, Irish citizenship was a domestic status that existed as a subcategory within a wider British nationality (British subject status) applicable to all citizens of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations.[9] Despite Irish attempts to assert a separate nationality in the 1930s,[10] this separation was not acknowledged by Britain until 1949." I find this confusing. The first sentence commented on above seems to treat Irish law as applying in both countries, the second passage to treat British claims as applying in both. I may be misinterpreting, but these passages need clarification.
  • The British government considered all Irish citizens to be British subjects before 1949. Ireland gained independence as a Dominion in 1922, and despite attempts to break ties to the Crown during the 1930s and 1940s, this break was not definitive until 1949. I think the other areas of the article where this is already covered should be sufficient clarification, while going into full detail about that in the Terminology section will detract from the explanation of the terms citizenship and nationality.
  • You seem to be saying that Ireland was not fully independent until 1949. My understanding is that it was fully independent, but that independence was not acknowledged by Britain until 1949, which is different. This needs clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ireland's membership in the Commonwealth that meant that Britain and other Dominions treated Irish citizens as British subjects. When Ireland became a republic and left the Commonwealth in 1949, Irish citizens were no longer British subjects/Commonwealth citizens. What I was referring to when I mentioned Ireland trying to break ties to the Crown is the ambiguity with its head of state from 1936 to 1949. Britain didn't acknowledge a separate Irish nationality before 1949 not because Ireland wasn't independent, but that so long as the king remained head of state in Ireland, Irish citizens were technically still British subjects under the common system of nationality as it existed during this time.
  • As it's not the focus of that part of the article, I removed that passage.
  • "Legislation clarifying citizenship acquisition was delayed due to the government's desire to negotiate an exception". You should clarify that this applies to Ireland, especially as the previous paragraph was about the whole dominions.
  • Done.
  • "This discrepancy between "Irish national" and "Irish citizen" was not resolved until legislative reform in 1956." The previous text states that the discrepancy was between nationals as defined in different Acts rather than between national and citizen.
  • Rephrased to say that the 1956 removed those separate definitions.
  • "The 1935 Irish legislation stated that marriage between an Irish citizen and foreign spouse did not affect the national status of either spouse, eroding imperial legal uniformity in this regard. New Zealand and Australia also amended their laws in 1935 and 1936 to allow women denaturalised by marriage to retain their rights as British subjects." This is ambiguous. You say that women kept their nationality under Irish law whereas (you say "also?) in NZ and Australia women were denaturalised but kept their rights. I am not sure that NZ and Aus are relevant, but if you refer to them you need to clarify what denaturalised but keeping their rights means.
  • Since a preceding sentence mentions women's rights groups lobbying across the Empire, NZ/Aus seemed relevant to include here. The effect of their regulations was to technically remove British subject status from applicable women who married foreigners, but not to strip them of any rights they otherwise would hold if not for their marriage. They remained eligible to vote, live indefinitely within NZ/Aus, could apply for passports, etc.
  • "each Commonwealth country would enact legislation to create its own nationality". It should be "nationality law".
  • Why do you think this addition is needed? Every Commonwealth country other than Canada and Ireland would have been empowered in 1949 to enact legislation to create a substantive nationality for the first time.
  • "Ireland formally declared itself a republic and removed the British monarch's remaining official functions in the Irish state in 1948, consequently ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth after passage of the Ireland Act 1949 in the British Parliament." You say "consequently", but republics can be members of the Commonwealth now. Presumably the rules have changed and this should be clarified.
  • Added clarification.
  • "The citizenship by investment programme was operated under this authority and was not publicly advertised." How could it have aimed to lower unemployment if it was not advertised?
  • Added more context to the programme.
  • "Negotiations for the Northern Ireland peace process began between the British and Irish governments in 1991". Not in the source cited. Surely negotiations must have included the IRA?
  • I removed mention of the year and parties, and changed the source as well since the link was dead. The IRA was part of the negotiations through Sinn Fein but never officially a part of the process, and was not party to the agreement itself. In any case, they don't seem the most relevant to bring up here since their involvement does not have a direct impact on birthright citizenship.
  • "About 10,600 people were able to claim Irish residence through their Irish-born children." This is vague. Over what period and does it include people married to Irish citizens?
  • Cited different source, specified that this was under the Irish Born Child Scheme, and updated number to 17,000 per figure in later source.
  • Added a 2006 source that provides an exact number of approved applicants which is not materially different from the 2012 source ("about 17,000" is still accurate). Also added clarification that the number approved was during the application period in 2005. Horserice (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased that.
@Dudley Miles: Got to these as well. Hope this pass does it. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2023 [37].

USS Marmora (1862)

edit
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 05:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this nomination passes, I believe it will be the first tinclad warship to be a featured article. The best documented of the whole lot, Marmora is probably best known for being present when the ironclad Cairo sent itself to the bottom of the Yazoo River by steaming over a couple naval mines, and then torching a couple settlements in Arkansas in the next year. Hog Farm Talk 05:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Comments from Valereee

edit

Date context:

  • I'm wondering if the lead sentence could use an addition about the dates of service? The ship was built and put into service in 1862 and saw her last service/was declared surplus in 1865, is that worth mentioning in the lead sentence?
    • I've added the 1862-1865 dates into the first sentence
  • New sections/subsections (such as Yazoo City and later service) probably need a year listed in the first date mentioned; I found myself scrolling up to the section above to see what year we were talking about with On February 2, Marmora began a movement up the Yazoo River.
    • I've done this for all but two sections - "Late 1863" has the year in the name, so I don't think it's necessary to duplicate the date there, and I've left it off of the Chickasaw Bluff and Fort Hindman one because the prior section about the Cairo takes up less than two weeks of time, so the time context should still be pretty fresh
Valereee (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "USS Marmora was a sternwheel steamer that served in the Union Navy during the American Civil War from 1862 to 1865." maybe "USS Marmora was a sternwheel steamer that served in the Union Navy from 1862 to 1865, during the American Civil War. This stops the dates from hanging off the end of the sentence and also you drop the 1862 date again right afterwards.
  • Done
  • Do 12-pounder and similar require conversion or footnoting for metric equivalent?
  • "in junction" maybe "in conjunction"?
  • Done
  • "In early 1863, Grant and Porter made a plan known as the Yazoo Pass expedition" This reads a bit oddly. Perhaps this is what the action has come to be called, but did Grant and Porter called their plan this?\
  • Rephrased
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand you've given standard info on the characteristics that we see in FA ship articles, but can anything be said on living conditions or arrangements on her? Crew size?
  • It might be worth mentioning more clearly what the three crew received the Medal of Honor for, assuming Medal of Honor citations of that era are considered reliable.
  • Have added a bit here
  • "Extracts from her ship's log were later published more times in the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies than those of any other tinclad.[96]" Assuming this is significant, the question is why were extracts published more often? If they are particularly juicy, would it worth be including some bits in quote boxes?
  • Nothing particularly juice (that's USS Romeo and the squadron commander talking crap about the ship captain in his official reports). I've added the one bit of significance Smith applies to this information.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - Have replied above, all done so far except for the pound to kg conversion. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just raised the issue, I'm fine with whatever you come up with there. Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

Funk

edit
  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wartime map of the Satartia, Liverpool" But the source says it's from 1911?
  • "and the name originated with the island of Marmara" Do we know why it was named after this island?
    • Not that I've seen.
  • Do we have any more info about the pre-military activities of this ship?
    • Unfortunately, I've been able to turn up very little on this.
  • "by an escaped slave" Perhaps an interesting article could be linked here? Fugitive slaves in the United States?
    • Linked
  • "USS Cairo. Marmora was present when Cairo sank on December 12, 1862." Link the ship's name in caption?
    • Linked Cairo in the caption
  • Link flotilla?
    • I'm using flotilla in more of an informal sense of "collection of warships" rather than the more formal sense linked there - do you think it'd be better to link or simply come up with another word to use there?
  • "reached the site of the Confederate fort, and sent a party ashore to help destroy the fort" Perhaps "destroy it" to avoid repeating "fort"?
    • Done
  • "A modern view of the Mississippi River in the area of the former site of Eunice, Arkansas" Link places?
    • Done
  • " slowed by her boiler problems" Her problems makes it sound like it's a problem that has been mentioned earlier, but it seems it hasn't. Just say "slowed by boiler problems"?
    • Rephrased as suggested
  • "She then fired on the woods on the opposite side of the river." Why?
    • I don't think it's important and haven't had a chance to get to the library to consult Smith, so I've just removed the sentence
  • "that burned every structure within a mile of Eunice, including a warehouse and railroad depot." From reading the article about the town, perhaps worth mentioning it never recovered and remains uninhabited?
    • Not finding much explicitly stating that, but I've added a statement that Eunice was replaced w
  • "They began returning downriver on February 19, returning to Yazoo City on February 28" Could the double "returning" become less repetitive by for example saying "arriving" at last occurrence?
    • rephrased

@FunkMonk: - Thank you for the review! Sorry about the delay in getting to these Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - looking good to me, maybe the flotilla term is a bit confusing if it doesn't mean what most people think it means, but you can deal with it how you like. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – Support

edit
  • "..from C. Brennan, William Nelson, and James McDonnell." Is that last one definitely James McDonnell, and not the ship's captain James McDonald? It seems a mighty odd coincidence otherwise?f
    • This came up, in a way, in the ACR, as well. I suspect it may be, but the sources I've consulted consistently use McDonnell for the seller, and don't make a connection
  • "..these numbers were painted onto the pilothouses of the tinclads beginning in June 1863. She was commissioned into the Union Navy on October 21.." Putting the "October 21" date after the "June 1863" date makes it seem like she was commissioned in 1863, but according to the infobox it was 1862, so add the year for clarity.
    • Done
  • "Marmora left Carondelet for Cairo, Illinois on.." Needs a comma after "Illinois", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Done, although my personal opinion is that GEOCOMMA is a load of crock
  • Per MOS:TIME add a non-breaking space into all the times in the article.
    • I caught 5 of them, which I think is all
  • "..wanted to confirm or deny that information.." – This phrasing is pretty awkward; "wanted to verify that information" would be much more natural, but I wonder if you've changed it to avoid close para-phrasing/copyvio concerns?
    • The original text in the source is "Walke wanted confirmation of this". I think "wanted to verify that information" would be OK from a copyvio perspective, so I've switched to that
  • "Cairo heard men.." Ships can't hear, so this reads a little awkwardly to me.
    • Rephrased
  • "..reaching Coldwater, Mississippi two days later." Needs a comma after "Mississippi", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Done
  • "..prompting retribution from Marmora. Marmora fired on.." Rephrase to avoid finishing one sentence, and starting the next, with the same word.
    • Rephrased
  • "The morning of June 16, saw a combined.." No need for that comma.
    • Removed - I'd actually been requested to add this comma in the A-Class review
  • "..found the town of St. Charles, Arkansas deserted.." Conversely, this needs a comma after "Arkansas", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Done
  • "..moved up the Little Red, where she captured two Confederate gunboats, Tom Sugg and Kaskaskia, on that river." "on that river" at the end is redundant.
    • Done
  • "On September 19, Acting Master Elias Rees, who was commanding Marmora at that time, reported.." Get rid of "at that time".
    • Done
  • I'd move the location of Island No. 70 (in the Concordia Bend on the Mississippi River) from the note to the main body.
    • Done
  • "..in the Liverpool, Mississippi area." Add a comma after "Mississippi", per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Done
  • "..Marmora and Exchange pushed on to Yazoo City, but came under.." I don't think that comma is needed.
    • Done
  • "..from the river town of Napoleon, Arkansas to Island No. 76." Another MOS:GEOCOMMA needed.
    • Cone
  • "..while Gibson reported on September 13, that the vessel.." No comma needed.
    • Removed, another comma request from the ACR
  • "..was sent to Mound City, Illinois in June.." MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Done

That's the main body. I always look at the Lead after.

  • "Purchased for military service on September 17, she was converted into a tinclad warship." I would recommend rewriting this as "She was purchased for military service on September 17 and converted into a tinclad warship."
    • Done
  • "..but was not present when the fort surrendered on January 11 after the Battle of Fort Hindman." Given she wasn't there, I'd cut "after the Battle of Fort Hindman". It isn't important enough to include in the lead of this article, I don't think.
    • Done
  • "..and Gaines Landing, Arkansas after.." MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Added
  • "..at Mound City, Illinois the next month." MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Adde

That's it on the prose from me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • he sent part of the crew of Marmora on a tugboat, USS Laurel why?
  • Porter organized his force They weren't organized before?
    • Source says "Porter assembled his ironclads and light drafts" and then discusses Porter putting Watson Smith in command, so I guess this was a general reorganization for the upcoming Ft. Hindman campaign
  • to best protect the troops "better" and delete the plural on troops.
    • Done
  • I'm seeing a lot of Marmora, and not a lot of she, the ship, the tinclad, etc. Gotta minimize the repetition.
    • I've rephrased 16 instances of "Marmora"
  • Beginning on August 8, Marmora moved up the White River, and found the town of St. Charles, Arkansas, deserted due to Union control of the river. This movement was as part of a flotilla commanded by Lieutenant George M. Bache. Combine these
    • Have merged these two sentences
  • had shifted to being stationed out of perhaps a simple "transferred"?
    • Done
  • and participated in repulsing assisted
    • Change made
  • Three seamen from Marmora received the Medal of Honor for their actions at Yazoo City: William J. Franks, Bartlett Laffey, and James Stoddard;[83] they had been part of the howitzer crew awkward
    • I've tried to merge this together better
  • then served on duty controlling illegal trading perhaps "was assigned duties controlling..."?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Sturmvogel 66: - it looks like I must have missed these when they were posted. I've tried to resolve all of them now. Hog Farm Talk 23:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - I've rephrased the two outstanding concerns. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

I don't normally do ships but seeing as this one is nearly at the bottom of FAC I'll take a look, at least at the prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we need to link shipyard, boiler, acting, barge, tugboat, decommissioned?
    • I don't think it can hurt. I've been asked to link acting in the past, and IMO that one's the closest to an overlink situation.
  • The steamer was converted into a tinclad warship.[8] The process of converting a civilian steamer into a tinclad involved bit repetitive
    • Have rephrased the beginning of the second sentence to resolve this
  • converting a civilian steamer into a tinclad involved arming the ships bit of a mismatch
    • I've tried to resolve this through rephrasing
  • A minor suggestion but another image or two might be nice to break up chunks of text. Assuming there are suitable images of course.
Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied. Not sold on the necessity of the linking but I'm not going to withhold support over it. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ling

edit
Hi Ling, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) All good! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 21:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2023 [38].

North East MRT line

edit
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Singapore's 3rd MRT line first opened nearly 20 years ago. It is the first fully automated underground MRT line in Singapore, and I hope to have this passed before 20 June, which is the line's 20th anniversary. ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I kinda feel it is FA material, but as a totally unprofessional GA reviewer, I kinda have a horribly weak support for this, so it’s kind of a comment. It appears clear and concise and well-sourced.
Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 04:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

Lead:

  • "Operated by SBS Transit, the 20-kilometre (12 mi) line is the MRT's shortest." - The fact that the NEL is the shortest in the MRT system doesn't seem to be mentioned, or cited, directly in the article.
  • "Chinatown, Little India, Serangoon and Hougang" - Can these be linked?
  • "Coloured purple on official maps, it is the country's first fully-automated underground rail line. ... Singapore's third MRT line" - This info should be in one sentence, rather than split across two paragraphs. For instance, "Coloured purple on official maps, it is Singapore's third MRT line and the country's first fully-automated underground rail line."
  • "the NEL was planned during the 1980s and 1990s to alleviate traffic congestion on roads leading to the northeast suburbs. Its alignment and stations were finalised in 1996." - Can you add more detail about the delays to the lead? This should only be one sentence, but a concise explanation about why the project was delayed would be great.
  • "except for two stations; Buangkok station opened on 15 January 2006, and Woodleigh station began operations on 20 June 2011." - I would clarify that these stations were built along with the rest of the line but didn't open in 2003 (as opposed to being in-fill stations that were built after the line had already opened). E.g. "Two stations did not open with the rest of the line; Buangkok station opened on 15 January 2006, and Woodleigh station began operations on 20 June 2011.
  • The third paragraph appears to be summarising the "Culture", "Infrastructure", and "Station facilities" sections, but it is quite short. In particular, I suggest adding details about the facilities (i.e. elevators/lifts, safety, accessibility, Civil Defence) which do not appear to be summarised at all. By contrast, that paragraph describes the rolling stock and signalling system in some detail.

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed most of above points. Although unsure how I would cite it is the shortest, given the other lines' distances are longer... ZKang123 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I forgot about this, as I was busy in real life. I'll leave some more comments tomorrow.
For line lengths, I would either leave out this information altogether or find a secondary source. If you really can't find a source but still want to include it, I would add an explanatory footnote which gives the length of every MRT line. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a footnote ZKang123 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "roads would be inadequate to serve planned 21st-century housing estates" - Do you mean that roads alone could not serve the projected traffic counts?
  • "To minimise the impact on other development, plans for the line were developed early to determine which parcels of land would be needed for its construction" - Who developed these plans? I would personally rephrase this as "To minimise the impact on other development, [the planner] developed plans for the line early on to determine which parcels of land would be needed for its construction".
  • "portion after Braddell Road" - North or south of Braddell Road?
  • "In February 1991, it was proposed to extend the line to Pulau Tekong via Pulau Ubin, to serve future residential and industrial developments in the long-term plans for the islands." - I'd change "the islands" to "these islands", as many readers may not immediately realize that Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin are islands, even if it's implied.
  • "the Woodlands extension took precedence with firm plans for development there, unlike in the northeast" - I also think it's redundant to say "the Woodlands extension took precedence" twice in two sentences. Instead, I suggest "there were firm plans for development around the Woodlands extension, unlike in the northeast"
  • "On 20 May 1999, SBS Transit (then Singapore Bus Service) was appointed to operate the line with the Sengkang and Punggol LRT systems." - Just to clarify, do you mean that SBS Transit was appointed to operate the line and operate both LRT systems?
  • "In 1998, the timeline for Punggol station was moved up because of planning housing developments" - Should this be "planned housing developments"?
  • "Two delays occurred that day: a train, stalled between Boon Keng and Potong Pasir, had to be manually steered to Farrer Park; and another train was removed from service when it failed to leave Dhoby Ghaut station because its sensors mistakenly indicated that a set of doors remained open" - I think the details of these delays might be excessive, unless these delays negatively operated the line's operation for a long time (e.g. a few days or longer). In fact, I think the info in this sentence is encapsulated by the beginning of the following paragraph: "Although the NEL has experienced a few glitches since its opening..."
  • "On 17 June 2003, SBS Transit announced that two stations (Woodleigh and Buangkok)" - You've already mentioned the names of the two stations in the previous section. I would just say "On 17 June 2003, SBS Transit announced that Woodleigh and Buangkok stations"
  • "The Buangkok station opened "with much fanfare" and activities which included a walk-and-jog" - Similarly, I think it would suffice to say that the Buangkok station opened as scheduled.
  • "Several commuters alighted at Woodleigh station by accident on its opening day, intending to get off at the adjacent Serangoon station and unaware that Woodleigh had opened; SBS deployed several staff members to assist confused commuters. Other curious commuters alighted to see the station's interior or try an alternative route from the station" - I think this detail may be excessive, too. I would assume that some commuters would be confused and others would want to look at the station when it opened.
  • "transport minister Ong Ye Kung said" - Did Ong say this when tunneling was completed, or at some other time?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Network and operations:
  • "5:30 am and 12:30 am", "5.42 am", "11:56 pm" - These should be formatted consistently (with either a period or a colon between the hour and minute).
  • "The NEL initially had a higher fare than the North South and East West lines" - Just wondering, was the original NEL fare a flat fare or a distance-based fare? Later on, the article says that the NEL uses the same distance-based fare as other lines, but I wonder if a distance-based fare was used beforehand, too.
  • "15-year license" - Should this be "licence"? Incidentally, this sounds a little like a lease.
  • "the fully-underground 20-kilometre (12 mi) NEL runs ... The line runs" - This is a little redundant; I suggest changing one of these sentences to not use "runs". E.g. "the fully-underground 20-kilometre (12 mi) NEL operates between Singapore's city centre and the northeastern parts of the island."
  • "The NEL will continue towards the Punggol Coast station in 2024," - I suggest "The NEL is expected to continue towards the Punggol Coast station in 2024". Otherwise, we run the risk of WP:CRYSTALBALL-like wording.
  • "and the line is coloured purple on official maps" - How come this is in the "Stations" section?
  • "may be built in the future" - I'd drop "in the future", as the phrase "may be built" already implies the future.
Culture
  • "Unlike the other NEL stations, the entrances to Buangkok do not use glass" - I'd say "Unlike at the other NEL stations". You're comparing the Buangkok entrances and the other stations' entrances, rather than comparing Buangkok's entrances and the other stations themselves.
  • Are Dhoby Ghaut, Sengkang and Punggol given their own paragraphs because they have particularly interesting designs?
  • "The network's first such integration" - Of an office building and station complex?
  • "the Punggol station was intended to be integrated with the LRT station and the bus interchange" - I would mention, more directly, that Punggol station also features an LRT station and bus interchange (currently, this is implied rather than stated directly). Also, unless it's the case that Punggol station wasn't integrated with the LRT station and bus interchange, I'd just drop "intended to be". E.g. "Designed by the 3HPArchitects and Farrells architectural firms, the Punggol station was also integrated with an LRT station and bus interchange".
  • Do we have references for the artwork list?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure about the types of fares... that would be something to dig into... Addressed the other points ZKang123 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the continued delays. I will complete this by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Station facilities
  • "When a station is used as a civil-defence (CD) shelter, the PSC becomes its command centre" - The PSC becomes the CD shelter's command centre?
  • "Their speed is reduced by half when not in use by commuters" - I'd just say "Their speed is halved when not in use".
  • "55 metres (180 ft) travellators" - This should be singular. e.g. "55-metre (180 ft) travellators"
  • "Each station has an entrance with barrier-free access via lifts and ramps" - I would say "Each station has an entrance that was built with barrier-free access via lifts and ramps", since we're contrasting this with older stations that are being retrofitted with ramps and lifts.
  • "Westinghouse platform screen doors (PSDs) are a safety barrier between passengers on platforms and trains" - I think PSDs in general act as a safety barrier, not just Westinghouse PSDs. Additionally, this may go against MOS:SEAOFBLUE, since the links for Westinghouse and PSDs are right next to each other. But see below.
  • "A total of 768 PSDs were supplied to the NEL's 16 stations" - A few things here:
    • Are we talking about how many pairs of doors are in each station (in which there are 48 pairs per station)? Usually, when I read about PSDs, they are described in terms of how many stations have PSDs (in which case there are 16 PSDs) or how many platforms have PSDs (in which case there are 32 PSDs, assuming there are two platforms per station).
    • I'd rephrase this in active voice.
    • Also, it appears that Westinghouse is only supplying PSDs to the initial set of 16 stations, not the extension. I would just say "Westinghouse supplied 768 pairs of PSDs to the NEL's original 16 stations".
  • "Except for three stations (Dhoby Ghaut, Sengkang and Punggol), NEL stations are designated civil-defence (CD) shelters" - I'd condense this too, i.e. "All NEL stations except Dhoby Ghaut, Sengkang and Punggol are designated civil-defence (CD) shelters".
That's all I have for now. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified all of the above ZKang123 (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - everything looks good to me now. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Feel free to revert any copyedits I've made that you disagree with.

  • I see you have a footnote to explain "Woodlands extension", but why not link the phrase to North–South MRT line#Woodlands extension in the text?
  • "Yeo's successor, Mah Bow Tan, said that the northeast's low population made it financially unfeasible to build the NEL instead of the Woodlands extension. Mah said in 1992 that the Woodlands extension was built because, unlike the northeast, plans were "firmed up" for development in Woodlands; the NEL would be built when housing developments in the northeast were completed." If I have this right, the first sentence is sourced to 1993 comments, and the second is from 1992. There's some redundancy here, and I don't like "was built" when in January 1992 the Woodlands extension had not yet started construction. I think we could compress this to "According to Yeo's successor, Mah Bow Tan, the Woodlands extension took precedence because there were firm plans for development there, unlike in the northeast, where the low population meant that the NEL would not be as cost-effective."
  • "When the 16 stations were announced, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol would not be built with the other stations due to lack of development around the station sites." Suggest "Three of the 16 stations announced in 1996, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol, were not included in the initial plan. Their construction was deferred until the areas around them were further developed."
  • "The timeline for Punggol station was moved up to serve the upcoming Punggol 21 developments". I don't have access to the source for this, so can't be sure this works, but I think the date should be mentioned; perhaps "In 1998 the timeline for Punggol station was moved up because of planning housing developments" in the area. If Punggol 21 is worth mentioning specifically, and I suspect it is, how about a red link?
  • I don't quite follow the sentences about Sennett station. If the government made no decision to construct Sennett/Potong Pasir until February 2002, how were they able to build it in such a short time? It sound like the lines were handed over for testing in December 2002. Did Potong Pasir really go from paper to working station in ten months? I see from the "Opening of reserved stations" sections that Woodleigh, at least, was built but not opened, but this seems out of sync with the earlier "...would not be built with the other stations".
  • "many of whom were impressed by its comfort and speed". Suggest cutting this; it's not very useful to the reader, and in fact the source article quotes quite a few minor complaints as well.
  • "A station designated "NE2", between HarbourFront and Outram Park, may be built in the future if development warrants it". According to the planning map, this station was included in the 1991 concept plan; I think that would be worth mentioning at this point.
  • "Its simple layout, spacious interior and transparency facilitate navigation." What does "facilitate navigation" mean? And I don't see anything about this in the given source -- am I missing something?
  • "To increase the line extension's capacity": what does "line extension" mean here? Just the Punggol Coast station? If so it seems odd that almost a twenty percent increase in rolling stock was needed for one more station.
  • "Each train, made of fire-resistant materials, includes fire and smoke detectors and a fire barrier under its frame. They have..." Syntax should be consistent; "Each train" is singular, but "They" is plural. Suggest "The trains are made of fire-resistant materials, and include fire and smoke detectors and a fire barrier under the frame. They have..."
  • "and three additional stabling tracks are being built for the NELe": needs an "as of" date, and I assume that "e" is just a typo?
  • "the IAGO (Informatisation et Automatisation par Guide d’Onde) waveguide allows two-way communication between the trains and the waveguides": surely not what you meant to say -- nobody is communicating with the waveguides.
  • "The reliability of the line's signalling system ensured that the NEL maintains its "mean kilometres between failures" target of one million train-km (620,000 train-miles)." The source doesn't really draw this conclusion so directly. It talks about the improvements to reliability, and then mentions this number.
  • "The renewal programmes maintain the line's reliability" -- suggest cutting this; it doesn't tell the reader anything the previous sentences haven't conveyed.
  • "Every station has a passenger service centre (PSC) on its concourse.[165] The PSCs are generally curved, unlike the boxier designs of those in older MRT stations.[166] In addition to assisting passengers and checking and topping up their fare cards, the PSC monitors and controls the functions of connecting tunnels and communicates with the OCC at the depot." You're using PSC to mean both the physical structure and the employees that staff it, which is a bit disconcerting to read. I think making it "the PSC's staff monitor and control..." would address this.
  • "Station seats have armrests to assist those who have difficulty standing." This seems to make no sense. The armrests are not in use by those standing.
  • "set up by the to improve"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the suggestions:
"When the 16 stations were announced, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol would not be built with the other stations due to lack of development around the station sites." Suggest "Three of the 16 stations announced in 1996, Potong Pasir (then named Sennett), Woodleigh and Punggol, were not included in the initial plan. Their construction was deferred until the areas around them were further developed."
I don't quite follow the sentences about Sennett station. If the government made no decision to construct Sennett/Potong Pasir until February 2002, how were they able to build it in such a short time? It sound like the lines were handed over for testing in December 2002. Did Potong Pasir really go from paper to working station in ten months? I see from the "Opening of reserved stations" sections that Woodleigh, at least, was built but not opened, but this seems out of sync with the earlier "...would not be built with the other stations".
As for Senett (now Potong Pasir), it was planned to be built as a shell station, then the government decided to build the station in full but let it remain closed. According to the source, the three stations were announced but they would be "reserved".
OK, but we still have "would not be built" in the article -- you're saying they were in fact partly built? Or at least Sennett and Woodleigh were? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Verified they would be built as structural shells instead of fully built and added a note on the govt's decision to build them fully. ZKang123 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Its simple layout, spacious interior and transparency facilitate navigation." What does "facilitate navigation" mean? And I don't see anything about this in the given source -- am I missing something?
I'm trying to rephrase from this portion: "The space planning of the station took future connections into consideration and adopted a simple layout to allow clear and easy wayfinding to help commuters navigate to the various modes of transport". Might specify "visual navigation".
The source here is the LTA so I don't think we should phrase this (complimentary) description as if it were an achievement; it should be stated as the goal of the design. I also don't see anything in what you quote about a spacious interior or transparency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"To increase the line extension's capacity": what does "line extension" mean here? Just the Punggol Coast station? If so it seems odd that almost a twenty percent increase in rolling stock was needed for one more station.
I guess passenger capacity for the train load.
"and three additional stabling tracks are being built for the NELe": needs an "as of" date, and I assume that "e" is just a typo?
NELe: North East Line extension. Added as of 2019.
"the IAGO (Informatisation et Automatisation par Guide d’Onde) waveguide allows two-way communication between the trains and the waveguides": surely not what you meant to say -- nobody is communicating with the waveguides.
I guess something went wrong in the copyediting... (version before copyedit). The original version was "the IAGO waveguide (Informatisation et Automatisation par Guide d’Onde or waveguide transmission line system for computer and automation applications), which allows two-way communication between the trains and the track tubes emitting the microwaves, monitors the trains' positions and movements".
Actually according to the source it says: In a world first, the IAGO waveguide - essentially a microwave emitting tube running the entire length of the track - sends "signals" which are picked up by receivers on board the moving train, enabling the train's position to be known accurately. There is two way communication between the train and the waveguide.
You now have "...which allows two-way communication between the trains and the track tubes emitting the microwaves..." I would make this just "allows communication between trains". A waveguide for microwaves is the equivalent of a wire for a landline telephone; two people on a phone call are communicating with each other, not with the wire, and similarly here the trains are communicating with each other, and not with the waveguide. Similarly a waveguide is not going to "monitor the trains' positions and movements" -- an overall system that incorporates the waveguide might do such a thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The reliability of the line's signalling system ensured that the NEL maintains its "mean kilometres between failures" target of one million train-km (620,000 train-miles)." The source doesn't really draw this conclusion so directly. It talks about the improvements to reliability, and then mentions this number.
How would I rephrase this? Maybe " The NEL maintains its "mean kilometres between failures" target of one million train-km"?
Station seats have armrests to assist those who have difficulty standing
Those who need help to get up from their seats... ZKang123 (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also here's the book source for further cross-checking. ZKang123 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some points above and left replies for the ones I think need more attention. FYI, for future reference, it might be easier for you to reply directly in the original bullet list by indenting -- that would save you from having to copy down the text for each point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok addressed the above points ZKang123 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made a small change to the IAGO sentence; otherwise all points addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

edit

Ensure all tables have row scopes, col scopes, and captions per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. ZKang123 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox Any further comments? ZKang123 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Where was that explained? That seems unlikely. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria In the commons file history ZKang123 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation provided does not seem likely - see the examples at commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to PD-license but tbh if the license changes again, it's not exactly within my control since it's hosted on commons. ZKang123 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user who reverted replied that Singapore's TOO is actually pretty low. see ZKang123 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria apologies for the ping, but any further comments besides the logo licensing? ZKang123 (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I'm afraid my opinion hasn't changed on that question. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to remove the logo because it was too much of a hassle; the editor on commons keeps reverting my edits claiming Singapore's TOO is too low and hence the logo warrants copyright protection. I think I will ping the user here to explain. @Glrx ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123:
C151 lover uploaded File:North East Line logo.png claiming it as his own work and asserting a CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license. That license is compatible with Commons and all WMF wikis. There is no reason to insist on a PD license. The car image is NOT a "simple geometric shape" such as a circle, triangle or square; the presence of some text in a logo does not eliminate considering the associated art. The car image is above TOO US.
Furthermore, the location of C151 lover is not known: C151 lover asserted an international license. If C151 lover is in a low TOO jurisdiction such as the UK or Singapore, then his TOO is below TOO US.
I converted the PNG to SVG by copying, so I created a derivative work. Consequently, I should respect the CC-BY-SA 4.0 of the original author.
There may be other reasons to claim that the PNG does not have a copyright, but {{PD-textlogo}} is not an appropriate justification.
Why is an archive being edited?
Glrx (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article candidacies are conventionally run on /archive pages on this wiki; the discussion remains active.
If we accept that the car image is sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection, and also that the version here is an accurate reflection of the real-world logo, it would follow that C151's upload was a derivative work of that official logo, and there is no evidence that that logo was ever released under a CC license (so far as I can tell - please advise if that is not the case). Thus we would not be able to use the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the logo from the page. And as far as I know, the train logo is indeed copyrighted by LTA, although it's no longer in use. See the legend at the bottom right of the map and the consultancy firm behind the train logo ZKang123 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have upscaled most of the images in the article. Should I also upscale the images in the station list as well? Cos in articles like Piccadilly line and Victoria line the images are downsized, and 1 Line (Sound Transit) upsized them to 120px.
Also removed the logo for copyright concerns. ZKang123 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Formatting:
    • fn 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 48, 70: CS1 maint errors - get rid of the |url-status=live cards.
    • fn 130, 132, 146, 161, 165: "p." should be "pp."
    • Leong (2003): capitalise the "T" and "S"
    • Tan (2003): capitalise the "T"
  • All sources are of high quality
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 109 Not seeing it. (Also: why is Bidadari in small letters?)
    • fn 26, 80, 114, 116, 135 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified the above issues. Removed speculative "future" bus interchanges ZKang123 (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 Any further comments? ZKang123 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No further comments. (I made a couple of minor changes.) Passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Airship

edit

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with adequate justification. This review will be used in the Wikicup.

  • The lead, especially the last paragraph, is a bit staccato in sentence layout; any way to connect sentences?
  • Is there really a need for the List heading in the stations section?
  • Some paragraphs and sections are quite short. I can see the need for the last three sections in the "Station facilities" section; I would remove the first two ("Passenger service centres" and "Lifts and escalators")
  • The safety section has "The PSDs...The PSDs ..." combine?

Minor problems. I think I can definitely support this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In terms of section order, I would certainly expect culture to be placed lower than infrastructure and probably station facilities as well.
Rectified above issues. Thanks for checking through. ZKang123 (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • In "References" some article titles are in title case, some in sentence case and at least one is a mix. Could they be standardised, preferably in title case. (How they appeared in their original is irrelevant.)
  • "White paper A World Class Land Transport System" should be in title case. Also needs publisher location. And an ISBN - 978997188488. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Converted all titles to title case. Also ISBN included without 978 (generates an error otherwise) ZKang123 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2023 [39].

James Madison

edit
Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth President of the United States James Madison. Its first FAC took place mostly at the end of last year, it didn’t pass, despite having several supports, an image pass, and a nearly completed source review. At the time, Hawkeye had raised the issue of whether the slavery section could be improved which has since then been upgraded and addressed largely by the co-nominator, Cmguy777, of this re-nomination. The current updated version appears stable, with an upgraded discussion of Hawkeye's concerns from the past few months, and ready to continue with the FAC assessment. The current version of this article appears to be at FAC-worthy level and has benefited from several pre-FAC assessments last year from several experienced editors. Looking forward to responding to and addressing the support/oppose comments which are part of the assessment process concerning this nomination for this well-known president. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a neutral source to the Slavery section, Spies-Gans. She is a Princeton alumnis. Princeton was Madison's alma mater. The Slavery section is divided into three parts: History, Treatment of Slaves, and Views on Slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I hope to look at this later. I already conducted a partial review of this article late last year, but I stopped after someone added a "neutrality" tag to the article. I will continue where I left off, but I'll also quickly look over the first few sections of the article when I'm done. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

epicgenius are you still planning to comment on this FAC? (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @buidhe - I totally forgot about this. I do still plan to leave commentary; this nomination completely slipped my mind. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still quite long, so I'm going to focus on the "Slavery" section first. Here are my initial comments:
  • There are a few sentences with a large number of citations, e.g. "After his manumission, Billey changed his name to William Gardner and became a shipping agent, representing Madison in Philadelphia. In 1795, Gardner was swept overboard and drowned on a voyage to New Orleans.[273][274][271][275][276][277]". To avoid running afoul of WP:CITEKILL, I suggest combining these footnotes into a single <ref></ref> tag using {{harvnb}}, e.g. <ref>{{harvnb|New York Review of Books, June 6, 2019}}; {{harvnb|Watts|1990|p=1289}}; {{harvnb|Spies-Gans, 2013}}; {{harvnb|Ketcham|1990|pp=374-375}}; {{harvnb|French|2001}}; {{harvnb|Taylor|2012|p=27}}.</ref>
  • "he arrived at his alma mater Princeton University" - The article already mentions that Princeton was his alma mater, so I'd cut that bit.
  • "By his will" - Should this be something like "In his will"?
  • "By the 1790s, Madison's slave Sawney was an overseer of part of the plantation. Some slaves at Montpelier could read, including Sawney. Madison's plantation crops included apples, corn, tobacco, and Irish potatoes" - This reads a little choppily. It talks about Sawney, then about how Sawney was among several literate slaves, then it mentions crops on the plantation out of the blue.
  • "According to historian Paris Spies-Gans, Madison's anti-slavery thought was strongest" - I'd recommend combining this with one of the other paragraphs.
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally can't find anything pressing with the article. The narration could be tweaked a little for grammar errors, maybe historical context. I think the article is much improved since the FAC started. Are there anythings more that need to be done? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - do you feel that your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed? 18:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this. I did not get the ping at all. I meant to say that, other than some minor grammatical quibbles, I didn't see any glaring issues. From what I've seen, this article is pretty comprehensive, and it doesn't neglect any major facts/details per the FAC criteria. Given the large amount of scholarship about Madison in particular, I don't see anything else missing on that end, either.
I did have one remaining concern: although almost everything is reliably sourced, there is a link to history.com in the "Bibliography" section, which per WP:RSPHISTORY is not a reliable source. Even if history.com is being used as a primary source in this context, can this be swapped out with a better source? That's the only major issue that I still have with this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this website acceptable? ConstitutionFacts.com Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if this seems like a bother, but wouldn't the Library of Congress be sufficient for this? From the looks of the Reliable Sources noticeboard's archives, at least some parts of the website may be suspect. There really hasn't been that much discussion about that website, but nonetheless, it would be a little strange to have a Featured Article link to a page that, at the very least, the constitutionfacts website appears to be geared toward school students.
    (Also, now that I'm looking at the Library of Congress website, it seems like Madison may have authored or co-authored up to 29 of the Federalist Papers, rather than exactly 29 as this article currently says. It would be ideal if there is a secondary source that confirms this, though, but the LOC source should be sufficient for this claim.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cmguy777, could you look at this; switching to LOC for the Federalist Papers is unobjectionable, as is Epicgenius's request to alter the wording to 'authored or co-authored'. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOC is a good source. That can be used as a source for the 85 FPs authored, but we need a source that states how many Madison co-authored. Yes, "co-authored" can be used. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a book source, instead, The Federalist Papers, published in 1992. Published by Cutchogue, N.Y. : Buccaneer Books. Detail added. I think we should leave that matter moot concerning how many Madison authored. There maybe be dispute over some authorships between Madison and Hamilton. I also mentioned the essays were published in two part: 36 anti Articles of Confederation; and 49 essays that favored the Constitution. I mentioned the letters were published under the name "Publius". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceranthor

edit

Will focus on slavery section since I previously supported the rest.

  • "Madison emancipated one slave, Billey, whom Madison sold into an apprentice contract that freed Billey after seven years of servitude" - I appreciate the effort to make clear pronouns/subjects here, but it's a bit wordy as is
  • "In 1801, Madison inherited more than one hundred slaves at Montpelier after his father's death.[267][268] Madison brought slaves to the White House while president.[269]" - bit choppy sentence structure wise
  • "Although Madison grew more dependent on slavery at Montpelier," - how so?
  • " In 1786, a slave Anthony ran away. Madison's father put a runaway slave notice in a Richmond newspaper. A reward of $10 was given for Anthony's recapture. " - how does this relate to treatment of slaves?

Made some minor copyediting changes. ceranthor 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will look into these. I think the slave reward letter let's the reader know slaves were not free even though they ran away. Recapture was not voluntary. I am only going by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made narration changes to the Slavery section that address the above issues. The Anthony runaway slave sentences were removed. The "dependent on slavery" information removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. ceranthor 02:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that read through and the edits in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Allreet

edit

Also interested in the Slavery section, a point at a time.

Slavery > History section:

  • Narrative flow and clarity. Abrupt beginning, chronology, and connection between thoughts.
  • Use of some sources; e.g., book reviews instead of the actual books.
  • Connection: I should have been more explicit. The sentence "In 1783, serving as a Virginia Delegate in Congress..." leads readers to think the action was somehow tied to Congress. It's also inaccurate to indicate the action was a proactive step against slavery. Not in the least. It was purely personal and reactive. However, the story nicely illustrates the moral dilemmas Madison faced. Billey (later William Gardner) was given to Madison as a companion when both were young, so the two grew up together. Billey subsequently spent three-and-a-half years (1780-1783) with Madison in Philadelphia. The experience in a free state "tainted" Billey, who tried to escape. Punishment would normally have been in order, but Madison was fearful returning Billey to Virginia might foment rebellion, so he sold him into an indenture contract (under Pennsylvania law slaves could not be sold to new masters). Later, after Billey completed his indenture and was freed, Madison hired him as a business agent, as did Jefferson. I have sources on all of the above and am working on a condensed version.
  • Changes made to the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Details on Montpelier in the intro para and first para are redundant. Something on the economics and culture in the South and Virginia might be better as a general opening. Slavery had been part of the country's social fabric for well over a century by the time of the Revolution. Allreet (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed redundant information and added detail on Southern slave plantation society. Spies-Gans (2013) was the source. I used French (2001) as a source for information on Billey taken from the William Gardner (former slave) article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery > Treatment of Slaves

  • Please sign the above comments. I removed the Taylor quote. I am not sure it is good to use first-hand primary sources. I don't think we know completely how slaves were treated at Montpelier. How did Ambrose or Madison Sr. treat the slaves at Montpelier? Madison had complete control of Montpelier after 1801. Madison was also away from Montpelier for extensive time periods after 1801 while Secretary of State and President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think we are getting into unchartered territory on slave treatment. Jennings was brought to the White House at age ten. He may have been referring to Madison's treatment of slaves at the White House. Also Jennings was a household slave at Montpelier, Madison's footman, not a field slave. All we want is to get Madison to pass the FAC Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cmguy777: I was about to add the White House when I saw your comment. Jennings was with Madison at both the White House and Montpelier, so he was writing about Jefferson for the entire period he knew him and he was referring to all slaves under Madison's care during that time. And if the memoir won't do as a source, Broadbent relates what Jennings said and he supports the words I used. Allreet (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please add your information. I would also add when Jennings wrote his memoir, his position as Madison's footman, and the time frame he was with Madison. This gives the reader more historical context. I have no issues adding the information to the Madison or Madison and slavery articles, possibly both articles. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To save time I added information on Paul Jennings. The National Park Service was used as a reference. I also added the Taylor reference. I did this in the interest of time. Jennings, I think is a good addition to the article. He seems to be a popular historical figure and I think would add to the reader's interest. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet; those comments are all quality research and I'm thinking which part of Wikipedia's best example of slavery among the Founding Fathers you are following. The best example at Wikipedia for slavery among the Founding Fathers is the 2 FA articles for George Washington and slavery and George Washington. On the basis of that example, then where would you think is the better place for your current edit which you just put forward: should it go on the James Madison and slavery article or the James Madison biography page? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause: Thanks. I was concerned the original text was insensitive (as if some slaveowners weren't so bad). I also think Jennings's description is convincing and that it fits the Treatment of Slaves subsection perfectly—as do Madison's instructions to his plantation's overseer. Both are hard evidence, specific to Madison's views, and not just opinions or general summations. I'd use it here since the subsection is short, and worry about the other possible FA later. Allreet (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet Thanks for your comments. Are there any more edits that you would like to see in this article in order to help this nomination to gain your support? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Slavery section is in good shape. I do have some concerns regarding citations in other sections, though I haven't done a thorough "sweep". This may apply wherever there are several sentences covering multiple issues and only one citation is provided at the end of the passage. An example would be the opening of the American Revolution/Articles of Confederation section. While the statements are generally true, finding sources that support broad summations like this is difficult. Allreet (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments on the Slavery section. For those other sections on the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation, then this article is written with an eye to link to those two main articles as the place to find many of the references on those 2 subjects. If there is any reference from those 2 articles which you would like to bring into this article then maybe you could mention it here or give it a try. Those 2 articles on the Revolution and the Articles are well written and are the main articles for their subject areas. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the main article links are there for the readers to get specific information. I don't think we need sources on every sentence. I can check for general information in Madison Biography by Ketcham. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything general on the AR and AOC by Ketcham.Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found and added a source reference on the American Revolution. I can't find anything specific of the sentences on Madison and the Articles of Confederation. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added Taylor (2016) American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 book source. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tracking down these sources. Allreet (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet; Nice comments. Ready for further edit requests whenever you have the time to list them here to enhance to article further. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also added Taylor (2002) American Colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Allreet, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog the Mild, thanks for the courtesy. I support the nomination. I know enough about Madison to recognize the article's strengths—he lived a long, active life and generally his biography is covered well in terms of accuracy and style. Therein are also my reservations—with this much ground to cover, some inaccuracies are inevitable. I haven't had time to respond to ErnestKrause's last request for feedback, but in a review tonight I caught a few, hence my last comment. If it's okay, I'd like to handle the edits myself, since it would be as easy to make the changes as explain them. Allreet (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a coordinator I have no issues with that. If you make changes ErnestKrause disagrees with or doesn't understand, they can query them here, having first reverted them or not - as they wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comments from Allreet have been well-researched and well written; he should have access to the main space for his edits or put them on Talk if discussion is useful. Thanks for his added support for this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Sixteen images.

File:1811, Sharples, James, James Madison.jpg, File:James Madison, by Charles Willson Peale, 1783.png, File:James Madison by Gilbert Stuart.jpg, File:James Madison Portrait2.jpg, File:USS Constitution vs Guerriere.jpg, File:British Burning Washington.jpg, File:Battle of New Orleans Jean-Hyacinthe Laclotte.jpg, File:Tippecanoe.jpg, File:Gilbert Stuart, James Madison, c. 1821, NGA 56914.jpg, File:James madison-Age82-Edit1.jpg - old artworks - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Not my era of expertise. But works cited seem to be of high quality.

  • Graeber (2013) is not used; move to further reading
  • Hamilton (1941) Do not abbreviate the names of US states
  • Library of Congress. 2003. Location?
  • Manweller, Mathew (2005) Location?
  • Suggest moving "Montpelier: The People, The Place, The Idea" to the external links

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks:
    • fn 294: Source says "one admirer" but does not say "contemporary" Note: Where is this issue found in the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Note: "contemporary" changed to "admirer". Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Historian Gordon Wood commends Madison for his steady leadership during the war and resolve to avoid expanding the president's power, noting one contemporary's observation that the war was conducted "without one trial for treason, or even one prosecution for libel".[294]" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 79, 112, 138, 294, 314: okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Source review and Image review here, Hawkeye. Separately, nice comments about Leahy in the other assessment below. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues
    • Books in the Bibliography are still not in alphabetical order (Rijord should come after Reed)
    • Wood (2011) should be after Wood (2009)
    • Last dozen entries are in random order (other web sites etc are in publisher order)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, I've done these this evening and they look like they are consistent now and in order for the 3 items you've just listed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The very last entry still looks out of order to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last Cite books moved up to other Cite books above and moved from end of list. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • From "Early life and education", who was the classmate from "Along with another classmate, Madison undertook an intense program of study"? Note:The classmate was Aaron Burr. He was one year behind Madison at Princeton. Rival debating societies. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Height, eye color, and being "congenial in small gatherings" are superfluous details Note: Removed eye color and "congenial in small gatherings". I believe Madison was the smallest person to hold the Presidency. Is that too trivial? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Note:Information removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "never saw battle" → "never battled"
  • Shouldn't "republican" from "republican government would be effective against partisanship and factionalism" start with upper case?
  • It feels repetitive to have three consecutive sentences start with "He" like the first paragraph of "Ratification of the Constitution" currently does. Note: Changed "He" to "Madison" 2x.
  • Every sentence from the second paragraph of "Bill of Rights" (except for its last) starts with his surname. Try to change this up to avoid monotony.
  • Ambrose helping with Montpelier management prior to dying in 1793 only needs to be mentioned once (you currently do so within "Early life and education" as well as "Marriage and family").
  • The word "affair" within "Chesapeake–Leopard affair" shouldn't have italics
  • I feel you've misused "at present" for "believed that blacks and whites were unlikely to co-exist peacefully, at present" when this comes from a someone who died long before the 20th century. Note: removed "at present".

Overall, this definitely has improved since its first FAC :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following recent revisions, I'll support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gwillhickers

edit
  • Weak support at this time. — The slavery section, though generally comprehensive and neutral, could stand to use a couple of points of context, esp since slavery is an otherwise controversial issue, replete with many modern-day distortions that have emerged 100s of years after the fact. Also, the citation convention used in this article is an assortment of different citation formats, with many templates mixed right in with mark-up text.
    FA Criteria 2c requires: consistently formatted inline citations
    Since the greater majority of citations use the SFN format, the others, and there are nonetheless many, will have to be converted to the SFN format. if all FA criteria are to be met. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gwillhickers. What "couple of points of context" need to be added to the slavery section? It may take time to get the whole article to SFN. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've been added here Much citation work still needs to be done, which I'm currently working on. Overall prose looks fine, with no factual errors or POV issues that I can see. Good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no issues with the above context being readded to the article section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged in this morning to see if any Harvard cites were still in the article to be addressed and they appear to all be consistent now in sfn. Are all the citations now consistent. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I converted two references to sfn format. Added photo of Dolley Madison. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a fair number of <ref> or <ref name=cite'label> cites that still need conversion to SFN. Nothing that can't be dealt with in a day or so. Not as big of a deal as having statements with no citations, but it is a point of FA criteria that should and will be remedied directly. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: Thanks for catching a syntax errror. I've been using the SFN format to keep the citation convention consistent, per FA Criteria. I usually catch any errors as I review a given edit immediately after making it. Thanks for your concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations and sources in order
@ErnestKrause and Cmguy777: — I believe the citations are all in order now, adhering to one citation convention. When you get the chance, please double check. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They should now be in alphabetic order; it took me about a dozen adjustments and I'm thinking that it is now ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for tending to this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild; From your comment in the section below as addressed now. There are currently 3 supports for this nomination from Ceranthor, SNUGGUMS, and Gwillhickers, plus a source review pass by Hawkeye and an Images pass from Hawkeye as well. Should the further requests for enhancements be addressed here on this assessment page, or should they be moved to the Talk page of the article for further enhancements. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding the query correctly, my preference would be for any further quries and commants, and any responses to them, to appear on this page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild; There are already 3 supports for the article, and the co-nominators are ready to move on to other peer review nominations when this one is able to move forward. Are more supports being requested here beyond the normal 3 supports, with a pass for images and sources already in place? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article quality overall is much improved, both in writing and content. Neutrality concerns in the Slavery section have been addressed. Are there anymore pressing article matters that need to be addressed? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "the normal 3 supports". Three general supports is the bare minimum necessary for a coordinator to consider closing a nomination. More than three general supports is always good and may or may not be considered necessary by a coordinator. I am temporarily somewhat busy in RL and so will ping the other coordinators - @FAC coordinators: - to see if they wish to consider the nomination for closure. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already commented on this article at an earlier stage so I think I have to consider myself recused on this one. However, I personally would not consider promoting an article on a similar subject without 4-5 supports. (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of town for work for the next several days, so I don't see myself being able to read through a whole complex discussion before Thursday or Friday. I will re-iterate that three supports is a bare minimum, not an obligation to promote, and that the coordinators can ask for more feedback at their discretion. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hawkeye7

edit

As a military historian, most of this is beyond my expertise, but I was concerned about the characterization of the proposed amendments to the constitution as "protecting individual liberties". Madison and Henry clashed over the arming of the militia. This was the organization that mounted nightly patrols looking for escaped slaves and put down slave rebellions before they could spread. It was a key part of the organization of a slave state like Virginia. Henry feared that the provision in the constitution that the federal government was responsible for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" also meant that it could disarm the militia, which would cause the end of slavery. [40] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The brand new book by Carl Bogus is intriguing, though its only been out for a few weeks with its publication date from 2023. I'm not sure its fully a part of the established literature and matches prevailing viewpoints, as interesting as Bogus's reading appears on first sight. For example, Second Amendment proponents often cite Madison's close relation to Jefferson and Jefferson's principle of Democracy needing to 'cleanse' itself of its encrustations from time to time, apparently with the use of firearms as needed. Also, Madison as a revolutionary had vivid pictures of Battle of Bunker Hill and the importance of firearms to the rebellion against England. I'm thinking that Bogus offers an interesting perspective, though its not the only one out there in academia. Do you think that Bogus belongs in this article or in the James Madison and slavery article? Possibly, Bogus ought to belong in the Second Amendment article as a close match to his subject matter? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with ErnestKrause. This specific topic, if it belongs anywhere, would be better placed on the Second Amendment, or other Talk page, esp since the Madison article treats Madison's dealings with the Bill of Rights as a whole in one small section, and doesn't dissect each and every Amendment. Doing so, on a FA nomination page, more than suggests that FA promotion is hanging by this one highly questionable contention. Continued on the Second Amendment Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Constitutional concern. It is true slaves had no individual liberties. For that matter neither did women or Indians. It is too wide a subject for the Madison article. I think best to address the issue after FAC is completed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The motivations of Madison and the right to bear arms are interesting. There may have been many, including putting down slave rebellions, Indian wars, stop a military invasion. It may take time to sort this out. There are better places to discuss this at a future date than an FA review. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the thought was to add some of this to the Madison article at some future date, then that would mean that the FAC was currently underprepared, ie did not cover criterion 1b. I would appreciate clarification on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way anyone can prepare for someone introducing a radical idea that just appeared in a newly released book, one that is not consistent with the multitude of reliable sources on the Bill of Rights.

FA criteria 1b states: "It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." (emphasis added)

This one opinion, from one source, is not a major detail, let alone a "fact". This general biography should only deal with established facts as supported by the greater majority of reliable sources. Once again, the Bill of Rights section does not cover each and every Amendment, and mulling over the 2nd Amendment with this fuzzy idea would only invoke due weight issues involving one fringe opinion from one source. This discussion really needs to be hacked out in a different forum, and if and when it can be considered a "major detail", the idea should be mentioned in the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights article or elsewhere, as again, the Bill of Rights section doesn't mull over the finer aspects of each and every Amendment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is neither new, nor WP:FRINGE, but all I was suggesting was removing that characterisation of the proposed amendments. I don't think there is a need to go into more detail about them since they have their own articles, but that being the case, this article requires careful wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What specifically do you want removed? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. You want to remove the "protecting individual liberties" part. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that part can be reworded. Madison sought a moderate approach to the Bill of Rights. He did not want to weaken the Constitution, but he wanted people to have a bill of rights. This is Ketcham's (1990) James Madison book statement: "Madison sought to prevent broad construction of some powers of Congress from encroaching on the rights of the people." p. 290. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the sentence using the term "rights of the people" instead of "individual liberties". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been edited and reworded better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been rewritten by Cmguy for the request by Hawkeye and Gog the Mild; let me know if that looks ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence was also modified by Randy Kyrn. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also added the word "broad" as in "broad actions of Congress" which is what Madison wanted to prevent, for example, Congress establishing a state religion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Ling

edit
  • I am not sure how many details we care about these days. Listing all the warnings for the Bibliography and References sections by hand would take like an hour, and it might be wasted time. So how about I do a count, and then someone can tell me which ones we care about?
    • P/PP error? 2 instances
  • I've already found these two; for the other ones, it might be nice if you could separate the ones that are essential to FA status, and those that are optional. For example, backup archive sources are optional. All the corrections need for FAC should be addressed at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"p." or "pp." should be correct in all cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.) 13 instances. [Some of these may be in Further Reading]
Either all books should have identifiers - ISBNs, or OCLCs in their absence - or none should. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing archive link 33 instances
Optional in each case. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; 4 instances
All books should have identifiers - ISBNs, or OCLCs in their absence - or none should. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (46 with; 7 without);
All books should have place of publication. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year= 2 instances
As above, all books should have an identifier. (In very rare cases, usually foreign language works) they will not be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? 3 instances
Needed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's all. Maybe I should write a little Python thingie to spit out details quickly. § Lingzhi (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ErnestKrause: I've been informed that identifiers (issn etc.) are not necessary for news articles or news publications. I also think you could safely ignore anything in the Further Reading section, though a super-tidy person might fix those too. I think other items are on a case-by-case basis. § Lingzhi (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ling, thanks for your comments. I'm likely to continue to look at things on a case by case basis as far as the future editing of this article. (All the isbn's for books should now be in the bibliography). Are there further edits which you would like to see in the article in order for this nomination to get your support? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allott, Philip (Winter 2003). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Engelman, Fred L. (December 1960). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
  • Guyatt, Nicholas (June 6, 2019). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John (1992). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (14 with; 1 without);
  • Ketcham, Ralph (2002). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Mendelsohn, Joyce (1995). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Skidmore, Max J. (2004). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (39 with; 2 without);
  • Smelser, Marshall (1968). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (39 with; 3 without); Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; AND is this a book chapter?
  • Taylor, Elizabeth Dowling (2012). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (39 with; 4 without)
  • Wills, Garry (2002). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (41 with; 5 without);
Hi Ling, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ling; I'm thinking that it is all caught up now for the comments you've listed below. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books without published location: Isaacson, Walter (2004). Paterson, Thomas; Clifford, J. Garry; Maddock, Shane J. (January 1, 2014), Smelser, Marshall (1968).Taylor, Alan (2002).Stewart, David (2007).
  • MIssing ISBN: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, Edwards, David L. (1983) [in further reading,so...] National Capital Planning Commission (2012).
  • This is the book used in this article: "Edwards, David L. (1984). Christian England. Volume 3: From the 18th Century to the First World War. London, England: Collins." It does appear with the ISBN in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Federalist Papers 1992, p. xxv. Harv error: link from CITEREFThe_Federalist_Papers1992 doesn't point to any citation. § Lingzhi (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Federalist Papers (1992) references linked to the source. There are three references in the article. What did you want done or changed in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ling. Cmguy777 is stating that he is getting a physical link for this source; are you indicating that your app is giving you an error message, or, that you have manually tried the link and that your server did not connect you to this source. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Take heart, nominators! There have already been 3 or 4 times where I Opposed a FAC, and the FAC coords promoted it! It's becoming like a running gag, except it ain't funny.. I suppose I ain't in MILHIST... But... the refs are in poor shape. Inconsistent.. harvnb, sfn... I mean, "Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (42 with; 69 without)". And 36 instances of "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)", not all of which are ancient sources... And no Harv templates! Yeah, there's no requirement (which is ridiculous for articles this large!), but what that means in practice is, There's no way to know what has been included in the Bibliography, and what hasn't! If this gets promoted (which it will), I'll write a little Python program to double-check if everything in body text is in the refs, and everything in the refs is in body text. Enjoy your gold star. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling. I may be coming late to the party, but I am not seeing the issues you are flagging. Eg I am getting no missing publisher location labels. And while you are free to oppose on any grounds you want, if you do so on grounds which are not requirements for FAC then, surprise, the coordinators may feel that they have to overlook it. Currently the only arguably required lack I am seeing is missing page ranges for Ketchum (2002), and Robinson. @ErnestKrause and Cmguy777: Could you have a look at those last two? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ketcham 2002 is already with page number on footnote #25. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson is also already with page number on footnote #65. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: Both of these are in the Bibliography without page numbers, with the page numbers added in the specific citations upon each use in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good and barring the two page ranges above and a last read through I am ready to promote. Page ranges: if you look at the Sources section of my current FAC, Battle of New Carthage you will see Champion (2015). Which is a chapter in a larger book or anthology. Just like the works you cite by Ketchum and Robinson. In the cite to Champion is "pp. 95–110". This is the page range within the book of the whole work or chapter contributed by Champion. Not the range of the pages I am citing. This is achieved by adding "| pages=95–110" to the template for Champion. Does that make sense? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see what you are saying. In a book by an editor with multiple authors to put the pages of the individual author's work in the sourced book. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page ranges added for Ketcham (2002) and Robinson (1999) to article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) This is the point where, alas, I eat crow. Here is my confession: there was whisky involved in my last post. To make myself look unbearably, inarguably and unspeakably stupid, it appears I was looking at the article for Alexander Hamilton. I strike my Oppose, and add my Support. I apologize to MILHIST and all current FAC coordinators. (Having said that, I was 100% sober & screwed in the past, but that was under a... to some degree... different set of FAC coords. On 2 or 3 occasions, I Opposed for actionable problems, and was ignored... And I was screwed repeatedly on [article name redacted]. I am in fact genuinely and legitimately bitter about those. However, I stand by my opposition to those; I was deeply screwed. The problem here is that this mistake (I apologize) casts a dubious light on prior incidents. Do not fall into the assumption that I was attention-deprived earlier, although it is easy to do so.) That is all. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 13:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
  • Comment on the FAC. Can I draw your attention to the instructions on the FAC talk page that says not to use graphics. This includes things such as {{fixed}} as it slows down the loading of the main FAC page. Just use text to mark something as being done please. The main FAC page says the graphics may be removed if they are used, so you may want to swap them out for text. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Cmguy used them about a dozen or a dozen and a half times at the start of this assessment, and is no longer using those templates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the fixed graphics. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

edit

Let me know when the above comments have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are referring to Ling, or, some other editor? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the comments by Ling – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh; Looks like its ready for your comments when you have some available time for this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Early life and education' section, both "Port Conway" and "prominent planter" links redirect to the same page.
  • There are 12 instances of 'However' in the article, and upon a closer inspection, there are a few ones we can get rid of. You might want to go through it one, just a suggestion.
  • We have a duplicate link to 'American Revolutionary War'. 'Treaty of Paris' has been linked twice in the same section.
  • 'Treaty of Paris' has been linked twice in the same section (American Revolution and Articles of Confederation).
  • " Madison was also a defender of federal veto rights and "pleaded at the Constitutional Convention that the federal government should possess a veto over state laws"." — There should be an inline mention of where this quotation comes from.
  • It indeed is, but what I really meant was if we can specify it the the prose itself, something like: "also a defender of federal veto rights and, according to author/historian ____", pleaded ...""
  • We generally need a non breaking space before the three ellipsis. See MOS:DOTDOTDOT
  • Do we really need 'See also: James Madison as Father of the Constitution' in the 'Bill of Rights' section, when that article has already been used as the "Main article" for a previous section.

Few more to come. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " and Jay wrote the 85 essays that became known as The Federalist Papers in six months, with Madison writing 29 of them." — suggesting to rephrase it a bit, if that is possible.
  • the precise breakdown is 5 for Jay, 29 for Madison, and the rest for Hamilton. I'll adjust the wording which is summarized for Madison's 29 essays in the last sentence of that paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the sentence. Added information, History.com source, and reference Madison authored 29 Federalist Papers in the third paragraph of the section, the last sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as leaders of the Democratic–Republican party" — correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't 'p' in 'party' be capitalized.
  • " he and Jefferson planned for Jefferson's campaign in the" — is there a way to avoid the repetition
  • "adjusted for inflation in 2021" — Do we have more recent approximation? Either way, suggesting to use {{Inflation}} instead.
  • Is there a reason for using the exact area in the image caption, but an approximated version in the article about the Louisiana Purchase?
  • I changed the square kilometers in the article to match the square kilometers in the photo caption. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the version used in the Infobox of the Louisiana Purchase article; that article also has a color coded version of the same map in the main body of the article which you might prefer. Ready to modify to either one if you have a preference. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Justice John Marshall" — we has already mentioned his full name earlier in the article
  • "administered the presidential oath of office to Madison while outgoing President Jefferson watched from a seat close by." — Isn't is common for the outgoing president to attend the successor's inauguration? Is if worth mentioning; just asking though.
  • Same with the inflated values of 2020.
  • Good work with the Slavery section

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check ref 44 for p/pp error.
  • Check ref 78 for sfn

Fine work indeed. Happy to add my support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support on this. Gog the Mild, I'm happy to bring in Kavyansh edits today and tomorrow as needed; The comments from Ling above, however, are being auto-generated by a new app, and its unclear if this app has been approved for use at FAC. In the past automated apps for editing and article creation has been a mixed deal for Wikipedia. If you are approving the use of automated apps by Ling for this FAC, then could you ask him to provide the extended list of corrections he wants in a list which regular editors can service. Use of bots for editing and article creation is normally limited, and let me or Ling know what your decision is on these apparently automated edit requests. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wehwalt

edit

I don't have time to undertake a full review right now and this seems a very well-trodden FAC, but I was struck, regarding Madison's election to Congress in 1789, by "At Henry's behest, the Virginia legislature created congressional districts designed to deny Madison a seat." You might want to check, to the contrary, Hunter, Thomas Rogers (Fall 2011). "The first gerrymander? Patrick Henry, James Madison, James Monroe, and Virginia's 1788 congressional districting". Early American Studies. 9 (3): 781–820. JSTOR 23546676. Possibly the gerrymandering should not be stated as a definite fact in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can call it gerrymandering because the term was created in 1812 by Governor Elbridge Gerry who noticed one Senate district looked like a Salamander. The term did not exist in 1788, although the practice did. I have no issue with the link to Gerrymandering in the United States article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that Hunter concluded that Henry didn't try to gerrymander (to use that word) Madison out of a seat, that the district was compact, surrounded by natural borders such as the mountains, and wasn't overtly hostile to Madison, as it proved both in the congressional election and in the election for presidential electors, in which that district (with slightly different borders) was won by a Federalist each time. Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a form of the wording which you could suggest as an enhancement? The current version follows the Gary Wills account by citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you adapt the wording used in 1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election and mention both opinions. The third paragraph of "Selection of candidates" (one of my FAs from two or three years ago)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Henry was a bitter opponent of Madison, so he "gerrymandered" Orange County with anti-federalists to defeat Madison. But Madison won because he wrote letters and was an excellent campaigner. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section paragraph could be written with clarification, possibly stressing Madison was a good campaigner, not even "gerrymandering" defeated him. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, your FA article does recognize that Henry was an Anti-Federalist who opposed Madison. Cmguy is stating that your source, Rodgers, appears to use the word 'gerrymandering' to apply to situations before the term was invented. Wills argues that Patrick did many things, including this one, to oppose Madison. Do you suggest modifying the gerrymandering sentence? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the paragraph section and added information and references. Hope that works. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources differ as to whether Henry "gerrymandered" the district with Anti-Federalists. Hunter says Henry did not, but it had to do with geography. It does not matter, the effect was the same. My National Archive said that Henry did. I went with that source. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's relevant when the word "gerrymandering" was first used if it is accurate to describe the situation. If this attitude were applied across the board we would have to rename the Armenian genocide article (despite overwhelming usage in RS) because the word "genocide" was only invented in 1943 or 1944. (t · c) buidhe 18:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like Wehwalt has not updated the FA article at 1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election to include the discussion of gerrymandering as a disputed topic for the Madison election. It seems useful to keep it in this Madison article as an example of one aspect of the contention between Henry and Madison regarding their Federalist positions. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure its Wehwalt who is the top editor of that page, and its usually up to the top editors of a Wikipedia page to decide if they want to put something on Talk there. Its really up to Wehwalt to decide whether to start Talk page there or not, its his option. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit
  • This is looking close to done. However, in the bibliography some titles are in title case and some in sentence case. Could you put them all in title case - it doesn't matter how they appeared in the original - and ping me? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild: Thanks for those update edits which you did last night. All of the title cases where converted this morning to consistent format; there were about a dozen of them which are all listed in the edit history for the article. The article should be up to date now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 May 2023 [41].

The Dance of the Twisted Bull

edit
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, Alexander McQueen ditched Givenchy to sell his label to the Gucci Group, who were far more appreciative of his subversive talents. To prove his worth, his first collection under Gucci would need to make some serious profit, so for his nineteenth collection McQueen tamped down on the theatrics and went commercial. The Dance of the Twisted Bull is a searing-hot exploration of bullfighting, flamenco, and sexuality that reportedly drove sales up 400%. ¡Olé! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

edit
  • "Typically for McQueen, the collection included sharp tailoring and historicist elements and emphasized femininity and sexuality." - Should be rephrased at the beginning. "As was typical for McQueen" or "In McQueen's typical fashion the collection ..."
  • Done
  • "The runway show for Twisted Bull was staged on 6 October 2001, during Paris Fashion Week," - don't need those commas
  • Hm. Okay
  • "It was his first collection following his departure from Givenchy" - new paragraph, so replace his with McQueen's
  • Done
  • "Sales for the collection were reportedly strong." - are you opposed to removing reportedly? Because I feel like it adds nothing
  • The only source available for sales figure is the CEO of Gucci, so I'd prefer to stick with "reportedly", as he obviously has an incentive to present a positive view of his brand-new toy
  • "The runway shows for his last two collections before The Dance of the Twisted Bull had both been in this mode: Voss (Spring/Summer 2001) was staged as a voyeuristic look inside a stereotypical insane asylum, while the set dressing for What A Merry-Go-Round (Autumn/Winter 2001) included an actual carousel ride.[5]" - Instead of the colon I think a period is fine. Not a real sticking point but I think what follows is a bit too long for a colon.
  • Mm... I tried it with the period while writing it up originally and I prefer the colon, since I'm declaring something I'm about to explain. It just feels more right, I dunno
  • "Dresses were skintight and some ensembles had cutouts exposing skin." - need a comma after skintight
  • Done
  • "On some runway looks, the breasts of the models were fully exposed.[13][20][15] " - refs should be in ascending order
  • Fixed
  • "The juxtaposition of sexuality with violence and death, and the tension between aggression and fragility, were recurring themes in McQueen's work" - don't think you need these commas
  • Done
  • Few more instances where refs don't go in ascending order - fix those please
  • Oops, these should all be fixed now
  • "An unbylined style brief in The Guardian criticized the appearance of drop crotch pants in the collection, which they wrote were "not a nice look".[37] " - this last bit doesn't work grammatically I don't think... how about "which were described as "not a nice look"?
  • I went for a modified version of this
  • "The staff writer at Vogue España noted that the influence was a series of Spanish cultural clichés, but called the collection a "perfect adaptation" to his brand's new home at Gucci.[38]" - don't need the comma
  • Ok
  • ", but found the "dressmaking flourishes were too showy and indulgent".[40]" - don't need the comma
  • Ok

Prose is very strong here. Nearly happy enough to support on prose, but I would like to do another pass once these comments are addressed. ceranthor 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Ceranthor, how's it looking? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Nice work! ceranthor 22:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Done :)
  • Both File:Flamenca 001.jpg and File:Chaquetilla (cropped).jpg have clear purposes within their section, and each have appropriate WP:ALT text. Both are presented as original work from the editors, and I will WP:assume good faith in these contexts.
  • It might be nice to incorporate an image of Alexander McQueen in the article, but I am not sure if there is space for it as the "Background" section seems too short to support that kind of inclusion. It does not impact my image review in any real way, but I just wanted to throw that out there to get your opinion.
  • Honestly I thought of that way back with Armadillo shoe, but the only image we have of him is the one from the infobox in his article and... I really hate it, lol. He's rubbing his ear and his face is partly turned away and it's just not a flattering shot of the poor man. I tried looking through Flickr but there's nothing at all. I hope it won't bother you too much if I keep not using it.
  • That makes perfect sense to me. I do not think there is really a clear space to put into the article anyway, and I do agree with you that the image is less than ideal. I am the worst with finding free-use images so apologies for not being any help with that. But it is absolutely not a bother at all. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passes my image review. I hope this was helpful. Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a prose review (and I am no longer doing source reviews), but I still wanted to contribute to this FAC in some way, shape, or form so I thought it would be helpful to get the image review out of the way. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Aoba, you're the best :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "McQueen confirmed this was" => "McQueen confirmed that this was"
  • Ok
  • Image caption: "Woman dancing a traditionally-styled flamenco dress" => "Woman dancing in/wearing (both work) a traditionally-styled flamenco dress"
  • Oops, I did drop a word here
  • "The darker colors" - McQueen was British so UK spelling should be used
  • "had sexuality front and center" - same again
  • "emphasized the bodies of the models" - here too :-)
  • "with a red, black, and grey color palette" - and here :-)
  • "was a grungy glamor" - guess ;-)
  • "An unbylined style brief in The Guardian criticized" - one more here
  • "Dana Thomas wrote that it was the collection's "the most poignant look"" => "Dana Thomas wrote that it was the collection's "most poignant look""
  • Stray word fixed
  • " On the other hand, Davidson criticized" - another US spelling
  • "and one had beadwork resembling traditional suspenders" - assuming that by suspenders you mean the things that go over the shoulders to hold up a pair of trousers, in British English we call them braces (could wikilink to add clarity)
  • Hm, okay. I've piped a link.
  • " Although the text of the Victoria & Albert Museum Savage Beauty catalog" => " Although the text of the Victoria & Albert Museum Savage Beauty catalogue"
  • Think that's it - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Putting down a marker... - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice article - I enjoyed this one too, even if I'd never seen any of the pieces (his move from Givenchy to Gucci I knew about, but not what the work was like there). Just one piece of criticism here, which shouldn't take long to sort - it's the first paragraph of the Runway show section:

  • "shown in London for London Fashion Week; Twisted Bull was the first collection he showed in Paris for his own brand, and he showed all his womenswear shows there until his death in 2010.[12][25] The show was sponsored by American Express, who had sponsored several of his previous shows.[26]" That's six uses of "show" (or variants) in those two sentences – and the previous sentence begins "The runway show"!

That's my lot! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett

edit

In addition to the comments below, I made a few copy-edits on my way through that I thought uncontroversial.

  • "It was his first collection following McQueen's departure ..."; I think flipping "his" and "McQueen's" would improve readability here: "It was McQueen's first collection following his departure ..."
  • Yup, done
  • "... it was speculated that he would leave his contract early." Passive voicing here leaves it unclear who was doing the speculating. Critics and journalists? Execs at Givenchy?
  • Revised to "the press speculated"
  • "11 September attacks" struck me as a little weird to the ear. That article has a note at the top which specifies that the month is placed first, "even in places that use the opposite numerical dating convention". That's unsourced, but I think it is an uncontroversial claim.
  • This was someone else's change, but I think you're right and I'm going to tweak it back - it's not so much a date anymore as it is a proper noun
  • Chloe Fox's 2012 book is listed in the bibliography but is otherwise unused.
  • Oop yes I removed the only ref to it.

A nice read. The prose reads naturally even for a fashion-ignorant reader. Tkbrett (✉) 13:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Bibliography: Nothing jumps out at me that would look particularly unreliable. Mind you, I know nothing about fashion.

  • Linked all NYCs, and publishers are all linked now except the two that are redlinks
  • Tzvetkova: I would suggest to cite more precisely the chapter/section on McQueen, pp. 357–359 (oddly enough, by scrolling down and then up, GBooks shows me the whole thing).
  • Done
  • Bethune and Evans in Wilcox (ed.) Not sure it is worth breaking the alphabetical order by author to have these two together, but acceptable.
  • Lee is in Korean? |lang=kr? Also, the website gives a paginated PDF [42] that should allow |p=184 instead of the odd-looking |at=.
  • Fixed page & lang tag.

References section to be looked through soon. —Kusma (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments have been seen to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tzvetkova needs a location (Santa Barbara, California; Denver, Colorado). New Haven, Oxford and some of the New York/New York City still not consistently linked. I'll look at the refs tomorrow (got distracted by writing an article). —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've now removed all location links as the template documentation actually directs locations should be unlinked in most circumstances, and Tzvetkova has a location. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References: Formatting is fine and consistent.

  • No. 25 Bolton p. 23 is in the Introduction, which technically is by Susannah Frankel, not sure if you want to make this citation more precise.
  • Have done now
  • Did a couple of random spotchecks, passed both verification and copyright/paraphrasing.
  • Is there an "issue number" for 50 British Vogue? If not, "March 2015" is certainly a working identifier and I was able to find the table of contents online and verify that the page number is OK.
  • Vogue doesn't seem to use issue numbers insofar as I can tell.

The above are just optional comments, overall the source review is a pass. Nice work. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2023 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2023 [43].

Gordon Steege

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3 of a random/unplanned trilogy following on from Alan Rawlinson and Wilf Arthur: veteran of No. 3 Squadron RAAF in the Middle East theatre of World War II; fighter ace with precisely 8 confirmed victories; rose to command wings in the Pacific; left the air force with the rank of group captain after the war. Are you sensing a pattern here...? Thereafter things diverged: unlike Rawlinson who joined the RAF and Arthur who never resumed a military life, Steege re-joined the RAAF during the Korean War, where he didn't take long to ruffle a few feathers... Oh, one other thing all three have in common -- they've died too recently to qualify for an Australian Dictionary of Biography entry as yet (yes, I've thrown my hat in the ring)... Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I'll get round to this. (That was a most peculiar nomination.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After leaving school". Is it known when this was?
    • Sources don't state -- working backwards from his joining the RAAF in mid-1937 I guess we could assume he left school in 1933 but that's just me...
  • "he worked for three years at the Perpetual Trustee Company." Is it known what he did there?
    • Not till now but your dogged persistence (or insistence?!) has led me to find a source -- done.
  • Link strafing?
    • Done.
  • What does "forcing down" mean?
    • Umbrella term for brevity: three were shot down and two were damaged badly enough they had to crash land.
  • "as the Afrika Korps and a Luftwaffe contingent". Perhaps reverse these? As "a Luftwaffe contingent under General Erwin Rommel" may cause confusion. Or 'as the Afrika Korps under General Erwin Rommel, supported by a Luftwaffe contingent ...' or similar?
    • Let me just double-check the way the sources put it before replying/altering..
  • Wiktionary considers Stuka - upper-case S - to be an English word. If you don't, it should be in a lang template, not just in italics.
  • What's "a fighter sector course"?
    • "fighter sector training course" do it for ya?!
  • "to take charge of No. 73 Wing. The wing's combat units consisted of two P-40 Kittyhawk squadrons and a Supermarine Spitfire squadron." ... "Steege led No. 73 Wing on garrison duty at Los Negros, commencing in March 1944. The wing's combat squadrons—Nos. 76 (Kittyhawks), 77 (Kittyhawks) and 79 (Spitfires)". Seems a little repetitive for consecutive paragraphs.
    • I get you and wasn't entirely happy with it myself. My preference would've been to put the squadron numbers and their aircraft types in the first para and just the squadron numbers in the second, but it's a bit difficult to reconcile exactly which squadrons were there at the start. It was definitely 76 (Kittys) and 79 (Spits) but the third could've been either 77 or 78 (both Kittys) as a bit of unplanned swapping around occurred at the time. I'll have another read and see if I can make it any better...
  • "Steege was appointed the RAAF's director of operations in February. In December 1946 ..." → 'Steege was appointed the RAAF's director of operations in February 1946. In December ...'
    • Actually I don't think we even need 1946 for February as we mention the year shortly before so removed entirely.
  • "Steege had posted in to Japan in May". Possibly just 'to', or 'into'? And why "had" rather than 'was'?
    • The "had" because we'd backtracked a few months in the timeline, but see what you think of my rejig...
I don't understand why you're not sticking to chronological order, but whatever; it works well enough for a time-hopping pargraph.
  • "squadron was relegated". Seems PoV, I assume it is solidly sourced?
    • Well both refs are by official historians (though the works themselves are not official histories) and I think "relegated" reflects what they say about an ostensibly air-to-air combat squadron being used in purely defensive tasks. Apparently there was even talk of evicting the squadron from Kimpo because the Americans only wanted units there that were engaged in offensive roles.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to leave you with the "a Luftwaffe contingent under General Erwin Rommel" thought and support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gog, reworded that along one of the lines you suggested, and re-jigged/clarified the 73 Wing fighter squadron situation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Despite my consistent insistence that I am unversed in the art of Wikipedia images, in this particular case, I believe the article passes the image review. If someone could verify that for me, I would greatly appreciate it, but I do believe that everything appears to be in order. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead, it all looks good to me too. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East
  • "the London Gazette should really be "the London Gazette
    • Done.
  • "Four days later, No. 3 Squadron re-located to Sidi Haneish, Egypt, having retreated 500 miles (800 km) and operated from nine airfields in ten days." Someone is going to refer to the consistency part of WP:NUMBERS, so it may as well be me...
    • Done (good 'ole MOS)... ;-)

More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just four more from the rest:

Korean War
  • "Tait had a daughter": Maybe "Joan" here, as the last Tait mentioned was Frank
  • "Steege himself flew few missions" ->"Steege flew few missions"?
  • "Convair 440 Metropolitains": sp? Wasn't it "Metropolitan"?
    • Tks, all done.
Sources
  • It's not part of FAC and you are under no compunction to do anything, but if you add |ref=none to your sources, then those of us with a script installed won't see an error message. No probs if you don't though!
    • Not a prob, done.

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • No concerns with the prose.
  • Spot-checked the lede and infobox and the information is cited in the article.
  • Suggest archiving the refs
    • Heh, I find the archiving bot a bit all-or-nothing but you're right, on balance it's a good idea, especially as the beloved Australian government sites make a habit of rejigging their systems every few years -- will do.
  • Suggest wikilinking ref 58 to The Canberra Times
    • Nice spotting, I think I had an earlier ref to that paper where I linked but then replaced it with another -- will do.

Those are my thoughts. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for stopping by, Z1720! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I am fairly clueless about military history, especially Australian. But this FAC has gone a bit too long without movement, so I'll try my hand at a source review. Going through the formatting of the references section first.

  • Chisholm: could link Who's Who in Australia, reliability probably OK
    • Done.
  • Coulthard-Clark: PDF link is convenient, but are you sure you're not linking to a copyvio? Same for Garrisson and Stephens (x2)
    • The original links archived by the Wayback Machine are from the RAAF's Air Power Development Centre (or Air and Space Power Centre as it is now); they've always been freely available.
      • Coulthard-Clark at least is copyrighted by the RAAF, so they probably have permission to distribute the book. I don't know whether the fact that they no longer distribute the book on their website should tell us anything, but I'll leave this be.
  • A mix of ISBN10 and ISBN13, although only Hurst really needs to be ISBN13 (others probably have an ISBN10).
    • My aim is always to use the ISBN format as pertains to the edition I've used in the article, I've double-checked I'm following that rule.
  • Steege ref would look nicer (IMHO) with |interviewer-last= and |interviewer-first= instead of |others=. Suggest to link to AWM website instead of the Amazon AWS direct link to the PDF as there is little to no bibliographic information (and no audio files) on Amazon AWS. Do the "parts" of the audio given at the AWM website just correspond to the cassette sides in order?
    • Yes, the reason I went for the "other" parameter instead of the "interviewer" parameter is that when you use the latter you get "Interviewed by" right after "(Interview)", which looks superfluous. As to the link, I debated that myself but felt the PDF was more useful given any quote I use can be searched for directly and the "parts" I cite (e.g. "Cassette 1/Side A") are labelled as such in the transcript.
      • The PDF is linked directly from the AWM website. The direct Amazon AWS link just looks like a big flashing "unreliable source" sign. What you could do is cite the interview to the AWM website (which has all the detail one would like) and add a separate link (maybe called "transcript") after the citation template. You can't do that using the template because it doesn't have a |transcript-url= parameter, unlike {{Cite AV media}}. Don't ask me why, ask WT:CS1.
  • Location information sometimes includes Australian state/territory and sometimes doesn't (Melbourne and Canberra).
    • For capital cites (including variations like North Sydney and South Melbourne) or well-known locations like Oxford I omit the state.
      • OK.
  • "Grub Street" looked odd, but I checked that this is indeed the name of the publisher.

Will sleep now and continue tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reliability issues: the Llewellyn interview shouldn't be used in wikivoice, but as far as I can see, it is either attributed in-text or augmented with an additional source; is this correct?
    • Yes, I'm using for quotes or paraphrased recollections labelled as such, or prosaic information augmented by a third-party source.
  • The Harasser (ref 69) is essentially a newsletter; is there any better bibliographic information that would make it easier/possible to find? I couldn't find it in catalogue of the National Library of Australia, so I am not convinced this is a great source.
    • I agree with you but unfortunately I can find no other source mentioning him becoming patron and I think it's acceptable for an organisation to speak about itself reliability-wise. If you feel strongly about it I can remove.
      • If you can't find a good way to tell future researchers how to find the newsletter in a library or archive, then this should be removed.
  • Formatting of references appears consistent.
  • The many PDF + archive links in the Reference section look like a distraction at first glance, but actually link to different PDFs that contain the pages in question, so they are perfectly fine.

That's all. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Kusma. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies above, mostly the interview link and the Harasser are still causing me slight concern. —Kusma (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ack/tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the fixes, this source review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2023 [44].

Battle of Bronkhorstspruit

edit
Nominator(s): Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first conflict of the First Boer War was a one-sided affair that can barely be termed a battle in terms of the contest. A blasé British commander did not consider the Boers to be able to present a threat to the men of the British Army, and was resoundingly defeated in around 15 minutes. The battle was a taste of what was to come over the following couple of months; a series of humbling defeats for the British.

This has undergone a Good article review followed by an A-class review from WP:MILHIST. It's been a while since I've nominated here, but I've been back reviewing for a few months, so I'm pretty happy that this should be there or thereabouts. As always, all input is welcome. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

I don't care that much. It doesn't seem helpful and is something of an Easter egg - I was expecting something on the Dutch as an ethnic group.
Removed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Transvaal in 1877. The last of these annexations occurred even though Britain had previously recognised the independence of the Boer South African Republic in that region." Could you make the connection for a reader? Was Transvaal part of the BSAR?
It's ok. But you have missed the last question. "The Transvaal" still appears out of the blue.
I've moved "an area the British called the Transvaal" a couple of sentences later to hopefully make it clearer. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Transvaal" or "Transvaal"?
If you are going to use the same word to mean two different things - not something I recommend - you need to make this really clear for a reader.
  • "and the large number of wagons". The number of wagons has just been specified, so suggest deleting 'large number of'.
  • "24 days after receiving the order to return, Anstruther's column was confronted by the Boers. After demanding under truce that the British stop their march, which Anstruther refused, the Boers attacked. The British took heavy casualties and surrendered after about 15 minutes".
  • "the elimination of the Zulu and Bapedi threats". Could this be unpacked a little?
  • "a new Liberal Government in London". Why the upper-case G?
    • Who doesn't like capital letters?
  • "William Ewart Gladstone". Do the sources give his full name?
  • First map: How does one identify what is Transvaal and what Natal?
By 'eck lad, tha's reet, but it ain't 'alf difficult to spot. Any chance you could find someone who knows their way around maps to colour code the two?
I think paraphrasing to "drive" would be an improvement.
Trimmed to "..to drive the wagons and look after the oxen." Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The two Boer forces rendezvoused". What two forces?
    • For sake of terminology, the Heidelberg and Middelburg commandos. I guess what you're getting at is that you want this repeating for clarification in the article? Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat? I don't see it at all. I have just reread and still don't. The prose left the Boers with "He left Heidelberg on 18 December and rendezvoused with two other forces en route. They camped halfway between Pretoria and Bronkhorstspruit overnight on 19 December and the next morning planned their attack." So three groups had already joined up; two of them are unnamed. Hang on; got it. Strongly suggest 1. "Laband also says that Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them." ? 'Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them.' and 2. actually say what happened. They were ordered to do something; yes, good - what, if anything did they then do?
Changed 1. as suggested. The answer for two is: they rendezvoused with the other Boer force. I included this in the article, by saying: "The two Boer forces rendezvoused". But seriously, I agree that it is frustrating, but that's all I have from the sources, other than an oblique reference that the Brits actually noticed their horses at a farm on the early morning of the 20th, but thought nothing of it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your comments from my Mercenary War articles come to mind.
You write "Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them." Will the sources stretch to making this 'Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg; a commando from there travelled parallel to the British, but hidden from them' or similar?
I actually read the source carefully, and not only am I happy to do that, I've added a bit more on the above. So we now have: "Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg; a commando from there travelled parallel to the British, but hidden from them, though at one stage British officers noticed an unusually large number of riding horses at a Boer farm, but thought nothing of it." Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a skirmishing line" ? 'a skirmish line'.
  • "Nonetheless, Anstruther replied that". Does nonetheless add anything? Much as I like the word. (Perhaps 'Notwithstanding'?)
  • "and their numbers had grown to 250–300". I am a little puzzles, how had that happened?
    • From the source "From various eye-witness reports it would appear that the main Boer party had not only increased in numbers during the negotiations to about 250-300.." I could expand to some variation of "and more had appeared, swelling their numbers to 250–300." Or include the "eye-witness" part. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it with you. Maybe something like "and they were reinforced to a strength of ..."
My issue with that wording is that my impression is that they were always there or thereabouts, just not visible to the British. How about a simple "..and their visible numbers had grown to.."? Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "While this discussion had been happening, the 250-300 Boers had closed to within 160–220 yards (150–200 m) of the British column"
Sure that works. I've also switched to the wider "200–300" estimate based on all the sources, rather than just Duxbury. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had received five wounds". Why "had"?
  • "Lead: most of their surviving men being captured." I don't see this in the article, which strongly suggests that all of those not killed or wounded surrendered.
    • I suppose technically, they were all captured, but because the sources tend to talk about those who recovered then being taken as prisoners, I wasn't including the wounded as being captured. See Duxbury for example: "He also allowed twenty unwounded men to remain behind to help bury the dead and assist with the wounded. The remainder of the unwounded were taken prisoners." Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that here you are using "technically" as a synonym for 'in fact'? If immediately after the battle all of the Brits were killed or captured, say so.
Okay. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while around 30 of those who had recovered were taken as additional prisoners". So there were others who had recovered who were not taken as prisoners?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looking good. As you guessed - how did you know? - a couple of come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now even more article for the single battle paragraph. :-))
@Gog the Mild: More changes, more responses, but I trimmed the Background section back a touch. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're done and I'll give it another run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Go for it, I think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second look
edit

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Cheers. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A really smooth and informative read. So much so that I shall even overlook the plethora of background information and support. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

Also not a source comment, but "the Boers while the British soldiers were still preparing" seems to be missing a word or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nikkimaria, the word "attacked" seems to have gone missing while I was making changes! Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've split the books off from the others in sub-sections, and ordered the latter alphabetically by title, how is that? Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "In response, Hugh Childers, the Secretary of State for War said" - should that be "In response, Hugh Childers, the Secretary of State for War, said".....? Could move "in response" to after "said" if that results in too many commas
  • "Each town raised its own militia unit, known as a commando," - already mentioned above, so surely the wikilink should be there.....?
  • "The South African historian Felix Machanik said that although common wisdom held that the British had the superior firearms and firepower," => "The South African historian Felix Machanik said that, although common wisdom held that the British had the superior firearms and firepower,"
  • "The two Boer forces rendezvoused during the morning of the 20th near the and waited for the British column" - there's definitely a word missing in there
    • Took me a while, but I worked out what happened here. I was going to mentioned it was near the Honde River, but as it isn't the better known Honde River, I took it out as I was worried it would be more confusing than beneficial. Apparently, I forgot to take out the critical words around it. Removed "near the". Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The messenger, who spoke English, presented Anstruther with a letter from the Boer leaders in Heidelberg, instructing him to "stop where you are", and that any further movement" - if the messenger said the bit about movement then it should be "The messenger, who spoke English, presented Anstruther with a letter from the Boer leaders in Heidelberg, instructing him to "stop where you are", and stated that any further movement". If the letter mentioned it then it should be "The messenger, who spoke English, presented Anstruther with a letter from the Boer leaders in Heidelberg, instructing him to "stop where you are" and stating that any further movement"
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

edit

Thanks for reviewing my Damen article, I also have an FAC peer review going for Ministerial by-election, if that's of interest to the Brits here.

A few comments starting out:

  • despite repeated calls from administrators for the federalisation of the southern African states links merely to federalism; would this have entailed the coerced merger of the Transvaal republics into a federation with British holdings? If so, this might be well to explain.
  • By the end of 1879 British defeats of the Zulu and Bapedi, both of which had previously raided in the region, had removed any tolerance that the majority of the Boer population may have had for the protective presence of British troops and administrators in the Transvaal. Wouldn't the Boers have supported anti-Zulu measures? Or was "British defeats by the Zulu and Bapedi" meant?
  • A few refnums need to be swapped.

Otherwise good work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Thanks for the review, replies above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support from me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaxnaCarta

edit

I've reviewed all feedback provided by other editors. It appears that all concerns have been promptly and properly addressed by the nominator. Looking at the article itself, this appears to be very well written. As someone without any background knowledge of the subject matter, this article comes across as engaging and comprehensive. It flows well and appears of a high standard. It is written from a neutral perspective, is well structured, and uses a consistent referencing style throughout. The length strikes a balance between covering the subject sufficiently and yet summarising the content and being digestible to the reader. I therefore support the article being promoted.MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2023 [45].

Battle of Zama

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal! Elephants! Scipio Africanus! Numidian cavalry! Two great generals at the top of their form fight it out for the fate of empires. Yes, it's yet another battle from the Punic Wars. With added elephant dung. But it was decisive. [Plot spoiler] Hannibal was finally beaten. I have had an eye on this one for some time and have been working up to it. It went through a rigorous GAN from Harrias last week and I now offer it up for comments and queries here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • It strikes me that I completely forgot to bring up the length of the lead at the GAN. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that most FAs "have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 15 sentences, or about 300 words total." This lead is double that. I appreciate that it is still four paragraphs, but those middle two paragraphs are chunky. In the interest of me ripping the heart out of your prose, how do you fancy trimming it down a bit? Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just can't get decent reviewers these days. Trimmed. While still four paragraphs, two are relatively slight and only one can, I think, still be described as "chunky". Even that has been slightly slimmed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chunky one now trimmed back further. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely getting better. Could I tempt you into a little more?
Both commanders felt a need to commit to a battle, so when the Carthaginian army marched inland to confront the Romans a battle shortly ensued. This opened with a charge by the Carthaginian elephants. These were repulsed, with some retreating through the Carthaginian cavalry on each wing and disorganising them. The Roman cavalry units on each wing both took advantage to charge their counterparts, rout them and pursue them off the battlefield. The two armies' close-order infantry were each deployed in three lines. The first twofront lines engaged each other and after a hard-fought combat the Carthaginians were routed. The second Carthaginian line, fighting "fanatically and in an extraordinary manner"[according to whom?], then assaulted the Roman first line, inflicting further heavy losses and pushing it back. After the Romans committed the troops of their second line the Carthaginians were forced to withdraw. There was a pause, during which the Romans thinned and extended their line, to match that of the Carthaginians. These two lines charged each other, according to Polybius "with the greatest fire and fury"[citation needed]. The fight continued for some time, with neither side gaining the advantage. The Roman cavalry then returned to the battlefield and charged the Carthaginian line in the rear, routing and destroying it.
Yeah, I don't reckon I looked at the lead in detail at all during the GA review. My bad. I'd recommend getting rid, or at least para-phrasing, one of the quotes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 23:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some more trimmed per your suggestions. Your suggestions re the cavalry will leave a reader with the clear impression that each side only had one cavalry contingent, which wasn't so. Quotes don't need to be cited in the lead, so long as they are in the main text. They do need to be attributed. (If they're an opinion.) Some further trimming in other paragraphs, Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first two engaged" -> "The front lines engaged" – the reason behind this suggestion is because there might be ambiguity amongst readers as to whether "first two" means two from each army, or just two overall. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The first two lines engaged each other".
Overall, I'm content with the reduction; we've dropped down to around 420 words, which for a longer than average FA, seems about right. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit

I would like to clarify that I am not stalking every one of Gog's FA nominations, but rather I am stalking the FAC candidates page. It just so happens that Gog produces an exceptional amount of work that I have personal interest in; ergo, I am always early to his nominations. Now that that has been said, review to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several duplicate links spotted, but they seem appropriate.
I have removed a couple anyway.
  • I swear, File:Stele des Polybios.jpg is going to haunt my in my dreams. I see it everywhere I go!
You can't get too much of Polybius!
  • ALT for File:Bust of Sulla (loan from Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek) - Glyptothek - Munich - Germany 2017.jpg (slightly) does not match the image.
I keep doing that. Tweaked.
  • Ditto with File:Hannibal Slodtz Louvre MR2093 (cropped2).png
Also fixed.
  • Several of the publications in the Sources section (looking at Bahmanyar and Hoyos in particular) have strange capitalization; upon further inspection, the covers of the publications themselves do not capitzalize words that normally would be. Not sure what to do in this case, but I am happy to leave this matter in the hands of someone more knowledgeable than I.
The MoS lays down a style, regardless of what the works themselves say. (Which can differ between the cover, the title page and the information page.) I have run through and picked up two errors - one of which was Bahmanyar, very eagle eyed.

Review of the article's actual text will follow shortly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...resulted in such a severe defeat for Carthage that it capitulated" For better prose, I suggest replacing "it" with "the city".
But the city didn't capitulate. The state of Carthage did. Happy to consider tweaks if you think this is not clear from context.
I belive it is unclear: I thought you were referring to the city. I would say "the state", or something like that, instead for clarity.
I have avoided the issue by using "the Carthaginians".
  • In your previous FAs, Iberia was linked in the lead and accompanied by the brief explanation "(modern Spain and Portugal)". Why is that not the case here?
Sloppiness? Fixed.
Umm. I don't want to go into too much detail about someone who was dead before the battle started, but a little more inserted in the article. See what you think. Re the lead, I think its fine - it is clear from context that he was the commander of a Carthaginian army serving in Italy and I think that is enough for the lead.
  • Polybius is not linked in the lead, nor is he introduced.
Oops. Done.
  • "...with neither side gaining the advantage": Is it "the advantage" or "an advantage"?
It's "the".

Those were my comments on the lead. You were doing so great, Gog; I am saddened to find that the lead was sparse in terms of commas. The Carthaginians had exactly five times more elephants than there are commas in the lead! Sigh, let us just move on past this disappointment and take a look at the article's body. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You counted the commas! *shocked* You need to get out more Ull, or stay in more, or something. Get yourself over to the UK and I'll show you how to have a good time. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The American is tempted to take you up on that offer. See you in a decade? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do so. Although you may wish to check with Harrias what I d for fun. Although what they do is even more gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources: Overall a wonderful section. There is not a lot to say about it.

  • Hoyos accuses Appian of bizarre invention in his account of Zama, Michael Taylor states that it is "idiosyncratic": Who is Michael Taylor? Also, I think that comma should be replaced with a semicolon, or something to that effect.
Comma: I disagree, but it would mean one less comma, so pouf! Introduction: I don't think it helps a reader to put modern historian in front of each and every one of them. I say "Modern historians usually" at the start of the section where several views are mentioned and I don't think a reader will have difficulty working out who is being referred to.
I take your point. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • consul is not linked at first mention in the body.
Corrected.
  • "despite not meeting the age requirement" I believe at an earlier FAC, I pointed out that stating Scipio's age at this time could be helpful; it was implemented in the article? Can we have that again here?
We can.
  • "...while still in Spain..." Spain as in the modern country? Or as in the Iberian Peninsula?
Argh. Changed to Iberia.
I'm a slow learner, but I get there.

Looks like that is all from me. Another wonderful effort. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Unlimitedlead. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this nomination, then. Great work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9

edit

Hi, just one comment: do we have a source for File:Mohammad adil rais-battle of zama-1.PNG? Best, a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. We do now. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Problem solved for me ✅ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a455bcd9 (Antoine). Do you fancy doing the full image review? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guide "How to do image review?" somewhere by any chance? :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates#Media. When I do them my basic checklist is "appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted". If you like, once you have done it you can ask someone else to look it over to confirm, or otherwise, your judgement. I imagine Harrias would be willing as they have already looked at the images at GAN. And if you feel the need, do ask questions. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a try, following your basic checklist :)
  • File:Stele des Polybios.jpg: Ideally a photo with a better resolution would be better, but we don't have one. The Commons description says "relief stele of Kleitor supposedely depicting the Achaean statesman and historian Polybius", so should we include this in the caption? Also, for consistency with Scipio and Hannibal we could add the date.
Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. The HQ RSs accept it as a representation of Polybius without qualification, for example this, from De Gruyter, Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Texts in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 2016. Usually I only put a date in when they are not - at least roughly - contemporary. On which note I am not sure how a date slipped into the Scipio caption, but it is now removed. Thanks for picking up the discrepancy.
Its accurate enough. There are plenty of similar images of Numidian cavalry, but they are all copyright, which is why I have had to go back to 1891, although from an RS - Theodore Ayrault Dodge. There are plenty of more modern - non-PD - images agreeing with Dodge's concept. Eg [46]. (Yes, most of these are not RS, but I offer them to make the general point.)
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a455bcd9 (Antoine), many apologies for taking so long to get back to you on your straight forward points - both RL and Wikipedia have been a bit crazy. Anyway, many thanks for your review and I have finally addressed your points. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. Looks good to me! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

Very little from me. These are the only points that I noticed, and very minor they are:

  • "Rome stripped Carthage of all of its overseas territories" – do we need the second "of" here? Or in any of the nine later "all of"s? (Though possibly "After Scipio overran all of Carthaginian Iberia" looks more natural with the "of".)
I am going to regret having questioned your counting skills, aren't I. Done.
  • "Despite the Romans being well supplied with siege engines" – without boring everybody to sobs with grammatical niceties about gerunds, I suggest this would be better as "Although the Romans were well supplied ..."
Grammatical! You want grammaticaal? I usually charge extra for that. Done.
  • "Scipio lined them one behind the other" – reads a little oddly to me: perhaps "one behind another"?
Rephrased as "Scipio arranged a principes maniple directly behind each maniple of hastati."
  • "Javelinmen" – as discussed at the FAC for the Battle of the Trebbia, the word is hyphenated by the OED and Chambers.
Hyphen added.
  • "Lazenby describes these skirmishes as "desultry". – I bet he doesn't: the word is "desultory"
"Desultry: boring, staid, not sexually attractive". What's your problem?
  • "Carthage appealed to Rome, which always backed their Numidian ally" – we seem to switch from singular to plural here. Possibly "backed its"?
Whoops. Done.
  • "These elephants ...should not be confused with the larger African bush elephant" – I'm still not likely to confuse anything with an African bush elephant and I still think "should not be confused" has a touch of WP:EDITORIAL about it.
Tweaked.
  • "Masinissa also married Syphax's wife, Sophonisba, Hasdrubal's daughter. Syphax was taken as a prisoner to Italy, where he died." – did he marry her while Syphax was still alive? Perhaps monogamy was not a requirement at the time.
He did. Indeed, think Sabine women. ("youthful and beautiful"; "as irresistible a charmer as Helen or Cleoptra"; "so rekindled his earlier passions".) I mean, what is the point of being a king if you have to stick to the rules?
I seldom think Sabine women – not my area of expertise – but thank you for clarifying. Tim riley talk 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the adoptive grandson of Publius Scipio" – I think the old boy was an adoptive grandfather, but Scipio Aemilianus was his adopted grandson.
Oh dear. Fixed.

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you Mr riley. I realise that these sword and sandal epics don't match your favourite chivalrous charmers, so I appreciate your plugging away at them regardless. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My privilege and pleasure! If so minded, dear boy, you may return the compliment by looking in at the peer review of the article on John Galsworthy, which I'm hoping to bring to FAC in the not-too-distant. – Tim riley talk 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgetful of me (old, Master Shallow!). I hasten to complete my review with a support. The article is a splendid read, seems neutral and judiciously proportioned, has excellent pictures and appears well and widely sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view.
As a matter of general interest, what was the last article you brought to FAC in which nobody was killed? Tim riley talk 16:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I have bad news for you: no one gets out of here alive. Try to bear up. I have submitted the odd nomination where the body count was only in the hundreds. Although I can't remember when. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken 53 articles to FA, jointly or severally, and as far as I can recall we have managed to get through without killing anyone. But I suppose we must all accustom ourselves to your liberal scattering of corpses. And it must be admitted that your battle (I mistyped as "ballet" before correcting myself) articles are superb. Tim riley talk 17:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Technically no one died because of the Truce of Calais! It reduced the tempo of the Hundred Years' War but "did not stop ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and Brittany." Of course, the truce only happened because of the Black Death and its immediate after effects - which killed an estimated 62.5% of the population of England. And a third of the population of the world. And Treaty of Guînes. That's two. Out of 60; 62 by the time this one is promoted, assuming that I can con the coordinators into thinking that it meets the criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good! One out of 62 with no bloodshed! Tim riley talk 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

edit

Carthage expanded its territory in Iberia, (modern Spain and Portugal) from 236 BC - should the comma behind the gloss?

It shouldn't be there at all. Thanks.
  • Scipio and Carthage entered into peace negotiations -- this was already mentioned.
Whoops. Fixed.
  • The Carthaginian senate recalled both Hannibal and Mago from Italy -- again, we had a very similar sentence already.
True again. Also expunged.
  • those which could fled, avoiding - not sure here; does it need to be "avoided" rather than "avoiding" and without the comma?
Nope, it reads fine to me. You sure? I could always just rewrite it.
  • Maybe add a sentence on Scipio's war preparations, since this seems to be a gap in the article. We learned that he was allowed to built an army, and the next thing we learned is that he set over to Africa. I was wondering to what degree this was actually backed by the senate. But yes, this is all not really pertinent to this article, which is on this particular battle, so not sure if anything should be added.
LOL! I mean, actual, real LOL. In a pre-FAC going over, mostly but not exclusively, at GAN, Harrias and others persuaded me to take an axe to what I originally had as background, including specific info on the points you raise. (Eg, see the Prelude section of Battle of Utica (203 BC).) Harrias feels strongly about this; they take a bare bones approach to anything not closely focused on the article title. (See also here.) So, given that they have supported the article as is, and that you don't seem to view this as a deal breaker, I'll invite their opinion before doing anything. Similarly AirshipJungleman29. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Jens, much appreciated. Your points all addressed, with one awaiting further input before actioning, or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Jens, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Johnbod

edit

Nominator comment

edit

Unfortunately I am going to be away from the internet for several days. I am aware that I have an open review above. Hopefully A455bcd9 and @FAC coordinators: will bear with me.

PS Johnbod, I am not sure that I understand your comment. Is it actionable? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
!!! Easier to do than explain, apperently, so I've done it. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so impressive, but possibly not to scale.
Meh. Some eye-candy is nice, but most of the images are much later and imagine some sort of top-heavy elephant and castle or howdah arrangement, like a mobile fortification. But the elephants at Zama were smaller and less well trained, and probably only had the driver/mahout and possibly one or two others armed with javelins. Like this (right).

If we want more images, I'd like some better indicative diagrams of the battle as it evolved, not just the rather enigmatic and indistinct initial positions (eg. 1. Punic elephants and cavalry chased off, 2. Roman first and second line defeat their opponents, then 3. both lines extended to match each other, before 4. the Roman cavalry returned to attack the Carthaginian rear).

And when you've done that, also a moon on a stick, please. Theramin (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Shetland elephant! There are many diagrams on Commons, and plenty of room in the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Theramin. The images you have inserted actively mislead readers as to what the battle looked like. As well as the points mentioned above, just as a sample neither army included African elephants, used pikes or wore 16th-century armour. I could draw a phantasmagorical image and label it "Battle of Zama"; it would still just be misleading eye candy. So I have removed these two. From all the of imaginings of the battle on Commons I have not seen any which are accurate, but would be delighted to be surprised. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • This is my second source review, so any advice is welcome
  • Looking at this version
  • Please standardise "John Wiley" and "John Wiley & Sons"
Whoops. Done
  • "Taylor, Michael J. (2019). "Reconstructing the Battle of Zama". Forthcoming in Classical Journal. " - doesn't need "forthcoming in"
Ok.
  • most publishers are not wikilinked, a few are eg Routledge and Institute of Classical Studies/Oxford University Press, please standardise one way or other
Standardised.
  • "Les Scipions. Famille et pouvoir à Rome à l'époque républicaine" needs a translation
Done.
  • in Sabin, Philip (1996). "The Mechanics of Battle in the Second Punic War". Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement. 67 (67): 59–79. - somehow there's 2x67
Bleh! One removed.
  • seems like you are using pp for books and not for journals, just thought I'd flag it but I guess you are being consistent
That's not me, that's the template. I assume it has its reasons.
So he can - done.
  • Walbank, F. W. (1990). Polybius. Vol. 1. - I think the title of this one is just Polybius
Nice spot! Amended.
  • Sidwell, Keith C.; Jones, Peter V. (1998). The World of Rome: an Introduction to Roman Culture. - suggest "An"
Done.
  • Journals eg the JSTOR ones need |url-access=subscription
The template documentation suggests that if JSTOR's access is indicated, then "|jstor-access=free" should be used, so I have added that where appropriate. In the one case where I give the url of a non-JSTOR lournal article I have added "|url-access=subscription".
From Template:Cite_journal#Subscription_or_registration_required: "subscription: the source is only accessible via a paid subscription with the provider of the source" I'm taking JSTOR as paywalled, since if I click for example on https://www.jstor.org/stable/43767904 then I get "Login in through your school or library". So then I think it should be |url-access=subscription. Right now Rawlings has an open padlock and a closed padlock by the way. Hope that makes some sort of sense! Mujinga (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reluctantly attempted to do what you requested, but can't. For the sound reason that I haven't given urls, so can't specify the access level of them. Template:Cite journal states - a little below the bit you quote - "Links inserted by named identifiers are presumed to lie behind a paywall or registration barrier – exceptions listed below" where jstor is one of the exceptions and the only parameter allowed for its access level is "free". (Possibly because one can access using Wikipedia as one's "institution", I wouldn't know. But that's the way the template is set up.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I see, thanks for explaining that. So then it's just Rawlings that needs editing, since right now it has an open and a closed padlock and in fact it needs neither, since "Links inserted by named identifiers are presumed to lie behind a paywall". Mujinga (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry Mujinga, I got over focused. Rawlings fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great all done Mujinga (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs are mostly title case but not for example Hoyos, Dexter (2003). Hannibal's Dynasty: Power and politics in the Western Mediterranean
Oops. Thank you. Fixed.
  • "I ritratti di 'Mario' e 'Silla' a Monaco e il sepolcro degli Scipioni". needs an english translation
Added.
  • not sure if it is consistent to have the two ISSNS
    • for Coarelli this is the article link
    • for Rawlings the JSTOR link is fine
I am not convinced about that, but done.
  • Carthage Must Be Destroyed - full title is Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization
Expanded.
  • Liddell Hart, B. H. (1976). A Greater Than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus. - title is Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon
Not the work I consulted. See [47].
I stand corrected, thanks Mujinga (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Curry you have 2012 but not January/February 2012, which is not consistent with eg Edwards, Jacob (2001). "The Irony of Hannibal's Elephants". Latomus. 60 (October–December): 900–905 Mujinga (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Archaeology usually refers to its editions by numbers. I have changed it, so it is now consistent, but I am not sure it is correct.
Wonderful stuff. Many thanks Mujinga. Some very insightful stuff there. I could do with you checking all of my articles' sources pre-FAC - this is not a joke. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words - the only thing still open before a pass is the JSTOR query. Mujinga (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on JSTOR Mujinga (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review pass, happy to revisit if any other sources are added Mujinga (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka

edit
  • Why "Primary sources" not simply "Sources"?
Because the section only addresses the primary sources and not the secondary. As is usual in Wikipedia articles, there is no specific reference to the secondary sources and I think that retitling the section "Sources" would probably mislead a reader into thinking that the section addressed all relevant sources.
  • Could you mention coins, inscriptions, and archaeological sources?
I already do. Last sentence of "Primary sources".
Yes I know. Could you specifically refer to some of them at least in a footnote? Or describe their relevance. For the time being, the list is not specific in context: these are the sources of Ancient history everywhere.
That is what it is meant to be. I have added an example.
I have removed the last four words.
  • One of Carthage's allies in Iberia was the Numidian prince Masinissa... He was Carthage's northern Afican ally who fought in Iberia. Could we describe the USA as the UK's ally in Europe during WWI and WWII just because troops from the USA fought in Europe?
Yes, we might. (Although one might also describe the UK as one of the US's allies in Europe, especially during the latter parts of WII.) So 'One of the British allies in Italy in 1944 was the Polish II Corps under Anders.' And so on with infinite examples and tweaks of phraseology.
  • Link Roman consul when consul is first mentioned in the main text.
Gah! I am an idiot. Done.
  • Hannibal was still on Italian soil;... We were informed in a previous sentence that (likely) the Pun armies withdrew (to somewhere).
If you are referring to "During the following four years Scipio repeatedly defeated the Carthaginians, driving them out of Iberia in 206 BC." then that refers to driving the Carthaginians out of "Iberia", while this sentence refers to the presence of Hannibal on "Italian" soil.
No, I was referring to the sentence about the withdrawal of the "survivors" to somewhere after campaigning in Italy for 14 years. :)
  • Why "centuries" instead of centuria?
Because the RSs universally use the English language term.

Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as usual Borsoka for your comments, I appreciate them. All addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The latter were usually Numidians.) Why the brackets? Numidians should be linked when they are first mentioned.
It seems to me a parenthetical point, but brackets removed.
Oops. Good spot. Fixed.
  • Link and introduce Hasdrubal when he is first mentioned.
Done.
  • Carthagian Senate or Carthagian senate? Is "S/senate" the proper term? The article about Ancient Carthage only says that the Adirim was similiar to the Senate of Rome or the Gerousia of Athens.
Good point. Checking the HQ RSs, it is S. The one s has been promoted.
  • Link Cisalpine Gaul or refer to it as northern Italy.
Done
  • Leptis Minor and Hadrumetum are mentioned as modern Lepta and Sousse, respectively, but no other settlement's modern name are mentioned (e.g., Genua, Bruttium).
Lepta and Sousse removed.

Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka and apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this - RL has been pressing. Your comments to date all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka, I feel guilty nudging you after taking a week to respond to your comments, but I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completed the review and did not find further issues. Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Onegreatjoke

edit

Copying this from the talk page comment I made. I don't plan on reviewing this article, this is just a comment.

  • "Hey @Gog the Mild:, is the background too big? I may be overreacting but we've got four paragraphs on the background and four on roman preparations. Then we have a paragraph on an invasion of Africa and then four paragraphs on a bunch of battles before this battle. Then, we have another two paragraphs detailing Hannibal's return and then finally two paragraphs on the prelude to the battle before the article on the battle actually begins. That kind of seems like a little too much background. Though, I would like to hear your opinion on this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
Hi Onegreatjoke. The background was cut down considerably at GAN, perhaps 40% was trimmed, when Harrias reviewed. They are even more of a background minimalist than you, but ended up, I think, broadly content. Personally I would rather expand the "background" material than further reduce it. One FAC reviewer above explicitly asked for additional background material, which I declined - knowing that I was treading a line twixt their and their ilk's view and that of you minimalists. Absent further reviewers opining or comments on narrow and specific parts of the text I think that the weighting is more or less right. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Support. Just one comment: among the several Senates you have one senate, which could do with being tweaked. (I’d do it myself, by I’m immensely lazy). - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat and thanks for both your support and your constructive laziness. Senate blip now clarified. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Gog, I have a few bits since my first run through. Back soon, JennyOz (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally finished. Just a few queries...

  • add dmy and briteng templates?
! Done.

ibox

  • (near modern-day Siliana, Tunisia) - all others just have modern (ie no hyphen day)
"-day" removed.

lede

  • was fought in 202 BC in modern Tunisia - just me maybe but "202 BC in modern Tunisia" reads oddly? in 202 BC in what is modern Tunisia?
You sure, that reads really clunkily to me. I have gone with "what is now northern Tunisia". How's that?

Primary sources

  • the details of the war in modern - is "the war" referring to the Punic Wars or this particular battle?
I am referring back to the first sentence "The main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars" so there should be an s on the end. Now added. Does that help?
  • Hoyos accuses Appian of bizarre invention in - does bizarre invention need quotes?
I could make an argument either way, but would - slightly - prefer a reader to understand that that was precisely a HQ RSs considered and published view.

Background

  • Hannibal led a large Carthaginian army from Iberia, through Gaul - link Gaul
Done.
  • fighting in Iberia from 218 BC - intentional link to people not place?
No. My mistake. Fixed.

Roman preparations

  • There he was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC, despite being aged 31 when the minimum age for the position was 42 - maybe swap "for the position" to 'for the office' to avoid 2x position?
Good thinking - done.
  • its logistical follow up were considerable - I'd say that as a noun it should be hyphenated ie 'follow-up'
Wiktionary allows either.

Fighting in 203 BC

  • Syphax withdrew as far as his capital, Cirta, where - wlink Cirta
Done.

Hannibal's return

  • In 203 Mago marched into - add BC

Initial dispositions

  • They would either be survivors of - They were either survivors of?
Done.
  • This third line is variously estimated at 12,000,[142] 15,000–20,000[133] or 20,000[143][144] strong by modern historians - "strong" hmm written like this those numbers maybe should be hyphenated (MOS:HANGING) to strong? But that'd be awful. Perhaps "The strength of this third line is variously... (and remove strong)
Replaced with "men". Does that work?

Initial charges

  • They were hunted down and killed at leisure. - sounds awfully chaotic for the word "leisure"? Don't know though what to suggest - at will, without restraint, spontaneously?
One can hunt leisurely. But tweaked to "They were subsequently hunted down and killed."

Decision

  • that's definitely Decision not Division?
Yes.
  • by sounding bugles and reformed their line. - does MilHist have a ruling on reform v re-form (form again)?
Wiktionary has as a usage example "The regiment reformed after surviving the first attack."
  • feeding new, fresh men into the fighting - "new" prob not necessary?
Replaced with "less-fatigued".

Notes

  • Note 5 "These elephants were typically about 2.5-metre-high (8 ft) at the shoulder"- I get very confused but is that adjectival? Seems okay to be ...These elephants were typically about 2.5 metres high (8 ft) at the shoulder. Definitely would be adjectival if... 2.5-metre-high (8 ft) shoulders. Trust your decision here.

Citations

  • fn 124 Taylor 2019, p. 317, 317 n. 24. - presume intentional ie content on that page and in its note
Yes. (Nice spot, but I do mean both.)
  • fn 149 SOED 1962, p. 2098. - is page number correct? (worldcat says volume is 1208 pages)
Lol. That is an exceptionally good catch of a typo - should be 1098

Sources

  • Collins, Roger (1998) - tweak alpha order
  • Hau, Lisa (2016) - tweak alpha order
Bleh! Both done.

Misc

  • Goldsworthy and Bagnall are linked in prose but not Champion, Hart nor Sabin
All linked.
  • War elephants - is linked twice beyond lede
Trimmed.

That's my lot, Gog. Ignore anything already addressed, JennyOz (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff. Thank you Jenny. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, (I just made 2 minor tweaks - undo at your pleasure!). Happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial

edit

I'm coming in with the morning milk, I'm afraid, but I've been beaten to it. Several readings have still given me nothing to comment upon that would be especially useful to the article's improvement. I must advise in favour of the promotion of elephant dung also. SN54129 18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fine time to come in, IMO. Thanks for reading through and for the support. Perhaps I should have nominated the elephant dung separately? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: this seems to be progressing nicely. Waiting for JennyOz to do their thing - which has me trembling in my sandals - and while A455bcd9 has yet to come back on the image review, it seems uncontentious. This being so, could I have permission to fire off another nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, dreadful shortage of articles in this area... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What causes you to suspect that my next nomination may be in a similar area?!
Call it a hunch...
Lucky guess! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2023 (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) 12 May 2023 [48].

Angeline Quinto

edit
Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief break from tackling BLPs and focusing on other music related FACs, I've decided to start working on another Filipino singer. Angeline Quinto began her career after winning a reality talent competition around ten years ago. Since then she has released several albums and has recorded material which has been featured as soundtracks of various films and television series in the Philippines (at least 35 combined), earning her the nickname "Queen of Teleserye Theme Songs". She ventured into acting and has received praise and accolades for her work on film and television. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image/media review

edit
I found the existing image from Flickr and it appears to be the only image that is licensed to be uploaded to Commons. None I could find exists elsewhere unfortunately. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Thank you for looking into it. I am the worst at finding these kinds of images so I am sorry for not being much help in providing advice on how to get other free-use images. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it would be helpful to add an audio sample to the "Musical style and themes" subsection? It is not a requirement by any means, and it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum, but it may be helpful to add an audio sample to illustrate something about her musical style that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. I could see justification for a sample to illustrate either her soulful singing style or her vocal range. FAs like Mariah Carey have done this kind of thing. Again, it is just a suggestion though so feel free to say no to this.
I've thought of adding it before but was also hesitant because non-free use should be minimal. Nevertheless, I agree with your suggestion, and felt it would be helpful to include, I have added in the appropriate section for your review/comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the sample. I can understand your hesitancy, and it can be a pain in the neck to upload an audio sample. I have two quick comments about the caption. In this part, (Quinto has been praised for her range), I would clarify who is doing the praising (i.e. critics, fans, etc.) as it is not immediately clear. I would also attribute the "soulful renditions" quote as I would avoid using quotes without direct attribution in the prose. I have made some minor edits to the sample, and feel free to revert any you disagree with, and while working on the two comments above, I would be aware of presenting this information in a concise manner since this is a caption after all. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks for your edits. I have revised the first part of the caption completely so that it is consistent with what is in the prose. Let me know if the changes look ok. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks appropriate to me. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. This FAC passes my image review as everything is appropriate with the current image, but I do have questions on whether other images or even an audio sample would be beneficial to include in this article. However, that does not hold back my image review. If other things are added, let me know so I can review them. Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a full prose review, but I still wanted to contribute to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47 for always being so helpful with your reviews whether image/media or prose. They are very much appreciated. I have addressed your points above. Let me know if you have additional comments with the change(s) I did/added. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very prompt responses. I have a few comments about the audio caption, and once they have been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "It was supported by the single "Patuloy Ang Pangarap", which earned Quinto an Aliw Award for Best New Artist." Did the single win the award, the album or the artist?
I have revised the lead to avoid the ambiguity. I believe the artist themselves is credited for the award for their body of work, which in this case is the album. (hopefully I made sense)
  • "She followed this by playing the lead in the drama series Kahit Konting Pagtingin (2013)," -> "She then played the lead in" to reduce the number of words.
Done
  • "She has discussed her family background publicly; she was initially resentful at being adopted during her early childhood. She later shared a close bond with her adoptive mother, who died in 2020, and credited her as instrumental to her achievements." I don't think this first part of the sentence is necessary. I suggest: "She was initially resentful at being adopted during her early childhood, but later shared a close bond with her adoptive mother and credited her as instrumental to her achievements."
Done as suggested.
  • "Quinto developed an interest in music and began singing at age six." If she is singing, she is probably interested in music so I suggest, "Quinto began singing at age six."
Done
  • "and got involved with the wrong crowd," This is an MOS:IDIOM; I suggest that this be made more specific.
Revised, hopefully "negatively influenced by her peers" is a much clearer and more specific explanation.
  • "Quinto went on to win the competition on February 20, 2011 at the Ynares Center in Antipolo." -> "Quinto won the competition on February 20, 2011, at the Ynares Center in Antipolo." To reduce the number of word and added a comma after the year per MOS:DATECOMMA.
Done
  • "In 2013, Quinto took on a starring role in the romantic comedy series Kahit Konting Pagtingin." -> "In 2013, Quinto starred in the romantic comedy series Kahit Konting Pagtingin." To reduce the number of words
Done
  • "From October 29, 2021 to February 19, 2022," Comma after 2021 per MOS:DATECOMMA.
Done
  • "Alwin Ignacio writing for the Manila Standard appreciated Quinto's artistic growth and commended the "emotional commitment and truthfulness" of her performances." Add commas after Ignacio and Standard.
Added
  • "Quinto will next star alongside Alex Gonzaga in the comedy film Single Bells, which will premiere at the Metro Manila Summer Film Festival in April 2023." Remove "next" per MOS:CURRENT
Removed
  • "Quinto said of the comparison, "She has been my idol for so long, of course, it would show in my performance. But I always try to do things with my own touch. I am a performer, I have my own style. Maybe because people also associate me with my idol, so that is what they see. -> The closing quotation mark is missing.
Added missing quotation mark.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up this review Z1720. I have actioned all comments above. Do let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support Z1720. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB

edit
  • This isn't a necessity as I don't know the rules for BLP articles but would there be any benefit in changing "Angeline Quinto (born November 26, 1989) is a Filipina singer, actress, and television personality. She is known for her vocal range and soulful singing style. " to "Angeline Quinto (born November 26, 1989) is a Filipina actress, television personality, and singer known for her vocal range and soulful singing style."? I imagine there are rules that her most notable career goes first though.
I believe that would be correct per MOS:ROLEBIO
  • Maybe as an alternative: "She is known for her vocal range and soulful singing style. Her music has garnered critical praise for its lyrical content and themes of love, heartbreak, and empowerment." could be changed to "Known for her vocal range and soulful singing style, Quinto's music has garnered critical praise for its lyrical content and themes of love, heartbreak, and empowerment."?
Done as suggested
  • Instead of "2010–2012: Star Power and Born to Love You" is it worth changing it to "2010–2012: Star Power and acting debut" or something similar? As an uninitiated I assumed Born To Love You was another album, I know it's mentioned in the lead but I'd forgotten by this point.
I have changed per your suggestion, as it does make sense since this section covers her acting debut on film and television.
  • You alternate between naming Raquel Velasquez fully and by surname, you should only have to mention her full name on her introduction unless dealing a second person of the same surname.
Done. Full name on first instance and surname in the succeeding mention.
  • There are a lot of short sentences here "In 2020, she began a relationship with former casino dealer Nonrev Daquina.[87][88] In December 2021, the couple was reported to be expecting their first child together.[89] On April 27, 2022, Quinto gave birth to their son.[90] They became engaged in September 2022.[87]" I feel like it could flow better, a suggested alternatve is "Quinto began a relationship with former casino dealer Nonrev Daquina in 2020. Their first child together, a son, was born on April 27, 2022." This is a suggestion, the kid is born so I don't know how much value there is in knowing it was reported in December.
Done as suggested
  • There's a duplicate link at "lwin Ignacio, writing for the Manila Standard"
Removed duplicate link
  • Are there any appropriate portals that can be added to the end of the page?
Added a biography and Philippine portal at the bottom
These are some ideas, BLPs aren't my wheelhouse but these are what stand out to me. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking up this review Darkwarriorblake. I have actioned and provided my responses to your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good job Pseud, I will support based on what I can see, it's a relatively brief article so there wasn't much to comment on. Again as I don't really deal in BLP articles I don't know if there are standards beyond quality, but I think the prose and layout is of a sufficient standard and it is well referenced and archived. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciate your time in providing the review and thank you for your support Darkwarriorblake. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

edit
  • "She was initially resentful at being adopted during her early childhood" - shouldn't we mention that she was adopted before saying she was resentful at it happening?
Tweaked as suggested, so that she is mentioned as being adopted by her grandaunt first. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she contemplated of pursuing " => "she contemplated pursuing "
  • "for the soundtrack the romantic comedy film" => "for the soundtrack of the romantic comedy film"
  • "her patron's fiancée, played by Ahron Villena," => "the fiancée of her patron, played by Ahron Villena,"
  • "but praised the casts' performances" => "but praised the cast's performances"
  • "or its use of certain dialogues" => "or its use of dialogue"
  • "Quinto named several Filipina singers, including Jessa Zaragoza and Jolina Magdangal, as inspirations" => "Quinto also named several other Filipina singers, including Jessa Zaragoza and Jolina Magdangal, as inspirations"
  • "Early in her career, critics have likened" => "Early in her career, critics likened"
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. I have actioned the above. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and support ChrisTheDude Pseud 14 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

Interested in singing, but unfamiliar with her and her work, I'll comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • How about translating the title of her first record? (and that goes also for later titles without an article where we could look up)
Done for song titles without articles
  • "Quinto became the first Filipino artist to record all the songs for a television show soundtrack with Sana Bukas pa ang Kahapon (2014)." - When I read that first, I wasn't aware that the title of the show - I thought a co-performer. Perhaps rephrase. But it may be just me.
It is the title of both the show and the soundtrack, I have tweaked otherwise

Infobox

  • I am used to not list people without article, such as her partner.
Removed

Early

  • "During this time ... She struggled academically" - what time? and what does "academically" mean? ... what age, what school or academy??
Rephrased for clarity so that it is understood it was during high school. The year (2005) is also mentioned in the preceding sentence

2010

  • Please don't expect people to read chronologically: "After five years" means nothing to reader coming from the TOC.
I have added the year at the end of the sentence clarify

2013

  • "She played Aurora Natividad, a waitress who pretends the fiancée of her patron" - what does it mean? She pretended to be engaged to her patron? She pretended to be the other woman?
This is my bad, I typed an incomplete sentence. Should be a waitress who pretends to be the fiancée of her patron (as they pretended to be engaged)

Influences

  • "She noted that Velasquez was an inspiration, primarily on her earlier work, and to whom she had often been compared." - Sorry, the grammar of that sentence makes unclear what she noted.
I have tweaked
  • "also ... also"
Removed one to avoid repetition.

Music

  • any nicer description than "veteran singer"?
I was aiming to use "music icon", but thought it sounded too WP:PUFFERY, so I think veteran singer is much more direct (I think), open to suggestions. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • surprised to read about her writing a song - should that be mentioned in the lead? ... have a subheader?
I thought about adding it in the lead but she has written I think a couple of songs, so I figured it would only be worth mentioned under the musical style section. And since it is a less notable role, I figured it wouldn't be worth adding per MOS:ROLEBIO. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to having to source discographies and filmographies. I wonder if there were reviews that say a bit more precisely what is meant by more creativity and maturity. Other than that, I'm happy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For discographies and filmographies. I believe from a previous FAC review that when such citations are already provided for mentions of albums/films within article prose, they don't need to be cited again in separate "discography" or "filmography" sections as those are just repeating prior text. Past experience tells me that one would only have to provide in-text citations in such sections for things not previously mentioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the reviews, I could not find any additional coverage of reviews, so I only specified which publication and quoted or paraphrased the context of the review, as opposed to stating it as a consensus. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking up this review Gerda Arendt. I have addressed each point above and provided my responses. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction or if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a longer reply, and forgot to save. No time right now to restore, - simply understand and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happens to the best of us, I understand. Thank you very much for your time in reviewing and for your support. Much appreciated Gerda Arendt! Pseud 14 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Source formatting seems consistent and they all have the critical information except for #16. Are news sources and magazines the only ones available? In terms of source reliability, I am a little concerned that the Gulf News column in #71 are often described as "gossip" but otherwise looking over the bylined people I don't see anything problematic. Spot-check upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For Ref#16, I used the media itself (liner notes) to source the number of songs written by Manalo on the album only. I thought it would be a better source than Spotify or Apple Music (subscription based) which also provides information on songwriters or album credits.
  • For Filipino-related FACs I have worked on, I do have heavy reliance on news sources, magazines. But as far as I have checked, there are no scholarly resources available with such information on the subject. The news sources in question I believe are professional and well-circulated sites.
  • For usage of Gulf News, as one of the UAE's leading daily English newspaper, I believe it is generally reliable in its coverage and has editorial oversight. The same would apply to its Entertainment coverage of various public figures. In the article it is is used to source non-controversial content/statements made by the subject. Do let me know if that is sufficient.

Thank you for taking on the source review Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have provided my responses to the points you raised. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does that specific column/author get editorial oversight? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I believe it does. It has an About and History Page and has been in print since 1978 and a digital news provider since 1996. It is owned by Al Nisr Publishing, a subsidiary of Al Tayer Group, one of the biggest holding companies in the Middle East. It also adheres to Journalism and Ethics policies for the work that its staff and contributing writers produce. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was a little unclear here - my concern isn't about the Gulf News citation in general, but specifically the Garcia, Vincent Anthony column. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for clarifying that. Garcia is a contributing writer for several highly regarded UAE publications, including Gulf News per his LinkedIn profile. I believe the column in question wouldn't fall within gossip-y territory as several other publications have also covered the comparisons/similarities between her and Velasquez and is non-controversial or contentious in nature. I believe it would be okay to use a quote as it is an interview and the subject is the direct/primary source. Let me know if the usage is sufficient. Pseud 14 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from NØ

edit
  • "She signed with Star Music and collaborated with songwriter and producer Jonathan Manalo to start recording material for her first effort" - I'd go with "She signed with Star Music and began recording material she wrote with producer Jonathan Manalo for her first effort"
Quinto did not right any material on her debut album, so I believe the suggestion won't work. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviation, (PARI), can be removed from both the lead and the body since it is not used again.
  • "She reinvented her image and style with her succeeding releases, Higher Love (2013) and @LoveAngelineQuinto (2017)" - Second "her" could be removed
  • "She then played the lead in the drama series Kahit Konting Pagtingin (2013), which won her a Golden Screen TV Award" - "She then played the lead in the drama series Kahit Konting Pagtingin (2013), winning a Golden Screen TV Award"
  • "For the next few years, Quinto continued to compete in talent shows on television" - "The next few years, Quinto competed in television talent shows"
  • "In 2005, she made her next appearance in Magandang Tanghali Bayan's Teen Pop Star search and became that season's winner" - "In 2005, she appeared in Magandang Tanghali Bayan's Teen Pop Star search and won the season"
  • "Quinto reunited with longtime collaborator Jonathan Manalo for her third studio album Higher Love" - Comma before album name
  • "In 2002, she joined the talent show Star for a Night, which was hosted by Velasquez and said that she realized her purpose to pursue a musical career" - It might be a good idea to simplify this sentence. How about "In 2002, she joined the talent show Star for a Night, hosted by Velasquez, and said the latter inspired her to pursue a musical career"?
Revised as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure it is appropriate to call Velasquez a "music icon" in Wikipedia voice.
Changed to singer. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earlier sections seem to say Higher Love was released in 2014, but the Musical style and themes section includes 2013 in a bracket as the release year. I don't think the year needs to be included again after the album was already introduced in earlier sections. Same with @LoveAngelineQuinto.
My bad, it is in fact 2014. I've removed the mention of the years in the latter. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royals was already introduced as a "co-headlining concert" in earlier sections so the descriptor can be omitted from here.
  • The Aliw Award for Best New Artist is repeated in both, "Star Power and acting debut" and "Awards and accolades", sections. Since the former section is much bigger, you could remove it from there.
I've tweaked the "awards and accolades" section so it is not repeated. I felt like mentioning a new artist win is integral in the former section. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's it from me.--NØ 10:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the review MaranoFan. I have addressed all points and provided my comments on a few. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (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) 12 May 2023 [49].

2007 World Cup of Pool

edit
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2007 edition of the World Cup of Pool. This is a doubles event played every year. An exciting event that came down to the very last couple of balls. I've only promoted one previous pool event (2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship) so I'd appreciate any comments you might have about this article Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Oh, yeah. They are the same thing (a rack is the same as a frame). I'll fix that. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More commentsSupport from Chris

edit
  • Name of the venue is different in the lead to the infobox and first para of the body
  • "with players taking shots alternatively" - think you mean "alternately". "Alternatively" means something quite different
  • Any reason for italics on alternative breaks?
  • "play alternating shots in scotch doubles style" - no need to link for a second time
  • "played from 25 to 27 September as a race to eight" - earlier you had hyphens in "race-to-[whatever]"
  • "The pair met the Dutch B team; and won six racks" - don't think that semi-colon is needed
  • "The defending champions Filipino pair" - don't think this works grammatically
  • "The other semi-final match was played between China, seeded 8th and the unseeded Japanese team" => "The other semi-final match was played between China, seeded 8th, and the unseeded Japanese team"
  • "The final had a lot of dry breaks, with six in the first 15 racks, having had just ten in the rest of the tournament" => "The final had a lot of dry breaks, with six in the first 15 racks, there having been just ten in the rest of the tournament"
  • "Below is the results" => "Below are the results"
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay ChrisTheDude. I've done the above Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

edit
yeah, sources aren't helpful here, as https://www.azbilliards.com/world-cup-of-pool-team-taiwan-show-their-class/ lists them as "Team Taiwan", whereas http://www.azbilliards.com/tournament/1772-partypoker-world-cup-of-pool-2007/?action=results lists them as at least using the Chinese Taipei flag. I've changed it to "Taiwan" for now, but retained the flag. I know this is a contentious subject, so I'd prefer someone with more understanding make sure I'm not misrepresenting. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review:

  • "Rogers Sportsnet in Canada, Solar Entertainment in the Philippines;" Should this comma be a semi-colon to be consistent with the formatting of this list?
  • "and Videoland in Taiwan." Is this Videoland Television Network? If so, wikilink.
  • "Finland won the lag, but made a dry break in the opening rack, but retained the break throughout the match as they won 9–0." Replace or delete one of the "but"s.
  • Spot-checked the lede and infobox; the information was in the article's body.

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, I've covered the above. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NØ

edit

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, my current FAC could use some comments.--NØ 11:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hadn't seen this. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Shall get to this later today. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- GTG

edit

One image with appropriate licence and working link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

edit
  • Hi Gog the Mild. I know traditionally we don't allow another item before the source review concludes, but I don't have a co-nomination right now (and haven't got any lined up for this purpose). As it looks like all I'm awaiting is a source review, would you mind me doing another solo item? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LV, sorry, but no. Once we start allowing that sort of dospensation we are into thin end of hte wedge/slippery slope territory. (And someone is likely to re-open the why do we allow a second nom before the first is closed anyway issue.) So practice patience, and/or neutrally ask around editors who may wish to do the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you have already, but you may now open a second FAC nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't, I shall do now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

edit
Yep. That's sentence case. All of your other article titles are in title case. See MOS:5. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, can't say I've ever looked at what case the references are in, but I've made this change. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2023 [50].

Sonic the Hedgehog 2

edit
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 1992 Sega Genesis game needs no introduction, but I'll do my best to try: while Sonic the Hedgehog's success proved that Sega could compete with the behemoth that was Nintendo, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 proved that success wasn't a fluke. It established Sonic as a major franchise and made the Blue Blur an industry icon. It wasn't all fun and games behind the scenes, though—development was rife with cultural clashes between the Japanese Sonic Team alumni led by Yuji Naka and Mark Cerny's American Sega Technical Institute staff. Despite considerable reductions in scope, Sonic 2 shipped on time and is still widely considered one of Sonic's best outings.

I began rewriting this article all the way back in 2020 but finally got around to finishing it recently. I believe it's the most comprehensive resource for the game on the internet and it's been a while since Sonic's paid FAC a visit—I hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: added alt text and strengthened the FURs—if it needs more work just let me know. JOEBRO64 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4

edit

This is my first time participating in a featured article review, so please tell me if I seem to have missed anything or if anyone would like clarification on any of my comments. I have not made any major edits to this article, only corrected a typo I found while reading it, and ran it through IA bot. I am a fan of the Sonic franchise, however, and have made edits to other Sonic related articles. That probably doesn't matter, but I figure it doesn't hurt to note.

Overall, I do not see any major issues. The prose is generally well written, the overview is comprehensive, interesting, and well-organized, and the sources all appear to be of high quality. I only have minor trifles concerning some of the writing and context supplied:

  • "Sonic 2 features twice as many unique level tropes..." Not everyone may know what a 'level trope' is, so perhaps word that more clearly. Maybe "level gimmick" or "level feature"?
  • "Cerny was not surprised, as marketing executives controlled what games developers created and did not understand game development." I think this statement needs to be qualified in its context, specifically, what aspect of game development did Cerny believe the executives to not understand. Reading the paragraph surrounding this, it seems the conflict was that Sega management did not understand how much time the game would take? Whatever the case, I think this needs clarification.
    • I've changed it to "Cerny... believed the marketing executives who controlled game development did not understand the process"—let me know if this is better JOEBRO64 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early in development, STI implemented a routine whereby Sonic was hurt if he ran into a wall at full speed, but removed it in later builds." Potentially unclear what "routine" means in this context. Perhaps make it instead say "In early builds, Sonic would take damage if he ran into a wall at full speed, but STI later removed this feature."
  • "Sega of America objected to the name "Miles Prower", so he was given the nickname Tails as a compromise." I personally feel this bit could do with a little extra context as to what about Miles' name was objectionable, if this is known- I assume they believed Americans would not understand or like the pun.
  • "Critics consider it an improvement over the first Sonic the Hedgehog, saying it features greater level diversity and design, better graphics, and quality-of-life improvements" Unfamiliar readers may not know what "quality-of-life" means. I would suggest wikilinking this text to wikt:quality of life to clarify.

These are all minor issues, however. Considering the general high quality of the article otherwise, this has Strong Support from me for a promotion to FA. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: thank you for the review! I've addressed all your comments JOEBRO64 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Axem Titanium

edit

I have nits and where better to pick them than at FAC? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • "Archeology" doesn't appear in ref [175]. Can you pick a different term that's more supported? Is there a Wikipedia article you can link to for this concept?
      • Changed to "research". Can't think of an article to link to, unfortunately—the closest would be The Cutting Room Floor, which isn't explicitly named in the cited ref, or debug mode, which is related but not a 100% match. (I think an "unused video game content" could be a viable potential article that could be linked, but it doesn't exist) JOEBRO64 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay
    • "By default, the single-player controls both Sonic and Tails simultaneously" - Trying to keep the wikilink to single-player intact without piping leads to this unnatural construction. Can you reword?
    • "populate acts" - not sure I agree with the usage of "populate" here for non-person objects
    • "Knuckles the Echidna in Sonic the Hedgehog 2" - Is this the official title of a product? I don't see it in the ref.
    • "Knuckles in Sonic 2" - Following the above, the entire subhead is italicized, when only the title portion should be
  • Development
    • Explain who Yuji Naka is before saying he quit. I don't understand why it's relevant that he quit without this context.
    • "Cerny said that this did not create "much of a creative loss"" - I don't understand what this quote means. Creative loss of talent? Loss of ideas? Need a bit more context to understand the quote, and it might be better to just reword away from a direct quote.
    • "visa problems" - change to immigration problems. Not everyone knows what a visa is without a wikilink.
    • "maximum possible speed" - Was this a hardware limitation? There must be some cap based on something
    • "Tails was implemented using an artificial intelligence routine that allowed him to mimic Sonic's movements, becoming playable with a second controller" - The dependent clause "becoming..." is disconnected from the main sentence. Use a semicolon or start a new sentence.
    • "While Yamaguchi was assisted by Jina Ishiwatari, he worked mostly alone." - What is the purpose of this sentence? Ishiwatari isn't brought up for the rest of the article. The two clauses also conflict with each other. Is he assisted or did he work alone? If you want to keep the mention of Ishiwatari, maybe describe what she did in more detail, separate from Yamaguchi.
  • Reception
  • Post-release
  • Legacy
    • Can you avoid the phrase "fourth generation of video game consoles" in articles not specifically about that? The naming is a contentious topic on Wikipedia and you can easily write around it using the phrase "16-bit era", as that article notes it's better known by.
    • "originating the concept of the "street date"" - This feels like it can't be true. This has to be exaggeration on the part of tech executives who want to pat themselves on the back. At the very least, please make it more clear that Sonic 2sday popularized it within the games industry, not necessarily in other industries.
      • I've clarified and added another source to better back the claim. Believe it or not, it's not an exaggeration—it's widely considered the first notable case of a single, unified release date for a video game. At the time, game launches were uncoordinated and varied wildly. (For example, Super Mario Bros. 3 was released in Japan in 1988 but didn't come to the States until 1990.) After the success of Sonic 2sday, coordinated release dates became commonplace JOEBRO64 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critics consider it an improvement over the first Sonic the Hedgehog" - This sentence is just repetition from the Reception section, but in reviews of ports. Please make this more clear and maybe find a more interesting observation to make here about the port reviews?
    • Ref 175 archeology, same note as above

Enjoyable read, seems comprehensive. Willing to support. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I'll address/respond tomorrow. (I was away this past weekend so I won't have time until tomorrow afternoon) JOEBRO64 01:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: I believe I've addressed everything. Let me know if anything else needs work JOEBRO64 14:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, I'm satisfied. Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from the Night Watch

edit

I'll try to get something up in the next few days. Ping me if I don't respond by the 27th. The Night Watch (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch: just a nudge JOEBRO64 14:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry about that. Let me work on this right now. The Night Watch (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead section is well done, good job on that.
  • "Continues to receive acclaim." I think something moreso along the lines of "Retrospective reviews have given it similar acclaim, and consider it one of the greatest video games of all time." helps highlight a closer meaning to what the passage is trying to say.
  • "and most levels end after two acts rather than three." It says earlier in the paragraph that acts are the names for the levels. Do you mean zones?
  • I'm a bit confused why there is a wikilink to level design in Knuckles in Sonic 2. The wikilink leads to an article saying that level design is a discipline of game development, and not what the article is trying to say meaning the actual layout of the levels.
  • "During the development, Cerny left STI; he said that he left as development concluded" During the development of what exactly? If it is just the game, it should be just "During development", not "During the development." Adding a the may be potentially confusing.
  • "Most cuts were made to the Americans' designs, and many Americans were furious when they learned their work had been cut." —> "Most cuts were made to the Americans' designs, and many were furious when they learned their work had been removed."
  • "Meanwhile, Cerny worked with Sony Interactive Entertainment and helped create the PlayStation franchises Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon." The wikilink for the Spyro franchise should be just to Spyro, and not the first game in the series.
That’s really all from me. Another excellent Sonic article. I'll take another quick look once these points are addressed. The Night Watch (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cukie Gherkin

edit

I've reviewed all sources in the Gameplay section and found that they are accessible, reliable, and accurate to what the text is saying. Will update as I go along. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reviewed everything except Game Players Sega Guide. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: thanks for taking the time to do this! Most of the magazines cited can be found on Internet Archive or RetroCDN to assist with checking. For the Retro Gamer articles, I can shoot you an email with the PDFs if you'd like JOEBRO64 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over the online sources first and then I'll give you a list of sources I couldn't access myself. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through the Design section, taking a break now. Here are the sources I need assistance checking:

  • “Game Players Sega Guide”
  • “Game Informer 124”
  • “Retro Gamer 175”
  • “Sega Magazine 1997”
  • “Playing at the Next Level: A History of American Sega Games “
  • “Backstage with Sonic the Hedgehog 2 “
  • “ Console Wars: Sega, Nintendo, and the Battle That Defined a Generation” - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the Development section to the best of my ability. I've tried to find some of the above print sources in archive.org, but with no luck. I also couldn't check these:

I've finished the Sales section.

  • "Sega vs. Nintendo: The Rematch"
  • Mega. No. 10. (I don't even know if it's available or not, I can't narrow it down lol)
  • "Official Gallup UK Mega Drive Sales Chart". Mega. No. 6.
  • "Top 20: The Charts". Mega. No. 7

Sorry about that, busy couple of days. Gonna get back to it now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, "a lot of 2s" is so confusing to my tiny brain. I get the gist of it, but I wonder if the quote is needed or if the gist can stand on its own. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've finished with the source review. I can't speak to what the sources say in the above-mentioned list due to limited access. However, I'm confident that, of all the sources I've checked, none of them have any disparities between them and what the article claims they say, and the citations are all formatted accurately. The article is also well-written, and the images are appropriately handled. Assuming that the print sources are accurate, I'm willing to Support this article being approved for featured article status. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Thank you for taking the time to do this! I really appreciate it. I can still email you a sample of the print references for a spotcheck, if you'd like JOEBRO64 02:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • There are a number of p./pp. errors. Eg cites 30, 31 and others.
    • Fixed. When I was writing the article, I was working from translations provided by an author of a Mega Drive interview compilation; since the original sources were in Japanese, I forgot to go back to the PDFs to correct the page numbers after I finished writing. I've done that now. JOEBRO64 01:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of cases where "p." needs replacing with 'pp.'. Eg cites 89, 92, 93, 97, 99, 100, 102. There are others.
Ah, misunderstood—I've addressed this. JOEBRO64 22:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What rationale are you using for including publisher location or not for books?
Thanks.
  • Skid & Brody: are the first names of either of these authors known?
It now needs moving into alphabetical order.
Done JOEBRO64 22:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I've responded to everything above, let me know if you have any other concerns. JOEBRO64 01:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for the delay, it's all done JOEBRO64 22:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 May 2023 [52].

1984–85 Gillingham F.C. season

edit
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, I'm back again with yet another (#23) nomination of a Gillingham season. Hopefully the quality of the article is better than the quality of the season, which was very up and down and ultimately ended in disappointment for all the Gills fans, including a pre-teen ChrisTheDude. Feedback as ever gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 – Support

edit

Non expert prose review:

  • since the club was elected back into the League -- suggest linking to re-election article as you did in the lead.
  • The club also signed two players who were out of contract: Tarki Micallef, a midfielder who had last played for Newport, and Dave Shearer, a forward who had most recently played for Grimsby Town, as well as forward Paul Shinners from semi-professional club Fisher Athletic. -- not sure, but is Paul Shinners also out of contract when he got signed? Perhaps split his bit into a separate sentence.
  • in both of which Cascarino again scored -- should it be both of which?
  • conceded a last-minute equaliser. -- suggest linking equaliser to the sports term, if available.
  • which was expected to keep him out of the team for up to six weeks. -- was he out for six weeks? Perhaps it should be specific i.e. which kept him out of the team for X weeks.?
    • His eventual return to the team is mentioned in the final paragraph of that section. I don't know if it was the injury that kept him out for the entirety of that time or if he was available again earlier but Peacock kept McDonagh in the team because he was playing well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Otherwise, very well-written. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and satisfied with the changes. Support on prose. If you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review. I was already planning on looking at your FAC and will do my best to do so over the next couple of days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by BennyOnTheLoose

edit

Great work, as ever, ChrisTheDude. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by BennyOnTheLoose

edit
  • Images are relevant and positioning is fine.
  • Licensing is fine for all images.
  • ALT text is OK, captions are fine. (The Bruce and McDonagh pictures were taken close enough to the season in question that I don't think a "pictured in" is necessary.)

Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – Support

edit

Nice to see these, I'll have a look. If you would consider a reciprocal review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit/archive1, which is struggling for attention, I would greatly appreciate it, but don't feel obligated.

  • "..of First Division clubs, highly rated young defender Steve Bruce.." In British English, this should take the definite article to avoid a false title: "the highly rated young defender"
  • "equivalent to £460,000 in 2021" Because the boom in transfer fees hasn't matched inflation, I think this is misleading to include without further context being provided. Ideally a "transfer fee inflation calculator" would be available that would give a more relevant figure, but I'm not aware of such a thing. Unless you can include a sourced footnote about the inflation of transfer fees, I'd rather see this removed.
  • "..draw, Tony Cascarino scoring Gillingham's.." Avoid the Noun plus -ing construction, I'd recommend something like "..draw, in which Tony Cascarino scored Gillingham's.."
  • "..of the season.[15] A week later, he scored again as the team gained their first win of the season.." To avoid close repetition of "of the season", maybe switch the second to "of the campaign"?
  • "Forward Martin Robinson, a new signing from Charlton Athletic.." To avoid the false title here, consider "Martin Robinson, a new forward signed from Charlton Athletic.."
  • "Reserve goalkeeper David Fry replaced the injured Ron Hillyard.." Another false title; how about "The reserve goalkeeper, David Fry, replaced the injured Ron Hillyard.."
  • "..the midfielder angrily pulled off his shirt and threw it at the referee as he walked off the pitch." No review comment here, just an observation that if you did that now, you'd probably end up with a hefty ban!
  • "..by Republic of Ireland international goalkeeper Jim McDonagh.." Add "the" before Republic to avoid a false title.
  • "Veteran forward Derek Hales.." Similarly, add "The" before "veteran".
  • "..who had been injured again against Millwall." Find a way to avoid "again against", which is awkward.
  • Would you consider adding the team in fifth place, one below Gillingham, to the partial league table for greater context?
  • "..were semi-professional team Windsor & Eton of the Isthmian League." Rephrase to something like "..were a semi-professional team, Windsor & Eton, of the Isthmian League."

A really good article. The prose is really well written to give a flow to the season, rather than just a dry series of events. Great work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - many thanks for your review, all addressed. I will endeavour to QPQ yours over the long weekend. Oh, and re: the Dave Mehmet incident, it happened literally just in front of me and my dad (it happened on the touchline and we used to sit in the front row of the stand) and I can still picture it to this day :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, more than happy to support this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber comments Support

edit

Looking now Looks fine on comprehensiveness and prose....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit
In "References" the titles of the articles (the bits between the quote marks) should all be in title case. (Or, by some people's interpretation of the MoS, optionally in sentence case; but in any event consistent.) You have some in title case - eg cites 17 and 19 - and some in sentence case - eg cites 16 and 18. They should be standardised, IMO as title case. And no, how they are written in the original doesn't matter. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see - I was confused me by the use of "articles". Sure, I'll do that now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - done-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment from me, in the August–December section. "consecutive Third Division victories": just "consecutive league victories"? That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2023 [53].

CBS Building

edit
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only skyscraper designed by Eero Saarinen before his untimely death in 1961. As the name may suggest, the building was constructed for CBS, which owned it until two years ago. Saarinen wanted to make it the "simplest skyscraper statement in New York"; the building's nickname, Black Rock, comes from the fact that its dark-gray granite facade resembles a solid wall from a certain angle. Nonetheless, the CBS Building had innovative features for its time, including a reinforced-concrete frame (the first in a post-war skyscraper in NYC) and a sunken plaza surrounding it.

This page was promoted as a Good Article nearly two years ago, and the page received a GOCE copyedit just recently, for which I am grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Kusma

edit

Will review this soonish. —Kusma (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "William Zeckendorf had acquired all of these structures but sold them to CBS before he could develop them" do we know what he had planned to do and why he sold instead of developing the plot?
  • It would be nice to have a sentence or two about Eero Saarinen for background and context. And perhaps to mention that Eliel Saarinen was his father.
  • I don't understand "The plaza around the CBS Building helped influence the 1961 legislation". Did it influence the content, or did it help someone else influence it, or did its influence help the legislation pass? And did it indeed pass?
    • The legislation passed in 1961. Its content, particularly the section that permitted developers to add office space in exchange for open public space, was partly influenced by the presence of the plaza at the CBS Building. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it "52nd and 53rd streets" or "52nd and 53rd Streets"? (Both are in the article)
  • "appear as a massive load-bearing chamfer,[52] though this effect was purely aesthetic" tense. Also, does this mean they look like something load bearing but are not?
  • "northwest-corner pier bore no load" does it bear load now?
  • "are a uniform width" of a uniform width?
  • I would prefer L-shaped and V-shaped to "L"-shaped and "V"-shaped.
  • "core was designed to withstand most of the wind shear hitting the building" This sounds like it was designed to collapse whenever there is enough wind shear?
  • Are there basically two lobbies, one north and one south, the lobbies separating the west and east halves filled with commercial space?
    • Yes, there are two lobbies, one each to the north and south. The west and east sections were originally filled with commercial space. I know the east section is still a restaurant, although I do not know if the west section still has any commercial space (last I checked, it was a Charles Schwab). Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a bit of a story about Gastrotypographicalassemblage, apparently more or less thrown away by CBS and later restored elsewhere.
  • Other stories section: "high flexibility in planning interior offices" and "high amount of standardization within the floors with offices for executive(s?)" seem slightly contradictory? Also, "Movable partitions could be set up on each story at intervals of as small as five feet" duplicates what is said earlier in the section.
  • History: The Park Avenue story does not seem important enough to be mentioned twice.
    • It seems like the story is only mentioned once (in the second part of "History"). The only other time that Park Avenue is mentioned is at the beginning of the "Planning" section, where the article mentions only that Paley believed 6th Avenue was better than Park Avenue. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "Paley dismissed the Park Avenue sites as having "too cold a feeling"" followed by "Paley had believed Sixth Avenue to be "more stimulating" than Park Avenue" could be together instead of in separate subsections; it seems you are saying twice that Paley found Sixth superior to Park Avenue. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 53 West 52nd Street: make it clearer that this was the neighbouring plot
  • Would suggest to link the Seagram Building again to avoid unnecessary ctrl-F
  • "In February 1962, after Saarinen's death, CBS announced " this is long after Saarinen's death, and we have just talked about it in the previous section; would suggest to drop this mention of the death
  • "was selected as the general contractor at this time": "at this time" seems superfluous
  • Construction: when was the construction completed?
  • 20th century: very odd heading. It made me double check that everything up to now has been about the 20th century. "Occupants and use in the 20th century", perhaps?
  • "nicknamed CBS/51W52" who called it that? From the lede, I guess the nickname didn't stick?
  • "The final cost was not revealed at the time" so it was revealed later?
  • The first paragraph of "20th century" would perhaps also fit into the preceding section as "Construction and first use by CBS" or something. Then the 20th/21st century sections could be about the later changes in usage and refurbishments.
It took me until the third mention to realise that "The Ground Floor" is probably the name of the restaurant, not just a description of its location.
"Throughout the 1980s, CBS downsized its presence in the building" and then "By the early 1990s, CBS ... no longer required the entire building for its use" seem contradictory
  • Actually, these were supposed to mean the same thing. CBS reduced the amount of floor space that it occupied in the 1980s. By the early 1990s, CBS didn't need the entire building anymore, as it didn't occupy the entire building.
Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point is that you are saying that in the 1980s, they "reduced the amount of floor space", i.e. they no longer needed the entire building. And then in the 1990s, you tell me they no longer needed the entire building. Do you mean that during the 1980s, they reduced the number of offices they used in the building until there was so much free space that they started leasing it out in the 1990s? —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is what I mean. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suddenly you call the building "Black Rock", a name that is used only in two paragraphs in "History". Ctrl-F to highlight the phrases "CBS Building" and for "Black Rock" to see what I mean.
  • 21st century: did the sale go through, and what became of the companies' 2021 plans?
  • Critical reception: this is all from 1965 and ends rather surprisingly with information from the mid-1960s. Isn't the 1997 designation as a city landmark part of the critical reception? There should be a lot more than one sentence in the "History" section about that decision and the reasons for it.
    • I'll look for more contemporary reviews of the building, but as far as I know, it was largely ignored by the architectural press after the late 1960s. There are some more-recent pieces of commentary, like this or this, but I don't know if they qualify as good enough for an FA. In my view, the city-landmark designation may not really be critical reception - the designation is actually a lagging indicator of public perception, since the Landmarks Preservation Commission usually only acts after a preservationist has already proposed that a building be designated as a landmark. I'll add some detail about the landmark status, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it I think, some small to medium sized issues. Overall this is (as usual) an amazingly well-researched article with tons of information about an interesting building (a bit too much information for a non-architecture geek, but it is difficult to say whether anything specific needs to be cut). I am trying to remember whether I've seen the building when I went to MoMA, but that was in the mid-2000s so quite a while ago... In various GA reviews, I often have disagreed with you about where to put the planning/development part of the "History" section, and I still have doubts about this but I am willing to follow consensus of architecture editors here. —Kusma (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma, thanks for the comments. Sorry for the late response, as I did not see this earlier. I will respond to these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma, thanks again for the feedback. I think I have responded to all of the issues that you mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Good fixes. A few further queries/comments above; stuff with a strikethrough needs no further discussion. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma, thank you once again. I've addressed your other comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My queries have been addressed, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

I'm sorry, but at about three weeks in with only a single general support, this nomination will be archived unless significant movements towards a consensus to promote occurs within the next few days. Hog Farm Talk 00:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you very much for your comments. I've replied to or fixed all of them now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I'll do a source review for this one soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " "The Midtown Book". The City Review. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 2, 2016." - what makes this high-quality RS?
  • Formatting looks OK
  • "In 1964, the Architectural League of New York cited the CBS Building as one of eight CBS facilities being built nationwide to "very high standards"" - I read through the copy of this article on Wikipedia Library ProQuest and could not find the exact "very high standards" quote?
    • Oops. I misremembered what the Times said; the paper itself said that the buildings were constructed to "high architectural standards", and it wasn't the League which said that. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Architectural Record, the CBS Building has about 800,000 square feet (74,000 m2) in gross floor area" - should be page 28, not p. 29?
  • "On each story, a passageway runs from north to south through the core, providing access to both the elevator lobbies and service rooms there" - not seeing in the source where the passageway runs from north to south?
    • It's in the floor plan, rather than in the text itself. However, I understand what you're saying about the source not mentioning the passageways running north-south, so I've removed that part. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: for response. I spotchecked six references and found the three minor issues above, so I'll want to do further spot-checking after I get the response on this. Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the source review; I appreciate it. I have responded to the issues you pointed out above. I wouldn't mind if you did additional spot-checks. It's been almost two years since I expanded the article, and while I did check the article for source-text integrity before nominating it for FAC, I might have overlooked some things (for example, the incorrect page number for Architectural Record was probably a wrongly pressed key). Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bockmann, Rich (February 24, 2020). "CBS Asking More Than $1 billion for Black Rock Building". The Real Deal New York. Archived from the original on October 21, 2020. Retrieved July 14, 2021." - title of the source should be "The Price is Right? CBS Asking More than $1B fox Sixth Ave HG" I think
  • "Schwab proposed installing planters in front of the building, though the local Manhattan Community Board 5 initially refused to approve the plans" - I don't think this is an accurate summary of the source, which appears to object more to Schwab signage that was going to be added along with the planters and less to the planters themselves

Checked 8 more refs and turned up those two. It's all minor, but 5/14 showing minor issues still isn't great. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm. I have fixed both of these. For Bockmann, that is because I copied the name of the tab rather than the title of the article. For the signage, I did intentionally condense that info, though I must have forgotten to mention the signage in the process. I will recheck the remaining sources to see if I made any other mistakes with article titles, page numbers, etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when you've finished going back through things. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I will probably not be able to do this until the weekend, when I have access to my home desktop, where I can compare the sources on multiple screens. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. My home desktop was offline for the past week, so I haven't been able to do it until now. I am about 1/4 of the way through. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about halfway through and have not seen anything else glaring, at least not with regards to the references themselves. I will have to check the remainder of the article later. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update that I'm more than 3/4ths done and haven't seen anything else of concern. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, I've finally finished looking over the article. After checking all the online sources, I believe I've fixed all of the formatting errors. In addition, I fixed a few instances where the text and the cited source didn't match up. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, will try to finish this up tonight. Hog Farm Talk 01:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spot-check 6 more sources and found no additional issues, so I think we're safe to say that the pass-through on the sources resolved the issues. Pass source review. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • In "Citations" article titles are in a mix of sentence case and title case. They should all be in title case.
  • What rule are you using for including or not the publisher location for books?
  • Why both "N. Y." and "New York" in location?

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I've removed all the locations for consistency, as the remaining information in each citation should be sufficient to identify the publications in question. As for sentence case vs. title case, should the citations be in title case even where the headline is originally in sentence case, e.g. "ViacomCBS sells CBS’ iconic New York skyscraper, Black Rock"? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Eg, one doesn't copy a newspaper ALL CAPS format. If it is a "work" it should be in title case. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I was always told that I had to give the title verbatim, but I suppose it makes sense that, if ALLCAPS titles should be changed to title case, then so should sentence case titles. I've fixed these now. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

I am interested and plan to review. I read it all weeks ago, and was generally happy, but get to it only now. Details hopefuly tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Site

  • any reason not to link Equitable Building (Manhattan)?
  • curious: why "Just before the building's construction" and not "Before the building's construction"?
  • perhaps give date to the purchase?
    • Unfortunately, the source doesn't mention when Zeckendorf acquired the site. The date of CBS's purchase, July 1960, is mentioned later in the article, under "Planning", so I've copied that date and associated refs to this section. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Ground floor

Planning

Reception

That's it. Thank you for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Gerda. I just saw this and will work on these soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit
  • First sentence is a bit of a mouthful. I prefer punchy opening. Maybe split it at the "which"?
  • Several investors expressed interest in buying the structure, but CBS canceled its plans to sell the building in mid-1999, as none of the potential buyers had offered at least $350 million That's quite jarring; maybe recast the sentence to introduce the hoped-for figure earlier?
  • The design deviated from architectural norms of the time from the architectural norms?

I've only looked at prose but looks good to me. I made a couple of tiny copy edits as I went through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Harry. I've gotten to all of these now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Support on prose. Haven't looked at sourcing but everything I have looked at is top quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2023 [54].

Saving Private Ryan

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1998 war film Saving Private Ryan, a highly influential film about a troop of soldiers tasked with recovering a single man and the last surviving son of the Ryan family, James Ryan, and getting him out of World War II alive. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

edit
  • File:Niland_brothers.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Matt_Damon_TIFF_2015.jpg: the source link includes a ND license, and the photo ID link for NASA is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I removed the tag from the Matt Damon one as I searched the site and it appears to have been removed. I wouldn't know where to find the original release date of the Niland brothers image but I know it's prior to 1945 since three of them were dead by that point.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Damon, now we're left with a problem: the NASA tag states their stuff is not copyrighted unless noted, and now our only source link asserts copyright (the ND license). On Niland: that supports that the image was created before 1945, but the given tagging is based on publication. If we can't demonstrate a publication from that era, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Nikkimaria, so I have replaced the Matt Damon pic with File:Matt Damon 2014 3.jpg and I have found this page here with a newspaper clipping using the image of the Nilands. Is that any good? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That gets us halfway there - it demonstrates this was probably published in the 40s. But any idea what that publication is? We'd need to confirm lack of copyright renewal for the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So searching the article title on newspapers.com via our library gives me this, which probably won't load for you unless you go through the library. This was printed in The Buffalo News, June 9, 1944 . Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So if you can add that information to the image description page, this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial# emerges from pill box

edit

Saw this the other day as it happens, so count me in. The main question is, without having read the article yet, whether it's true that the opening scene is what most people remember of it.... SN54129 12:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129, sorry was that not a rhetorical question? The opening scene is definitely the most memorable part, probably followed by what happens to Miller. IMO anyway, the sources only talk about the opening scene. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Serial Number 54129, now would be a good time to leave the pill box and storm the opening sequence. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: If you mean now would be a good opportunity not to get TOTALLY TROLLED at FAC, then I heartily agree. Let me look at it tomorrow; just spent 2 hours trying to get a doctor's appt (I.e: no), so I think Glenlivet calls. SN54129 17:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to reviewing this! Although I don't foresee any major problems, will probably focus on the thematics rather than plot, production etc. Cinematography kicks ass man. SN54129 19:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gave Hanks the script and he was immediately interested" - suggest "script, who was"
  • Also "and with with Gordon" etc
  • MOS:LQ seems inconsistently applied (e,g, "give the character a "much harder edge."")
    More tomorrow! SN54129 17:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to send Tom Hanks and a band of rag tag soldiers out searching for private Serial Number 54129. Hope all is well! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many many apologies, Darkwarriorblake, I had so much on my plate over the last couple of weeks and then got dragged off on vacation. But here we are, again. Let's do this thing. SN54129 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first para of 'Development' we are told the two shared a personal interest in WWII, while in the second, that "Spielberg had a lifelong interest in WWII". I wonder if it needf be mentioned twice? Perhaps merghe the first mention into the second. Just a thought.
  • Could you clarify the Gordon quote? It's a bit unclear what he means. Is it as in, "I'll see your Arnie/Willis and raise you Hanks and Spielberg", kind of thing?
  • "With Spielberg involved, DreamWorks Pictures, which he co-founded, became involved": repetition of 'involved'; could you say, "with Spielberg on board', for example?
  • The Levinsohn quote needs an immediate reference, even if it is to the same ref you use seven words later. Irritating, I know.
  • You've got some chunkas quotes in there, esp from Speilberg. Per WP:QUOTE, "For quotations longer than 40 words, use the HTML tag <blockquote>like this around quoted material </blockquote> or the template {{Quote}}, which has optional parameters to include citations. Both of these methods set text apart from non-quoted material."
  • Is "Hell on Earth" a quote?
  • "arrive on Normandy beach": arrive on Normandy beaches generally, but specifically, as you say, Omaha Beach.
  • Repetition of "historical facts"; suggest, "to parse the reality of events with original ideas".
  • Perhaps link boot camp.
  • "adjacent to Blackwater, County Wexford": adjacent to Blackwater, also in Wexford
  • What did Speilberg ear, as he had the same pay agreement as Hanks?
  • How comes "some reviewers" who criticised are unnamed but are counterbalanced by one positive reviewer, Kamiya?
  • Link Everyman.
  • The 'Accolades' section is damnably dull, but not much you can do about that.
  • The "unashamedly" C4 quote is effectively duplicated; the second occasion could probably be lost with a tweak.
  • "serving as a permanent reminder of the sacrifices made exclusively by the United States". H'mm, I think the rest of the world wants to say have a word  :) can this be either turned into a direct quote or rephrased? Wikipedia probably shouldn't say in its own voice that X country's sacrifices were greater than those of Y country.
  • Perhaps link PTSD.
  • Suggest moving the preservation into the NFR into the 'Awards' etc section; I think it fits better there than at the end of a morally critical paragraph.
  • Why no mention of Altman's film?
  • Why "a series of Medal of Honor games" and not "a series of Medal of Honor games"?
  • I've never seen the footnote to "Attributed to multiple references" before; very clever. What say you, @FAC coordinators: (out of curiosity—I might use it myself!!!)
  • Thanks for this; great article. Things to emphasise are perhaps MOS:LQ (punctuation always outside the quote marks (".) except when part of more than one sentence ("Lorem. Ipsum.") and the chunky quotes that need blocking/indenting. Nice work, though, with a very strong themes and analysis slant. Apologies again for the delay in getting out my shell hole  :) SN54129 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it is possible to use efn to say which content is supported by which refs, to me this isn't great style unless necessary as it can end up repeating content in both the article and the footnote. I personally prefer citation unbundling (ie. This sentence is supported by a ref(fn1) and another ref (fn2) ) or bundling (ie. <ref>list of refs</ref>). However that is just my personal opinion and any of them are suitable for use on FAs. (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Serial Number 54129, I believe I have addressed all of your points HERE bar three. PTSD is linked in the casting section already, although it is in a list so it is appropriate to add a duplicate link in the body text? I'm not sure if there is a policy relating to it.
  • I'm gonna be honest, I'm not sure who Altman is but I'm happy to add it. I found Robert Altman but he didn't seem to have any post-Ryan war films.
  • An aside relating to the critical reception section, everyone is different, some people prefer I generalized and Kamiya tended to be the lone dissenting opinion to the general consensus on various points so he probably appears overrepresented, but I've tried to directly name a few more critics.
  • Hell on Earth is a quote, it's by Hanks in the Empire reference.
  • "Could you clarify the Gordon quote? It's a bit unclear what he means. Is it as in, "I'll see your Arnie/Willis and raise you Hanks and Spielberg", kind of thing?" so yes this is how I read it, Schwarzenegger and Willis in 1998 are still big time lead actors but Ryan has secured the biggest director AND one of the biggest actors. However, I've looked at it a few times and I'm unsure how to reword it so I am open to suggestions. I had the same problem when I first added the quote as I would prefer it to be clearer, and I could remove it but I think it's important to note how big a deal it was to secure Hanks and Spielberg to the project at the time.
  • The EFN thing is clever, I didn't invent it but it is really useful. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a suggestion for the Gordon quote:
    “When Gordon met with Paramount executives, he suggested that they move forward with Saving Private Ryan with the involvement of Spielberg and Hanks instead of the projects with Willis and Schwarzenegger.”
    Also, could I add a picture of Janusz Kaminski in the article? He’s essential to the film’s success. Hdog1996 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serial Number 54129, friendly ping. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for holding you up for so long Darkwarriorblake—so much health and domestic stuff has blown up in the last couple of weeks, I took my eye off the ball, Wiki-wise. Anyway, I'm happy with the changes made and the counterpoints given, so I am happy to support this article's promotion. It's a good article in the academic tradition. SN54129 10:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Serial Number 54129 Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved
  • If you can find out for certain what the total budget was (instead of giving a range), then I'd go with a specific number.
  • "The cast includes"..... I'd recommend "Other cast members" or "The cast also include" or something like that when we've already mentioned Tom Hanks and Matt Damon who are also part of the cast, contrary to what the current phrasing suggests.
  • By "most involved scene", do you mean the one used most for filming?
  • "Despite concerns about releasing a serious war drama in a season normally reserved for escapist entertainment" is a trivial concern you can safely scrap; just focus more on the actual results
  • "had an important impact on" → "impacted"
  • "three of four brothers"..... we should add "Ryan" in there to better establish a family connection
  • The plot section should make a distinction between James Francis Ryan (the one being sought) and James Frederick Ryan (who he got temporarily mixed up with) as the middle name discrepancy was how John Miller and his crew realize they initially went after the wrong guy
  • Try to avoid having super-short paragraphs with just one or two sentences as that makes the flow of text feel choppy
  • Under "Cast", you should adjust "Saving Private Ryan's cast includes" per my earlier comments for cast listings within the lead
  • Using "Frank" for "Frank performed rewrites" is confusing when Frank Darabont and Scott Frank are both being discussed shortly beforehand
  • It seems like "found this a 'a mentally demoralizing experience' because the cast started together" has an extra "a". One of them should be deleted.
  • The entire "Context" subsection is superfluous, and most of it focuses on other irrelevant films. Speculation over how much this movie would earn also isn't nearly as important as the official gross.
  • Don't presume all readers will know what publications the critics are writing for; we should name more of these than just Salon.com (which I'm not fully sure is trustworthy)
  • "Best Director (Spielberg) and Best Actor (Hanks) at the Empire Awards ." has a stray space before the period
  • "Best Casting (Casting Society of America, Denise Chamian)" is missing a comma between the ending parenthetical and its accompanying citation
  • The New York Observer needs italics for "While the Observer found the German characters" (and should use the paper's full name)
  • "now considered one of the greatest war films ever made"..... see WP:RELTIME
  • "anchored by another winning performance" should have "anchored" start with an upper-case "A"
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same heading as them

Once these get fixed, you should be up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done these, I'm sure we've had this discussion about Context sections on a previous FA but I do disagree on them being superfluous, I find them quite interesting and it sets up expectations vs reality which i think, especially for films 20, 30, or 40 years ago, helps establish what the films were competing against, provides natural internal links to these films, and helps us understand where things predicted to do well failed and things thought to be limited end up overperforming. I have, however, trimmed it down a bit. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the compromise of a trim and all other points being addressed, I give my support to the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SNUGGUMS! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a slightly trimmed version of the Context section you could use.
Studios were optimistic about the upcoming 100 film releases in theatrical summer of 1998 after Deep Impact became a surprise box office success. The summer had fewer sequels and more films that targeted older audiences. The action films Godzilla and Armageddon were predicted to dominate the theaters, but other films with modest budgets were expected to perform well, including Small Soldiers, Small Soldiers, The Negotiator, The Parent Trap, and There's Something About Mary. Along with The Horse Whisperer and The Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan was highly anticipated but analysis suggested the film faced commercial limitations because of its long runtime and its violent content. DreamWorks' marketing chief Terry Press said it was risky to release a serious drama in the summer, a time generally reserved for family and escapist entertainment. Spielberg had low expectations for the film as he felt it was too violent to attract broad audiences. Hdog1996 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

edit

The infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox am I missing something? The infobox has an alt field that is filled in. Did you mean the infobox? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by Vaughan J. Heartfox (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: You are correct. I added the alt text. Some parts of the alt text was added by Darkwarriorblake. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 22:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

edit

Non expert prose review.

  • and went on to win many prizes -- perhaps accolades is a more suitable word
  • and a third thought dead -- presumed dead
  • Spielberg said he wanted to reflect the courage -- perhaps present or display or showcase
  • arrive On Normandy beach -- should “on” be in lowercase?
  • Suggest linking monochromatically to Black and white for those unfamiliar with filming approaches
  • the 7 mi (11 km) long … 1 km (0.62 mi) segment -- should be consistent in both instances
  • and at a cost of $12 million.[26][47][12][40][20][14][47][38] -- This could be a case of citation overkill with up to 8 sources to support this sentence. This is not source review, but perhaps consider citation bundling or only use the source(s) the support this or a similar style of attributing multiple reference via efn.
  • with squibs and explosives -- worth linking squib to its article
  • additional content, including behind-the-scenes -- suggest linking behind-the-scenes
  • In the critical response section, perhaps merge the lead and only sentence to the second para

Those are my comments. A well-written article about one of my favorites and one of the first war films I've seen in my youth. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, done. Chompy Ace 09:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Looping Darkwarriorblake (nominator) on this with regards to Chompy's revisions. Also, if either have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Pseud 14 and Chompy Ace, I've had a few things on recently and wasn't able to give this immediate attention. Pseud I will take a look at your article as it's short and I'm lazy. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

I'll try to get to this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at reliability/formatting first, and then do spot checks.

  • What makes Hi-Def Digest high-quality RS?
  • Formatting looks reasonable
  • I made a quick scan on JSTOR and Project MUSE and the coverage used here seems to be representative (although I suspect that this article will need revisited at some point in the next 10 years to make sure that the academic coverage used is still representative).

Will do spot-checks later. Hog Farm Talk 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was sure I'd defended this site before but I cannot find it in my previous FAC reviews. Hi-Def digest does have an About Page with permanent staff that includes hte writer of the source used in this article. It is a speciality knowledge website owned by Internet Brands and is being used to source non-controversial content related to it's particular speciality. I do not know if that is sufficient(?) but I'm pretty choosy about my references and I don't have any doubts about the reliability of the site when used in context of home media. Thanks for taking the time to review the sources so far Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limited comments from Nick-D

edit

I'll focus on the military history aspects here:

  • "incurring major losses against the artillery and mortar fire of the entrenched German forces" - the focus is actually on the devastating machine gun fire. To be pedantic, the Germans are depicted as fighting from fortifications (e.g. concrete bunkers) more than entrenchments.
  • "where the 101st Airborne might be" - the division (a large force of around 10,000 soldiers) was responsible for a large area, and wouldn't have been concentrated in a town
  • The para that starts with 'Many World War II veterans described Saving Private Ryan' should be tweaked to note that this is largely in reference to the Omaha Beach sequence at the start of the film. As the next para notes, the depiction of the war in the remainder of the film was much more generic.
  • "Total Film and some non U.S. veterans were critical of the lack of other Allied forces throughout the film" - the BBC story says that the concern was the absence of British personnel in the Omaha Beach sequence only. Total Film's criticism is ill-informed: the American and British sectors were quite separate during this stage of the campaign, and it would have been woefully inaccurate to have depicted any non-American Allied personnel within the beachhead. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the definition of entrenched as holding a heavily fortified position, not a literal trench, but I have changed it to "heavily fortified"
  • There is no town mentioned in relation to the 101st airborne, it just says a rallying point
  • Changed
  • *shrugs* they are entitled to complain about what they want? I am not a historian but researching this article alone the boats they went on were apparently piloted by British crew. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - On criterion FA criterion 1a. I have taken the liberty of making a few minor grammatical changes, I hope you didn't mind. Graham Beards (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gog the Mild? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:16, 7 May 2023 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2023 [55].

Epsom riot

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Epsom riot was an interesting point in history when the frustrations of many soldiers who just wanted to return home after the First World War exploded into violence and left a policeman dead. There were several riots in the UK from Canadians, Australians and Americans who wanted to return, and several in France with Brits wanting to get home and the logistics of moving that many men were not as smooth as they should have been. This went through a rewrite in early 2021 and has recently been granted MilHist’s A-class. All comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

edit
  • The article is well-referenced throughout, and all references are to reliable sources.
  • Citations are all formatted consistently and in an appropriate style.
  • Checks for additional, unused sources on Google, Amazon and several of the journal listings revealed an array of webpages, but no significant omissions.
  • Spotchecks carried out for source/text integrity, and for copyvio, close para-phrasing:
    • "The slow progress of repatriation was a cause of anger among the waiting servicemen. The winter of 1918–19 was one of the hardest for several years and there was an influenza pandemic. Delays in transporting the troops were exacerbated by the need to cancel at least one ship because it was deemed unsatisfactory." – Cited to ref #6 "Morton 1993, p. 267." All checks out fine.
    • "A group of twenty soldiers assembled outside Epsom police station; they were dispersed peaceably by the police. Word of the Canadians' arrest spread fast among the soldiers and at around 10:30 pm a group of seventy Canadians gathered at the station." – Cited to ref #25 "Gardner 2007, p. 449." All checks out fine.
    • "Some of the Canadians saw Green lying on the floor and realised he was in trouble; six of the soldiers picked him up and carried him across the road to the house opposite. One of the men gave him first aid for about thirty minutes before they left. The homeowner noted that it was 12:30 am." – Cited to ref #40 "Gardner 2007, p. 453." Doesn't specifically state that the house is "opposite", only "nearby". Other than that, all fine.
    • "it concluded on 30 July with the verdict that Green was a victim of manslaughter. The inquest determined that Connors, McAllan, McMaster, Masse, Wilkie and Yerex should face trial, as should Todd the bugler." – Cited to ref #46 ""Epsom Riot Inquest". The Times. 1 July 1919." Doesn't specifically name the men, rather saying "that the six soldiers committed for trial by the Magistrate at Bow-street Police Court last Saturday, and Robert Todd, were guilty of manslaughter."

That'll do for this morning. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steelkamp

edit
  • "convalescent hospital" and "public house" can be linked.
  • "including Bramshott, on Bramshott Common, Hampshire; Witley, near Guildford, and Woodcote at Epsom, both in Surrey—the two towns are approximately 15 miles (24 km) apart; Ripon, North Yorkshire; Buxton and Seaford, both in East Sussex; and Kinmel, near Rhyl, North Wales." This sentence is quite confusing to me. You could reword as "Bramshott in Hampshire, Witley and Woodcote in Surrey, Ripon in North Yorkshire, Buxton and Seaford in East Sussex, and Kinmel in North Wales."
  • "The situation led to riots at Kinmel in March 1919 and at Witley Camp on 15–16 June." Why specific dates for the latter but only the month for the former?
  • I'm not sure whether explanatory footnotes should be placed before or after reference footnotes, but they should at least be consistent. Note [b] is before note [9] but note [c] is after note [7].

Steelkamp (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Steelkamp. Three of the four are all done per your comment, one dome halfway. Let me know what you think and I can alter further if needed. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Station-Sergeant" hyphenated in the image caption but not elsewhere?
  • "or a sergeant was with the couple and a fight broke out between the two Canadians". Just to clarify, is sergeant referring to a police sergeant or one of the Canadians? Was the fight between the private and his wife or the private and the sergeant?
  • I assume a specific time for the initial fight is not known? I ask because there is a specific time for when the 70 Canadians gathered at the police station.
  • bugler could be linked. (I initially thought it was a misspelling of burglar)
  • Is there a reason why Ripon Army Camp and North Yorkshire are linked twice?
  • "Colonel Frederick Guest of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps". CAMC could be added after this in brackets as the abbreviation appears later in the article.
  • Does Todd the bugler not have a known first name?
  • Epsom and Ewell could be linked.

That's all from me. Steelkamp (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelkamp, these are all now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Steelkamp - your efforts here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist A-Class but will hold off here until a few more comments and possible changes are in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reviewed changes since I last copyedited towards the end of the A-Class review and am pretty happy still. Just a few things:

  • In the lead, between 300 and 800 is mentioned twice in successive paragraphs, perhaps eliminate between 300 and 800 of in the second instance, or say hundreds the first time and the range the second time (suggestion only).
  • Station sergeant Thomas Green (three occurrences) -- as station sergeant appears to be a rank I'd expect it to take title case in each of these instances.
  • Ross and Parson could only identify a limited number of participants --> Ross and Parson could identify few participants (suggestion only).

That's really it as far as the prose goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, thanks for your comments at A class and here: all duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Schro, obviously leaning support, will just let the image and source reviews play out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

edit

Image review

OK, I've sorted three of them, with one to come:
  • I think it's not a valid copyright claim from them (they claim copyright on all photographs they hold, despite the provenance. I'll take the image out for now - it can always go back in once I've had a response from them that we can work with. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, three of these sorted, with one problem - any suggestions much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - have your image concerns been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm Talk 18:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

I gave the article an informal peer review offline a little while ago, and on rereading the text now I have only three further comments, none of them important enough to prevent my supporting the elevation to FA:

  • I don't know if is deliberate, but numbers are sometimes in digits and sometimes in words:
  • Double figures: "A group of twenty soldiers"; "capable of fielding fewer than 20 officers"
  • Triple figures: "between 300 and 800 Canadian soldiers"; "400 men could be sent down from Ripon"; "Between three and eight hundred soldiers made their way to the police station"; "between seven and eight hundred Metropolitan Police officers".
  • Thousands: "between two and four thousand patients"; "between 2,079 and 2,200 occupants".
  • "fewer than 20 officers and constables" – probably showing my ignorance, but I thought a police constable is as much a police officer as a sergeant or higher is.
  • The drawing of the funeral procession is a bit tiny for my elderly eyes.

The article seems to me neutral, balanced, well sourced, properly illustrated (with that one caveat about possible resizing), highly readable, and in all respects meeting the FA criteria. Happy to support, Tim riley talk 08:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2023 [56].

Ludwig Ferdinand Huber

edit
Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "either a very minor or a relatively minor character in the constellation of 18th century German events", as Goethe scholar Thomas P. Saine put it. Minor or not, he did have some influence and interacted with many great writers of his era: close friend of Friedrich Schiller and Isabelle de Charrière, reviewer of works by Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Marquis de Sade, lover and eventual husband of Georg Forster's wife Therese Huber, and overall I found him a fascinating character. —Kusma (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a drive-by comment, but do you think some of the paragraphs could be split? The "French occupation of Mainz and resignation from service" section is one paragraph with 17 sentences and I think that can be a bit overwhelming to readers. It kind of looks like a wall of text, especially with the new display. Heartfox (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this comment! While I did check how the article looks in Vector2022 (I use Monobook for my work here), I only thought about image placement, not paragraph lengths. I have added some breaks. —Kusma (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done (but I am sure the alt texts can be improved, I am terrible at describing pictures).
  • File:Dora_Stock_-_Christian_Gottfried_Körner.jpg: when and where was this first published, and what is its status in its country of origin? Ditto File:Dora_Stock_-_Minna_Stock.jpg, File:Dora_Stock_-_Dora_Stock.jpg, File:Dora_Stock_-_Ludwig_Ferdinand_Huber.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reviewing! The images were first published in Germany before 1900. Evidence and copyright tags added. —Kusma (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Jim

edit

I'm very busy in RL at the moments so comments will appear sporadically. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look, no worries at all about being slow! Some responses below. —Kusma (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What immediately struck me was the swathes of yellow produced by the Headbomb/unreliable script. Some were links to Google text, but others were links to Google pages with no text or, worse, to WorldCat. I don't see the point of linking with pages that have no text, especially when they are repositories, not even the original documents. Since you don't need to prove the existence of any publication (except, I suppose, in the unlikely event that's challenged), these links seem pointless distractions.
    I have removed the WorldCat links that are duplicated by OCLC but kept the Google Books links that help with verification by providing full text or snippets.
  • In the journalist section, you have repeated earlier main text links to August Wilhelm Schlegel and Therese Forster
    These are deliberate; I think it is difficult to find the earlier (piped) Therese Forster link, and Schlegel is very important here and the link is reasonably far away. It could be removed, but I don't think it helps.
  • about six of their children died in infancy before Huber's birth— About six looks odd was it six, or from five to seven, or what?
    You are right that it sounds odd. Jordan (you can find this on Google Books by searching for "seven children" in her book) says "six or seven previous children". The Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie has six children including LF Huber. I can't prove this conclusively, but looking through what the works cite for this information, the original source for this seems to be a biography of LF Huber written by Therese, and that has six children followed by Huber, so seven in total. For some reason this was mangled into either "six including LFH" or "seven plus LFH" by other authors. So yes, the sources support "five to seven" or "six or seven", depending whether we drop the ADB or not. The exact number is rather immaterial here; perhaps "several" is best, what do you think?
  • Several looks better
  • ''and he had no religious education and no interest in religious questions. — and he had no religious education nor any interest in religious questions. perhaps?
    Done.
  • link "engraver" —
    Done.
  • agreeing to marry her once he would have the means—...once he had the means
    Done.
  • Saxon minister—Saxony minister?
    Saxony minister for precision.
  • ''Also in 1790, his superior left Mainz—I may have lost track, but who was his superior?
    Will find out. My sources don't say, but I tried to clarify that he became the most senior diplomate of the Electorate of Saxony in Mainz (whoever was the senior member of the legation was recalled to Dresden, so Huber was in charge).
  • Huber was reprimanded for his return to Mainz and ordered back to Frankfurt, which also was taken by Custine for a short time, arriving there on 22 or 23 October.—dodgy grammar Huber was reprimanded for his return to Mainz and ordered back to Frankfurt, which also was taken by Custine, who arrived there on 22 or 23 October, for a short time.
    Sorry, it is Huber who arives in Frankfurt 22 or 23 October, and I could not tell exactly when Custine took Frankfurt. Must have been shortly after he took Mainz (this quick advance is unsurprising; Mainz was the only major fortress in the area). Clarified a bit.
  • Huber did not merely regard the book as pornographic, but considered its underlying principles.—???
    Amended, let me know what you think.
  • Forster, who had become a French citizen, could not legally go there... and so Forster crossed the border instead, and they all met in Travers in Switzerland—so did he cross illegally? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified. Neuchatel was reasonably neutral, but Forster as a French citizen could not join his family there (I think he would not have received a residence permit). He did cross legally, but the whole cloak-and-dagger conspiracy business was necessary to avoid looking like a spy for the other side.

Thank you for the helpful comments so far! I think I've answered everything. —Kusma (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy with the changes above, and I'll Support now, but just a couple of minor things for your further consideration
  • Friedrich Schlegel ridiculed Huber in one of his sonnets.— presumably we know which?
    It was next to a sonnet, and the epigram has the boring title "An denselben" ("to the man himself"). I've cited it now also to the edition of Schlegel's letters, which mentions the publication. The two-liner reads
    Huber mein Freund sey billig und laß Dich in Spiritus setzen
    Gönn' es der Nachwelt auch, daß sie den Kritiker schaut.
    or in my own quick English translation
    Huber my friend be reasonable and have yourself preserved in alcohol
    Allow posterity to see what a critic looks like.
    But adding it probably goes too much into detail. —Kusma (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link tuberculosis, pneumonia, necrosis and particularly vehmic court, which I think few readers will know
    Links added (vehmic court is now a duplink, but a very rare word)

Harry - Support

edit

Not at all my area (the only bit of German history I'm reasonably read-up on is the wars of unification) but I'll do my best to offer some useful commentary but it will mostly focus on prose/MoS/readability:

  • However, he was never financially well off "However" is word to watch and implies a contradiction here where there isn't one; suggest "nonetheless"
  • engraver Johann Michael Stock is a false title, which is acceptable in some forms of English, but you have the Bavarian-born writer in the lead; it should be consistent
    I only learned about false titles here at FAC (from a very helpful review by User:Tim riley). I am trying to avoid them here.
  • he was appointed as secretary to the legation "appointed as" is apparently not incorrect, but just "appointed" reads more naturally
  • Consider linking Low Countries.
  • However, he was unwilling to be separated from Therese and returned to Mainz on 13 October Another "however" that could be replaced with "nonetheless" or in this case just removed. The sentence would work fine without it.
  • retaken by Prussian and Hessian troops,[104] with the bloodshed shocking Huber don't use "with" to join two clauses like that (it's common in journalistic writing, especially headlines where space is at a premium, but it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia), especially as it forces a tense-change mind-sentence. You would be better splitting the sentence in this case.
  • Related to the above, do we know how much bloodshed he saw or how personally involved he was? It might tell us something about the impact on Huber.
    He wasn't hurt, just shocked as Mainz had been taken peacefully, and this was his first glimpse of real war. It isn't super important here; if you think it is too much detail, we can drop it.
  • Mainz had soon after come under siege by Prussian and Austrian troops and capitulated on 23 July 1793, making it impossible for Forster to return to Mainz repetition of Mainz. Recommend just cutting the last two words.
  • from 4 to 5 November 1793, with Forster imploring the others ", with" again
  • his 1792 review of Göschen's first edition of Goethe's works in the Allgemeine Literaturzeitung where he compared Goethe to Proteus has been widely influential Can we say what it influenced or how or anything more? To just say it was influential is a little weasel-y, but if the sources don't specify there's not much we can do.
    Tried to expand this a bit and added a source calling it a leitmotif of Goethe reception.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your very helpful comments. I have addressed everything (also the things without direct replies). In Germany, short sentences are bad style, and that often influences my English style, so thank you for calling me out on sentences that should be split. Do you think there was enough context for non-experts? —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose. Everything I could pick out is addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "Huber found employment as a diplomat, and in 1788 moved to Mainz, where he became friends with the world traveller Georg Forster and his wife Therese, and later became Therese's lover and moved into the Forsters' house." This feels like a run-on sentence. Suggest splitting into two sentences or adding a semi-colon.
  • "When the world traveller Georg Forster with his wife Therese and their young daughter, also named Therese, arrived in Mainz on 2 October 1788 to take up the position of librarian at the university, Huber had a "plan of conquest" to win their friendship, and helped the Forsters settle in the new city. This sentence feels awkward. Perhaps, "Georg Forster, his wife Therese, and their young daughter also named Therese, arrived in Mainz on 2 October 1788 to take up the position of librarian at the university. Huber had a "plan of conquest" to win their friendship, and helped the Forsters settle in the new city." This splits up the sentence into two and removes some words.
  • "Huber had finally come clean to Körner and Dora," I would consider "come clean" to be an idiom, and suggest something like "Huber revealed his other relationship to Körner and Dora," or something similar.
  • "Huber became editor in chief and moved to Stuttgart followed by his family." Suggest a comma after Stuttgart
  • "in the Berlin journal Kronos 1801." Is the journal named Kronos 1801, in which case 1801 should also be in italics, or should there be an "in" between Kronos and 1801?
  • "In August, also the five-year-old Adele died." -> "In August, the five-year-old Adele also died."
  • Quick check of the sources did not reveal any formatting concerns.
  • The lede doesn't mention anything about Huber's reception and legacy after his death. Should a sentence be added at the end about this?

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Z1720! I have tried to address your concerns in this combined diff. I found removing the jargon and splitting the awkward and run-on sentences difficult and expect further improvement is possible. Please let me know what you think. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the edits and I am happy with these changes. I can support this. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

Invited, I read the article during vacation but have time to comment only now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at lead ad infobox last.

Family

  • "in addition to English, French, and German, he could read Italian" - could Italian be introduced without repetition? ... and if repeat why English first?
    It's alphabetical :) I do like to collect all of his skills together.
    I didn't get the alpha-sort ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we need Shakespeare's given name?
    I'm a bit apathetic about this one. Is it better without?
    for me yes - example: Mozart's Don Giovanni, whoever doesn't know Mozart's given names can be sure to find it in the opera, and even without any opera near, he would be recognised without the clumsy given names --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • use French source?
    Nice that we have this, but I don't see how we can use it here.
    I think for an interlanguage link, but haven't done it myself yet, - nevermind --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pierre Beaumarchais play The Marriage of Figaro" - several concerns:
    • It's rather famous, so no link to the author (nor given name) is needed, nor saying that it is a play.
      I think it is so overshadowed by Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro that it is very necessary to say it is a play and who wrote it.
      well, I believe that a reader who got this far possibly knows the origin of Le nozze, and if not could look it up, but I'll leave it up to you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer the French title.
      Done, I use original titles throughout.

Friendship

  • the caption of the "kiss"-drawing seems too complex.
    Simplified.
    thank you, but I now see "Dorchen", and while you and I know that it's derived from Dora, an English-only reader may profit from a footnote explaining that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomat

  • "the Göttingen philosophy professor Friedrich Bouterwek's novel Donamar" - too complex for my taste ;)
    Simplified?

Exile

  • "Ueber ein merkwürdiges Buch (About a Peculiar Book)" - I think the translation should either be a title (italic in title-case) or a translation (straight and sentence-case)
    It is now a translated title gloss in single quotes and title case.
  • "de Sade's novel Justine" - as for Figaro
    I don't think there's anything I can remove here.

Reception

That's it for now, hope I can look at the lead after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing Gerda! I have made a few changes, see above. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes. More tomorrow (or much later today), - going to listen to a concert in the afternoon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses just for explanation, - do as you please. I'll look at the lead now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I'd prefer a stub for his father to the ill link right at the beginning (which could go to his first mentioning in the body.
    I hate stubs. I am happy to write a proper article before this one hits the Main Page, but I won't write a bad stub.
    When I was introduced to FA country, red links were simply forbidden, and even later - when ill was introduced - ill-links were not tolerated in lead and infobox. A stub is a way around that, but of course a real article is much better: good plan. (I wrote 2 articles off Otto Klemperer for that reason.) --GA
  • "He grew up bilingual in French and German after his parents moved to Leipzig when he was two years old." - Do we know that his father didn't speak German to the infant until after the move?
    I know they spoke French at home after the move. In the sources, I see no mention of bilinguality before age 2.
  • "managed to invite him to come to Leipzig and later to Dresden" - they invited him to come to Dresden? The long sentence seems to simplify matters a bit too much, and leaves open if Huber moved to Dresden before or after Schiller.
    I'm not sure we need to know in what order they moved, but I have tried to be more precise.
  • can we avoid "became" in two sentences in a row, became friends - became lover?
    Tried to change the first one.
  • how about a translation of Das heimliche Gericht, and saying that it's a tragedy? (if not in the lead then in the body)
    Added a gloss. Huber called it a tragedy; sources mostly call it a play about knights.
  • "there was a final meeting" - how about clearly saying who met whom?
    Added.
  • "He was mostly forgotten after his death, and studied mostly as a friend of Schiller, Forster and de Charrière." - At first, I read that he studied ;) - perhaps "of interest"?
    Added
  • I think the break-up of the friendship to Körner and Schiller over him having treated Dora not well is worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added, although I fear we are getting into too much detail now.
  • The lead image - how about the more mature one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally I had removed the colour portrait because I had difficulties finding evidence of publication, and was very happy to find something by Dora that wasn't a profile; I think it also works well. The 1801 portrait works well in opposition to Therese's in the same format, so I would like to keep them together in the same section.
    Thank you very much for looking at the lead in so much detail! Please let me know what you think of the changes. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, taking the time to explain in detail. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

spotchecks not done

  • Regarding Chisholm, RSP indicates a lack of consensus with regards to reliability - what makes this a high-quality source?
  • The article relies quite heavily on older sources - is there not more modern scholarship available?
  • Be consistent in whether publication locations are included and if so how these are formatted
  • Ranges in titles should use endashes
  • What kind of source is Heuser? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Nikkimaria for providing image and source reviews! (I have also fixed the issue mentioned in the image review, see above). As to the source points:
  • Removed Chisholm except when I am citing the 1911 EB to say what the 1911 EB says. The citations were all redundant from a content point of view, just left in because they are in a sense more accessible than Jordan's monograph.
  • The main source for the article is Jordan's 1978 monograph. There is rather little more recent scholarship focusing on L.F. Huber; I think I have cited quite a bit of the newer literature that mentions him but does not focus on him. His wife Therese Huber is more popular in recent (especially feminist) scholarship, but there is usually more focus on her first husband than her second. I will try to replace Heiss 1908 by newer scholarship (just requested at WP:RX), but I expect that will be far more important for the article about the father (I promised Gerda that I will write it) and not yield a lot for this one. I could probably replace Saine 1972 by Uhlig 2004 almost everywhere, but that would mean moving to a German source and make accessibility for our readers worse).
  • If there's significant scholarship on the wife, it would seem likely that some of the content that focuses on her could be sourced to that? For example the citations for "Therese Forster and her children left Mainz" are 1978 and 1901 - could those be replaced by the modern sources you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed some of the 1901 citations and replaced some others by citations to the timeline in the edition of her letters. This led to a change in daughter Luise's birthday. I have only now found a modern scholarly biography of Therese Huber [57] that I will use to update some of these things when I get my hands on it (most of what I have about her except Geiger's 1901 bio either consists mostly of her own letters and writings or concentrates on her marriage to Forster). The remaining Geiger citations (except where I cite him as an example) are now somewhat redundant, but I don't see them as harmful. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have the Riepl-Schmidt book in my hands on Friday (I'm travelling Wednesday and Thursday, so I won't be able to answer any queries related to paper versions of books I have used until then). —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a ", NY" from New York and think I am otherwise consistent in including locations (yes for books, no for journals). Please let me know if I missed something.
  • Added a few dashes, hopefully to everything.
  • Changed Heuser to |chapter= instead of |contribution=, well spotted.
Let me know what you think, especially about the older scholarship. —Kusma (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: Fixed the issues you reported (perhaps not all of the older scholarship, but the biographical information presented here isn't something where scholarly opinion changes rapidly). —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have significantly reduced the reliance on older (pre-1970) scholarship. The article no longer cites the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie or Heiss 1908, but instead I have used Espagne 1996 and Riepl-Schmidt 2016 (which didn't provide quite as much as I hoped for this article, but will be useful when I rewrite Therese Huber). —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have updated a few more citations. Everything pre-1960 that is left is now either used essentially as a primary source or about something so obscure that modern scholarship can't be expected. Life details should all be cited to reasonably modern sources now. Do you think this passes now? —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2023 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2023 [58].

Al-Walid I

edit
Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth Umayyad caliph, al-Walid I, whose decade-long reign represented the zenith of Umayyad power and prosperity, though his direct role in its successes is unclear. His reign is often deemed by historians to be the fruit of his father and predecessor, Abd al-Malik's, long, hard work. Started editing this article in Feb 2019, it passed GAN in July of that year, and I have been working on it periodically since. I believe it is finally ready for FA consideration. Al Ameer (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Gold_dinar_of_al-Walid_707-708_CE.jpg is missing a US tag for the coin
  • File:Coin_minted_during_the_reign_of_al-Walid_I_ibn_'Abd_al-Malik_in_Istakhr.jpg is missing tagging for the original work.
  • Ditto File:Syria,_Damascus,_The_Umayyad_Mosque.jpg

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

edit
  • Indicate the years when Marwan I reigned.
  • ...he gradually restored the dynasty's rule in Syria and Egypt Could the sentence be more specific instead of using "gradually" (for i{xtnstance, "by the end of his reign" or "by [year]/by around [year]")?
  • ...with its eastern dependencies... Consider specifying the territories or deleting the uninformative text.
  • Do we know why he abandoned speaking the classical Arabic?
  • Unlike his father, al-Walid heavily depended on al-Hajjaj... vs Al-Hajjaj's prominence was such that he is discussed more frequently in the medieval Muslim sources than al-Walid or Abd al-Malik... Contradiction?
  • Not necessarily, but I could see what you mean. Decided to scrap the second sentence. Part of it is more pertinent to the article about al-Hajjaj and the rest is somewhat redundant with the Assessment section. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a desire to install one of his own loyalists, his katib (scribe), Qurra ibn Sharik of the Banu Abs Perhpas "to install his loyal katib (scribe), Qurra ibn Sharik of the Banu Abs"?
  • ...the mistreatment of Medina's pious residents by Abd al-Malik's appointed governor to the Hejaz, Hisham ibn Isma'il al-Makhzumi Only the pious residents were mistreated? If yes, how or why?
  • "The Qaysi" or "the Qays"?
  • Who are Blankinship and Hawting?
  • Why al-Walid instead of Al-Walid at the beginning of the first sentence of the lead?
  • This change was introduced by Apaugasma with the reasoning that the introductory sentence is not a full sentence, hence the Arabic article should be lowercased per MoS Arabic. While I am not sure I agree, I want to give Apaugasma the opportunity to weigh in. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was being a bit overenthusiastic there. While al- should only be capitalized at the beginning of a full sentence (so not in titles or wherever there is not a full sentence with subject and verb), this of course is a full sentence and we'd probably better be consistent with this.
    Arabists usually go out of their way to not start a sentence with al- because upper case Al- looks jarring, and the rule of 'only at the start of a full sentence' is actually more a corollary of 'avoid wherever possible'. With all the bold and the introductory parentheticals in the lead sentence one might read the al- here rather as part of a lemma than as part of an actual sentence, which might justify the use of lower case. But as I said, it's probably better to be consistent, so I went ahead and changed it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation Apaugasma and restoring the previous version in the meantime. It might be something to raise at MoS Arabic as well (unless you have already and I missed it). Al Ameer (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MOSAR currently has "Al-" and its variants (ash-, ad-, ar-, etc.) are always written in lower case, also when forming part of proper nouns, except when beginning a sentence. I think that's a good rule to just follow consistently, and I was wrong to try and make an exception to it, even though some RS might do precisely that (see for example [59], where the title (including the lower case al-) is 'reused' as the first word of the lead, even though the convention in EI2 is to make the opening line only render the subject without any predicate, so it's not actually a full sentence). On WP, it's more important to have something consistent and simple to follow for everyone.
    The guideline is tucked away a bit and not formulated in the clearest way, but then the Arabic MoS in general still needs a lot of work. Existing WP practices need to be more fully described, and some of these practices also need to be streamlined better with common practice in RS. All of that then needs to be explained in simpler and clearer instructions. There's a lot to do there, but I think that there are just not enough editors interested in this. In part we also suffer from a lack of editors who are properly familiar with RS in the field of Arabic and Islamic studies, so in a way I'm actually glad that editors with little expertise stay away from creating a strict MoS. It would easily end up enforcing all kinds of things not common in RS at all or downright contrary to common practice in RS. When we get more editors with experience in the field, things will naturally evolve from there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Musa ibn Nusayr as al-Walid's governor in North Africa in the lead.
  • The al-Aqsa is attributed to his father by some sources, according to the main text.
  • Need to and will amend the main text (and then lead) to elaborate on this. Even those scholars who attribute the commencement of the mosque’s construction to Abd al-Malik credit al-Walid for completing it. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did his reign end? The infobox says that 25 January or 11 March although he is said to have died on 23 February.
  • Appears I had a footnote about alternative death dates; I modified it and moved it to the infobox; let me know if better here or in the first sentence of the lead instead.
  • Done, and yes. Since this is a footnote which only mentions that another 'early' source cites slightly different dates for his death, I figure this is OK—but if unnecessary, I have no issue scrapping it. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says that he was buried in Bab al-Saghir, while the main text mentions an other possible place of burial as well.

Feel free to revert my two minor edits if you disagree them. Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Borsoka. I reverted one of them, the separation of 'Patronage of great mosques' from 'Public works and social welfare' because these two (public works and congregational mosque patronage) are closely linked, the mosque-building being an especially notable part of the larger program of caliphal-driven public works. Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also: Qays–Yaman rivalry" should be moved to section "Balancing tribal factions" from section "Provincial affairs".
  • I would delete "with de-stabilizing consequences" because it is not explained in the footnote.
  • I understand the claim that Yazid III's mother was the daughter of a Sasanian prince is verified only by a primary source.
  • I added secondary sources to back this—the claim, in any case, is traced back to al-Tabari. Another old source, al-Ya'qubi gives a slightly different name, Shafarand instead of Shah-i-Afrid and a different grandfather; but the secondary sources prefer Tabari's version. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the sentence about his summer 696 campaign is verified only by a primary source.
  • Somewhat. I specified in the citation that this information is from a footnote so the author in this case would be the editor Everett Rowson rather than Tabari. The footnote discusses what other primary sources mention about al-Walid's summer raids in 77 AH (696) and 78 AH (697). Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of my concerns were addressed and the map is not worse than maps placed in many other FAs so I support the article's promotion. Thank you for this interesting and comprehensive article. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • The German map stands out as a bit of an oddity, due to the language and because it cuts out part of the Maghreb. Are there any English, less cropped alternatives?
  • To my knowledge, no and we sorely need such a new map showing the expansion phases as this one does, but in English and perhaps with a little less detail. This is not a satisfactory answer, but I am not sure how soon such a map can be created. Will bring it up to the Lab tomorrow or so to see if someone will take it up. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link ethnic groups like Arabs, Berbers, etc.?
  • "and replacing Greek and Persian" Link these languages?
  • "These policies effected the gradual transition of Arabic as the sole official language of the state" I wonder if Arabization should be linked anywhere in this article?
  • "Umar had Hisham publicly humiliated" Do we know how?
  • All I know is that he had him "stand before the people", without much elaboration, and this was considered a public humiliation. It is also noted that some of the pious folks whom he abused did not use the opportunity to retaliate against him. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship notes that the army of Damascus, numbering some 45,000 soldiers, were taxed a quarter of their salaries for nine years to pay for its construction." If this is a fact, and not an opinion/interpretation, why does it have to be attributed to a particular historian?
  • "Aphrodito Papryi" Papyri?
  • Any other interesting buildings he sponsored or similar that can be shown in the latter part of the article, which looks a bit empty?
  • I had pictures of the Aqsa Mosque and the Mosque of Medina, but since these both look totally different than al-Walid's constructions (unlike the Damascus mosque), I just opted to remove them. Currently looking for an image of the unfinished Umayyad palace/administrative structure built on the southern wall of the Temple Mount. These are attributed to al-Walid and have essentially remained unchanged since. Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good, and the Temple Mount structure sounds interesting, perhaps there's something unidentified on Commons or Flickr, I'd be happy to help in the search if I can get pointers as to what to look for. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first two seem to have the best focus on the structures in question? And perhaps the first one the most? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added now. Thanks for the suggestion. Al Ameer (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas

edit

Reserving a spot here. Constantine ✍ 06:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • upon the viceroy's direction 'recommendation', perhaps? Al-Hajjaj was powerful, but Walid still formally ruled.
  • renewal of the Muslim conquests link to early Muslim conquests here rather than further down? The article does not deal with the earliest conquests, but until the end of the Umayyad period.
  • the caliphate's domestic front possibly unclear what is meant here. What front?
  • During the second half of his reign 'al-Walid's reign' for clarity
  • In the 'Eastern frontiers' section it might be useful to add that leaving the local rulers in power would eventually lead to a near collapse of Umayyad power in the next decades.
  • In the 'Byzantine front' section, it might be worthwhile to note that the frontier achieved under al-Walid solidified as the Arab–Byzantine frontier until the turn of the 9th/10th century, when the Byzantine reconquest began.
  • Thanks; my only concern is whether or not the frontier was achieved under al-Walid specifically. I was not able to find support for that in these sources either. Please let me know if I missed something. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Al Ameer son: Well the conquest of Cilicia was under al-Walid, and that was the end of Arab expansion. I couldn't find it in so many words, but we are allowed to make educated inferences when the sources speak of the "early 8th century". But it is not terribly important if it doesn't get into the article either. Constantine ✍ 19:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 709, al-Walid dismissed Abd Allah ... Qurra ibn Sharik of the Banu Abs is too long, suggest splitting up.
  • central religious importance of Mecca and Medina add why this is (e.g. 'as the birthplace of Islam' or 'as the holy cities of Islam', since you mention them as such later on); many people will not know what you refer to.
  • The latter was the maternal grandfather who is 'the latter'?
  • wary of the Hejaz once again developing into a center of anti-Umayyad activity I assume Ibn al-Zubayr's revolt is meant? I would recommend explicitly mentioning it here again.
  • However, Wellhausen doubts that al-Walid preferred one faction over the other add after Wellhausen's observations that this balancing act would not be maintained by his successors, contributing to the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty.
  • Aphrodito Papryi link Aphrodito, and a typo here ('Papyri')
  • During the Third Muslim Civil War is it not more correct to say that this affair helped cause the civil war?
  • The publisher in Ahmed 2011 is incorrect, Prospographica et Geneaoligica (typo here) is the series of the book.

That's it for a first pass. An excellent article, really little to complain about. Constantine ✍ 08:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thanks for the great suggestions. Left a question for you regarding the Byzantine frontier. Other than that, let me know if anything else. Al Ameer (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Had another look, nothing that jumps out as missing or problematic. Added a suggestion above, but am ready to support as it is. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Not sure how this slipped from the radar. Thank you for the review, recommendations, and support. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit
  • McMillan 2011 : page numbers/ranges needed
  • Powers, Stephan, ed. (1989) : Correct name is Powers, David S. (i.e. Stephen is middle name, not first)
  • The Restoration Project of the Masjid al-Aqsa by Mïmar Kemalettın (1922–1926) --> ... (1922–26)
  • Although not specific to this article, I think we should standardize Hawting's name (Hawting, G. R vs. Hawting, Gerald R.) in templates
  • Kennedy, Hugh and Kennedy, H. ;)
  • The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī (Volume 3): Biesterfeldt and Günther are series editors (Islamic History and Civilization). This particular volume was edited by Gordon, Robinson, Everett, and Fishbein.
  • Should Hillenbrand, 1994 be before Hillenbrand, 1999?
  • Gordon et al. 2018, p. 1001, 1004. --> pp.
  • Gordon, Matthew S.; Robinson, Chase F.; Rowson, Everett K.; Fishbein, Michael (2018)--> ... (eds.) (2018). i.e last1 --> editor1-last etc.
  • In some cases you give all pub locs (e.g. Fowden, Garth (2004)-Berkeley and Los Angeles) and in some you give only the first (e.g. Elad, Amikam (1999)-Leiden from Leiden, Boston, Köln). There are other instances too
  • "The Babylonian Encounter and the Exilarchic House in the Light of Cairo Geniza Documents and the Parallel Arabic Sources". Drop "the", not part of the original title; Arabic --> Arab
  • Marsham, Andrew (2022): Editor names?
  • "Living Islamic History: Studies in Honour of Professor Carole Hillenbrand" Google Books link would be good (not a must, of course)
  • "The Fall of the Caliphate of Cordoba: Berbers and Arabs in Conflict": I think it is "Andalusis"
  • "Estudios onomástico-biográficos de Al-Andalus: V": I think you are using volume VI
  • Otros Linajes Omeyas en al-Andalus". In Marín, Manuela (ed.). Estudios onomástico-biográficos de Al-Andalus: V.
  • Sources are all high quality. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his father's caliphate, al-Walid led the campaigns in 695, 696, 697 and 698.[7]" [7] says 696, 697, 698 and 699
  • "...enlisted more troops into Egypt's army...[38]" The source is not so certain of this meaning of reorganizing the diwan. I think you should stick to "reorganization" or at least add a qualifier to "enlisting more troops". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:00, 29 April 2023 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2023 [60].

Supermarine S.4

edit
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about R'J. Mitchell's revolutionary and beautiful-looking aircraft, designed as an entrant for the 1925 Schneider Trophy competition, but which crashed during navigation trials prior to the contest. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Supermarine_S.4_monoplane.jpg: when and where was this first published and where is the CC tag coming from?
@Nikkimaria: I have thought it easier to replace the image in the infobox (having spent ages trying to understand the correct tag for it). Hopefully this works. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the new image was published in 1925, suggest adding PD-US. Ditto the others from the same source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:S.4_being_built_at_the_Supermarine_works.png: where is the CC tag coming from?
@Nikkimaria: I have replaced the templates with what I think are now the correct ones, please let me know if they are now appropriate. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The UK tag now in use requires that you "specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". The US tag requires a publication date well before the given source - where is it believed to have been published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent some time looking, I have been to find the information you require, and so have removed the image. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Henri_Biard_and_R.J._Mitchell_in_front_of_the_Supermarine_S.4.png, File:1925_Schneider_Trophy_competition_at_Bay_Shore_Park,_USA.jpg
I have amended the text in the Biard/Mitchell photograph to say that a cropped version of it was published in 1925, so the larger image was available then.
I have replaced the tag and added what I believe is the right additional information. If the licences/information for these images is still not correct, please point me in the direction of someone who can help get them sorted! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please advise if still more is needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, particularly with regards to purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I think the images are now sorted. Am I right? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "he saw the three previous" - sentence starts without a capital
  • "The S.4 was the first" - conversely this is in the middle of a sentence so shouldn't have one
  • "which created a sensation in the when" - think there's a word missing here
  • "The windy conditions had however blown" => "The windy conditions had, however, blown"
  • "Mitchell, who was on board that rescued Biard" - again, think there's at least one word missing here
  • Don't think all the "see also"s are needed, especially the S5 which is already linked in the prose. They are also all linked in the template at the bottom
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done, but the See also section in these kind of articles tends to include a superfluous list of aircraft listed elsewhere in the text (I agree with you that the section wasn't needed). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by The person who loves reading

edit
  • This article is well-written: professional writing.
  • This article is comprehensive: contains only major facts.
  • This article is well-researched: lots of reliable sources.
  • This article is neutral: from a neutral point of view.
  • This article is stable: no recent edit wars.
  • I have already fixed some little grammar mistakes.
  • Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties to review... Copyedited so let me know if you have any concerns there. My only outstanding query at this stage is re. The S.5 was given a smaller fuselage cross section, and more streamlined floats, modifications which provided it with estimated increases in speed over its predecessor -- "Estimated increases" sounds odd, generally one would expect a figure to follow this; do we mean it was designed to be faster than the S.4? (Obvious one would think). Then again, why would any increase in speed be estimated only? If the S.5 flew faster than the S.4's highest recorded speed then that would be that, wouldn't it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text now (hopefully) clarified. The large number of modifications introduced in the design of the S.5 to improve its performance meant that the effect of a single modification would not have been precisely known, hence estimated. However, the sentence as previously written didn't make proper sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks AM, I think you've taken care of that concern. I'm leaning support but will await the results of the source review (which I could possibly undertake myself but can't promise) and confirmation the image queries are resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

edit
  • The sources are known to me as highly reliable.
  • I would suggest that "|name-list-style=amp" be added to the templates of all multi-author works to be consistent with how the References section formats such works, but that's not a requirement.
Done. AM
  • Bibliography is properly formatted.
  • References section is properly formatted.
  • Spotchecked the references to Flight; no issues found.
  • As an aside, I've been mourning the loss of Flight's back issues since they were removed from the magazine's website a few years ago. It never occurred to me to check on their availability in the Internet Archive. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
edit
  • Do the sources explain in greater detail what exactly made the S.4 so revolutionary? Both the cantilever wing and the seami-monocoque construction of the fuselage had been pioneered in the previous decade by German and French designers. I suspect that these developments were mostly ignored and the S.4 was revolutionary only in a British context.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, thanks for your support, Sturmvogel 66. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources agree the design was revolutionary, and suggest this was in a Schneider Trophy, rather than a British, context. Legacy section expanded slightly to reflect this. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2023 (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_2023&oldid=1157860144"