Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2019

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2019 [1].

Western yellow robin

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cute little bird from southern Australia. I have scoured sources and reckon it's as comprehensive as it can be for the lay reader. Have a look and let me know what to fix. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put in taxobox as it is pointing to centre of page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "erected by Swainson" Spell out and link name.
added and linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest records of the species" From when?
changed to "Gould reported" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the first collection of local fauna" Date?
1830s - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems odd now that only one person is presented with nationality and occupation.
an oversight...fixing.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastern yellow robin (Eopsaltria australis) is linked and given scientific name twice.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bird taxonomist Richard Schodde did not" Date?
1999 - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA" Dates?
2009 and 2011 - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "revealed that the divergence between" Any estimate as to when it happened?
neither paper suggests date ranges Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rosinae" Meaning?
found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "families Eupetidae (Rail-babbler), Chaetopidae (Rockjumper) and Picathartidae (Rockfowl)" Why are all the common names capitalised?
accident - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest recorded name is b"am-boore—reported by John Gilbert" When?
1839, but this fact has drifted and I can fix later. ~ cygnis insignis 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
is 1840 - added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[3]
  • I wonder what the thoughts behind describing subspecies differences and differences in range under taxonomy, I'd imagine readers looking for such info under description and distribution sections? In fact, some of the info from taxonomy seems to be duplicated under description.
have moved to description now and removed reduplication. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess again coloration should be colouration?
Coloration is correct, as we have previously discussed. ~ cygnis insignis 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Western Australia, it is found south and west of an imaginary line between Kalbarri and Norseman" What does this line divide, the subspecies? Or between these named areas? "Imaginary" makes this a bit confusing...
This last point seems to have been overlooked? FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber? I can support once this is addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the species as a whole. Changed to name from "it". I thought it was unambiguous given its place in the paragraph....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think the problem is that one would expect info on where the different subspecies can be found under distribution rather than under taxonomy. Anything that could be done about this? FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @FunkMonk:, I did this. Is it worth adding a note that Mathews controversially named a large number of taxa later not found to be distinct (he was a splitter supreme), but this one is? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For someone interested in that kind of stuff, I'd say yes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a footnote. Probably best to add to lots of Australian bird articles Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in dryer" Drier? English isn't my first language, but seems "dryer" refers strictly to the machine...
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are 18-22 mm long by 15-16 mm wide" Convert?
oppose ~ cygnis insignis 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it already this FAC due to suggestion below - the range is so narrow in inches to be meaningless Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the Australasian robin family Petroicidae" Only stated in intro.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big deal, but the intro seems to have a different order than the article body, since you give info on its naming last instead of first.
I was in two minds, but after rejigging I am happier with the new order Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz

edit

Initial comments

  • Who was John Gould? (English ornithologist and bird artist)
seemed a bit effusive to add a that...but added some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest you spell out the protonym.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly mention that the genus Eopsaltria had been erected by Swainson 6 years earlier for what is now the eastern yellow robin
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gould had called it "grey-breasted robin" in 1848," I suggest you cite Gould here - he includes a beautiful plate: Gould, John (1848). The Birds of Australia. Vol. Volume 3. London: self. Plate [12] and text. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I'm not suggesting that you change the year, but Gould's work was issued in 36 parts: Eopsaltria griseogularis was in Part 12 issued in 1843 - the work was completed in 1848. see here)  
  • Spell out RAOU (and wlink?)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gould actually wrote B"am-boore for the local name (presumably " indicates stress) ie without an "n" and not bamborn (see link above)
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " weight of 20 g (0.7 oz)." - around 20 g?
not sure about this as is in same sentence as wingspan and length. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The underparts are yellow and sharply delineated from the breast." sharply delineated - this isn't apparent in the photos.
"sharply" is what HANZAB says. I changed to "clearly" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do the tarsi differ?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They do not resemble any other species in its range." - plural then singular
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I don't have easy access to HANZAB - I would need to visit a library. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a library next to one of my work places...and I've taken photos of all the pages.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
updated and added to body of text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In tall Jarrah-Marri forest" - these species aren't wlinked until the breeding section.
solved by linking to the ecological unit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The maximum age recorded from banding" - this appears misplaced - perhaps better in Breeding.
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 15–16 mm (5⁄8–5⁄8 in) wide" - imperial measurements aren't helpful here (I prefer the decimal system)
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eggs are more elongated than those of the eastern yellow robin." Surprising - is there a more recent reference for this?
there is no other allusion to this anywhere in HANZAB. Shall I remove it..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion - I know little about oology. Note that the ref was muddled - correct link but wrong date and author - now as ref 16. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the helpers feed the young?
yes and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long do the young stay in the nest before they fledge?
yes and added Annoyingly not mentioned in HANZAB. HANZAB does say social behaviour not well known Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are helpers the offspring of the parents from a previous brood?
HANZAB doesn't specifically say in this species entry but I have linked "helper" at first instance to Cooperative breeding which pretty much says yes for all species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference 2: "Gould, Elizabeth; Gould, John (1838). A synopsis of the birds of Australia" - The wiki page on Gould explains that his wife Elizabeth prepared the plates. Elizabeth is not listed as an author on the title page of the volume.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 4: "Gould, J.; Gilbert, J. (1863). Handbook to The birds of Australia. v.1." - The title page only lists Gould as an author. Gilbert is mentioned in the preface but he died in 1845. The year on the title page is 1865. Worldcat doesn't list an earlier edition.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've switch year to 1865. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks good now. Note that I've tweaked some of the refs. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • What is the difference between lime and green?
I use it for "yellow-green" but have changed to the more objective "light green" and "dark green" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This article is in great shape. I have only two comments:

  • "Although it is rated as least concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Red List of Threatened Species, it has declined in parts of its range." - can you say over which time period?
Annoyingly the source does not specify. I would assume that it coincides with land clearance that has been going on since the early 19th century, however it is not specified in the source at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the only other candidate is Barngarla, which was the language of the Eyre Peninsula. However it is extinct and being resurrected. Vocabulary is meagre at best and no robins listed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for those responses Cas. My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4 should use pp not p
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is FN4 or FN8 the correct formatting of that publisher?
latter and aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced
spaced now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations and/or retrieval dates
aligned - yes and no (The Jobling ref is actually a webcite). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how you format self-published works
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it appears to be part of a book but cannot confirm that. So using cite web format as it is from a reliable and authoritative website 05:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from MONGO

edit

Made a couple tweaks [4] and I support promotion to Featured Article. Nice work.--MONGO (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - sorry, had to revert the egg imperial measurements as the consensus was to not have above. They are so small to make inch measurements porblematic... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2019 [5].

USS Oberrender

edit
Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first United States Navy ship article expansion is on a small World War II destroyer escort that was fairly lucky until it was hit by a kamikaze at Okinawa. The first on a destroyer escort to pass a GA review, the article recently also passed a Milhist A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, so have little to add:

  • suggest lk=on for the power in the infobox to link kW
  • Done
  • where were the TTs located?
  • Added
  • any information about how many DCs she could carry?
  • Friedman does not state, though he writes that an early DE design study (though not for the Butler class) equates 4 throwers and 2 racks with a total of 75 DCs.
  • suggest using Netherlands New Guinea instead of New Guinea re Hollandia
  • Done
  • is there a link for Abercrombie?
  • Done

That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Done

Source review

edit
  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • The sources used are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Can you check the location for Bauer? WorldCat and OpenLibrary both show New York – both have been known to be wrong though.
  • That's because Greenwood Press had three locations: Westport, NY, and London at the time, but Greenwood Press was headquartered in Westport, looking at the title page and verso
  • Formatting:
No need to link Westport, Connecticut
  • Done
Be consistent in locations, viz:
Anapolis should be Annapolis, MD
  • Done
Ditto for Boston, MA
  • Done
Jefferson, North Carolina should be Jefferson, NC
  • Done
As the US sources have "City, State" as the location, Stern should be Barnsley, South Yorkshire
  • Done
Naval History & Heritage Command should be Naval History and Heritage Command
  • Done
ISBNs should be formatted consistently. The 13-digit version is best (there is a converter here), and they should either all contain dashes or none at all.
  • Done.

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • named for Lieutenant Commander Thomas Olin Oberrender, Jr. Is there a link for Mr Oberrender?
  • He would not meet notability guidelines if an article was created, so no link.
  • either in the forward fire room or the 20 mm mount Merge "fire room".
  • Done
  • In the infobox "10 × single 20 mm (0.79 in) AA guns" The Oerlikons are cannon, not guns.
  • two twin 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft (AA) guns Same as above.
  • In English gun and cannon can be used as synonyms
  • superfiring over the 5-inch guns No metric units?
  • Added conversions
  • it was to secure before the invasion of Okinawa Link Okinawa.
  • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit
  • Per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I have only used Spencer in this context of establishing the basic facts of what the ship was doing. Spencer is verifiable because many of the cited war diaries are posted on NARA and the remaining are on Fold3, which many users have access to. There are other FAs on military units that use war diaries or equivalents to fill in information not provided in secondary sources, such as No. 36 Squadron RAAF which uses the squadron Operations Record Book (the equivalent of a war diary). Kges1901 (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • Done
  • Don't capitalize battle stars
  • Done
  • was thus forced to remain there during November Say that she required repairs after the explosion
  • Rephrased to mention being repaired instead
  • But that goes to a category
  • True, but it at least explains that they were small-tube boilers.
  • which created 12,000 shaft horsepower awkward
  • Rephrased
  • link superstructure, superfiring, hunter-killer
  • Done
  • Done
  • No, you've changed it to read four twin Bofors. It needs to read "two twin-gun mounts" for the Bofors
  • Attempt 2 - four in two twin mounts. Does that make sense?
  • AFAIK the Oerlikons were manually aimed, unlike the Bofors.
  • True
  • Do you have an order date?
  • Not from an RS - there is one on shipbuildinghistory.com
  • who captained the ship commanded; not fond of captain as a verb
  • Done
  • Smoke testing?
  • My error
  • Change depermed to degaussing as a more recognizable term
  • Done
  • For repairs to correct deficiencies found during shakedown, Oberrender was ordered to the Boston Navy Yard Oberrender was ordered to the Boston Navy Yard to correct deficiencies found during shakedown
  • its destination her destination
  • Done
  • "Alongside" reads very oddly to me. Change to "together with" or somesuch
  • Done
  • Battle of Leyte Gulf, however, being delete however and rephrase appropriately
  • Done
  • after refueling in San Pedro Bay, Leyte, steaming to Manus with it awkward
  • Rephrased
  • being towed to the Lombrum Point Ship Repair Dock for repairs, where she remained for the rest of the month awkward. Perhaps "and had to be towed... that lasted the rest of the month"
  • Done
  • The destroyer escort depth charged and fired her Hedgehog at a suspected submarine contact on 3 January, without result. Again without result, she put up anti-aircraft fire against a Mitsubishi A6M Zero attacking a convoy of transports Awfully detailed. If you decide to keep it, change "put up AA fire against" to "engaged"
  • Eliminated the sub depth charging as that looks like another fish contact but kept the AA fire because this was one of the few times in her career that she fired AA guns in combat
  • putting up anti-aircraft fire that chased off a Zero and a D3A Val dive bomber "Driving off... with her AA fire"
  • Done
  • latter took bomb damage passive voice
  • Done
  • Rephrased

SC

edit
Leyte and Mount Hood
  • "She missed the Battle of Leyte Gulf ... Oberrender returned". As it's a new para, you should start with Oberrender to clarify, and use "she" on the second mention
  • Done
  • Were there any fatalities or injuries on Oberrender because of the Hood's explosion? If not, that should be clarified too.
  • Done
Okinawa
  • "eight men were killed and 53 wounded": per the MoS, this should either be both words or both numbers
  • Done
  • ".[29][2]": reverse the refs to keep them in order (and check the others are also in order)
  • Done

That's it from me; I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2019 [6].

Hurricane Sergio (2018)

edit
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 18:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a lot of time working on correcting the accuracy of and expanding Sergio's article. Although the impact was mainly minimal, I feel this article is now complete and satisfies the FA criteria. NoahTalk 18:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Oof-off

edit

Support - This article is comprehensive and covers all of the aspects of Sergio's life in a good amount of detail. In particular, the impact is extensively covered, and I can vouch that much time was put into making the impact as comprehensive as possible. The meteorological history is accurate and the sources are well-picked. The vast majority of the problems that were present before in the article, many of which have been pointed out here by other Wikipedia users, have been fixed already. I did fix one mistake which were related to improper use of "it's"/"its". Otherwise, the grammar and spelling is sound. I believe this article is worthy of feature article status. --Oof-off (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
Lead
  • It's a long first paragraph and contains ten uses of "Sergio" in twelve sentences: any chance some synonyms could be used, or even just an "it" or two?
  • Ditto para two – four "Sergio"s in six sentences. The same goes for the rest of the article, although to a lesser degree: there are a further sixteen in the body text, which could be trimmed here and there, particularly in the history section
Removed several mentions throughout the lead and MH. NoahTalk 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "about 18 hours as system underwent": the system?
Fixed. NoahTalk 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Very minor, but the heavy use of the name needs to be addressed first. – SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

edit
Note
I don't speak Spanish, so this refers to the English language sources only
  • The sources seem reliable for the subject covered.
  • Further searches showed no additional obvious sources that have been missed off.
  • Spot checks on six sources verify the content claimed.
  • The same spot checks showed no plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
  • There are some very minor formatting issues that need sorting:
    • FN 13: "The Weather Channel. The Weather Channel." No need for the repetition – ditto on FN 28 "The Watchers. The Watchers"
    • FNs 14, 15, 24 and 25: El Universal, Diario de Yucatán El Imparcial and El Sol de Mexico are newspaper titles and so should be italicised. – check there are no others on this too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: That should be it. NoahTalk 14:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

edit

With the caveat that I reviewed this article for A-class review, I believe this article passes all of the FA criteria, so I support the candidacy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

edit
  • "Sergio was indeed a tropical storm, but unlike..." - no need to restate that Sergio was a TS, I think you can just start the sentence with "Unlike other tropical cyclones..."
Done. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The storm had developed a well-defined eye" - missing "At this point," or similar
Fixed. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After bottoming out as a low-end Category 3" - Category 3 is not a noun, add "hurricane"
Fixed. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It unexpectedly acquired some annular characteristics on October 7, with the eye having doubled in size overnight" - large eye != annular, you may want to mention that rainbands dissipated too
Done. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "southern and eastern facing shores" --> "south- and east-facing shores"
    • Actually after looking more closely at the source only the easterly swells were caused by Sergio, so mentioning the advisory for the south-facing shores was issued "As a result" of Sergio is misleading. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Arizona State Fair was closed due to flooding, the first time in 'recent memory'." - I feel the comma interrupts the flow here, maybe something like "Flooding forced the closure of [etc.] for the first time..." or "...was closed for the first time in 'recent memory' due to flooding" would be better
Changed. NoahTalk 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "70 mph (115 km/h) wind gusts" - 60 knots converts to 69 mph (111 km/h)
Removed rounding. NoahTalk 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KN2731: Should be everything. NoahTalk 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All changes addressed, moving to support. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2019 [7].

23rd (Northumbrian) Division

edit
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that was sent to France, during 1940, to provide unskilled labour for rear-area duties and it was promised that they would not to see combat. Once the Germans broke through the Ardennes and crossed the Meuse, the unprepared division was thrown onto the frontline and subsequently mauled. Evacuated at Dunkirk, it returned to the UK where it was broken up as part of a restructuring of the British Army. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have little to add:

Erm. Shouldn't that be either 'under the constant threat of the Luftwaffe' or 'under a constant threat from the Luftwaffe'?
Much better... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few follow-up comments to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good now, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

Placeholder. Give me a ping once you have actioned PM's comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed this at ACR. Quite a bit has been done to the article since then. All of which has improved it. All I have is the trivia below.

A splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Spotchecks not done
  • Battistelli ISBN seems to correspond to a different edition
    Should be addressed nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collier has the origyear and year reversed
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the Jones source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    Briefly, for the moment, it is a completed doctoral thesis, which can be used. It has not been used as a primary source, it largely been used for the author's analysis in a largely neglected area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any indication this analysis has entered mainstream academic discourse? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, at present no secondary source is quoting Jones. His commentary on the state of the territorial training level is on par with other sources, just more specific to the topic at hand; i.e. French (2001) talks about this in more general terms, and Smalley (2015) talks about this with specific regards to the 12th Division. Numerous sources discuss the BEF manpower shortage in regards to engineers and pioneers etc. Jones - so far - appears to be the only one who outright states the arrival of the three divisions did little to rectify the situation. His is an analysis of a primary source, which I cannot locate other sources discussing or quoting. The issue is one that most other sources glance over.
    With that said, your thoughts? Removal of extensive quoting, or removal of all material from this source?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, "contains analysis not found elsewhere" is not a synonym for "reliable source". I'd suggest minimizing the extent to which this source is relied upon. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have commented out the quote from Jones, and left a note that it can be reinserted at a latter date once it meets WP:RS. I have also made a few edits to reduce the reliance on the source. Do you believe further efforts need to be made at present?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Hey, just following up on this, do you feel like more material needs to be removed or will this pass mustard? :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I have made the changes you have suggested. I have also left a comment above, about the first and second line changes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images seem well placed and ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Laser brain:: Just trying to stay on top of this. The original website links are long dead. Each commons page though, has archive links to the original source. Are these suitable, or should the maps be removed from the article? Other than that, are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That the links are archived isn't really a problem, but the fact that the links point directly to the file is. One can't verify a license that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Makes perfect sense now, I have commented out as I am not familiar enough with how the way back machine works to get additional information on the maps in order to support the license.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with that said. I did some playing around and was able to access the following parts of the archive website. At this point, it would be a case of advise from you guys on how to proceed:
Atlas main page
European list of maps
Atlas source page (If I am not mistaken, the sources are all from the "West Point" series.)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Laser brain:: Just another follow-up, to avoid this review stagnating and no promotion being made ;) Can you advise on how to proceed from here? With the above links, are the maps okay to use? Do we insert these links onto the commons pages? Or should the maps just be commented out? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure myself, either; requesting a second opinion from @Nikkimaria: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page claims that both maps are the product of either USMA or USDPA, meaning the licensing is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Nikkimaria:, thank you Nikkimaria for the links and comment on licensing. I have tweaked the Commons page to link to archive pages for the original map and atlas source page, and also included the current active links (which I failed to find when previously looking!). I hope this resolves this issue?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2019 (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) 28 September 2019 [8].

Onychopterella

edit
Nominator(s): Super Ψ Dro 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first FAC is about this small and ancient eurypterid. I would say that it's somewhat underrated among eurypterids and that it's more important than it seems, I was surprised the first time I saw how much it's known about it... Super Ψ Dro 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review. Now it probably needs some reviews by people unfamiliar with these creatures too. One question, since O. pumillus was named all the way back in 1916, might there be public domain images of it to use? FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, there's an image, but if the part in which O. pumilus is seen was cut it would be of very low quality, so I think it's not worth it. Super Ψ Dro 22:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link the page? Maybe I can find a better scan somewhere. I think it would be nice to show for variation/comprehensiveness, even at low res, and fit nicely in the paragraph dealing with that species. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here it is [9]. Super Ψ Dro 09:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, don't know if you know or not, but one trick to get higher res images from BDL and archive.org is to just click + and zoom in, then it actually changes to larger images. Just keep pushing + until you get the size you want. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it have very low resolution anyway? In fact, if you press a few more times, you even start to differentiate the pixels... Super Ψ Dro 14:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after maybe the third click, it gets too close. But until then it looks ok, and I think it's good to show for balance, as all the other fossils are kokomoensis. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it, and it doesn't look too bad! Is the alternative description fine? Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, you could of course remove the yellow tint, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could just make it black and white, for example. Either by greyscaling it or turning down the saturation. On the more technical side, you could play with the levels. I can also do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, I don't know how to do those things you mentioned. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, also took the 100% size version; the dots are not pixels, but halftone. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, now it looks much better! Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, I found a better source for the Eurypterids of New York book, and uploaded a higher res version of the infobox image:[10] I think that source could be used henceforward instead of the old Google Books one with its tiny images. Also because I can't even seem to access the Google Books link anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I just noticed that this image[11] apparently shows the holotype of Eurypterus ranilarva, which I think is significant enough to note in the article caption, as it is discussed in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, done. Super Ψ Dro 15:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

An excellent article, although I read from the position of a subject ignoramus. As such, I am reviewing this solely on the basis of its prose only.

Description
  • "subquadrate (almost quadrate)" not everyone will understand "quadrate", so it may be as well to do what you have done in the lead and say "(almost square)"
Done.
Research history
  • "American palaeontologists": in several places you give the nationalities of the scientists who have worked on this. I don't think we need to know that, yes, the name and specialism is key, the nationality can be found on the respective articles. (ditto into the Classification section too)
I do not agree with this point. In the only eurypterid FA, Jaekelopterus, nationalities are mentioned. This is also seen in Deinocheirus, Amargasaurus and Tarbosaurus, but not in Lambeosaurus. It looks like it really doesn't matter and both can be used. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OSE. The nationalities create clutter and add nothing to the knowledge about the Onychopterella. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used to always add it, but recently I have begun to tone it down. I think it can be useful in articles about historical taxa, though, where colonialism might have had a play in how they were discovered, collected, and described. Not as useful for more recently named taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I have removed the nationalities. Another question, is there any English rule that dictates when you can say "paleontologist" and when "the paleontologist"? I say this because I just removed "the" from two sentences. It is possible that the GOCE reviewer who removed most of them missed those two, but I'm not sure. Super Ψ Dro 07:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In British English a definite article is necessary in good, formal writing (such as an encyclopaedia; I always use it when writing here). Without it there is the impression of a false title; good newspapers still use the definite article, tabloids and informal English don't. This article is, I think, written in American English, in which case it's not necessary, but its inclusion isn't 'wrong' either. A slightly fudged answer, but I hope it clarifies things! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paleoecology
  • Piped link to Wiki dictionary for nektobenthic or translate in brackets?
In fact, this is explained after the comma, I added "that is" to avoid confusion.

Very minor points only and I look forward to supporting. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the answer above! Super Ψ Dro 12:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

A nice read. Only a couple of quibbles (non dealbreakers...)

  • In 1948, paleontologist Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering recognized Onychopterus as worthy for the generic rank - why the "the" before generic rank? I'd never put it there....? Also I prefer "warranted/warranting" to "worthy" - the latter makes it sound like being a separate genus is "better" somehow....
Done. "Warrantly" sounds really odd so if you want I can change it. Is it fine? Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant something like this. Actually it wasn't that simple. Anyway all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
What do you mean? Where?
For example, look at the first two citations in the Description section: the second one uses {{cite journal}}, while the first is mostly hand-formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed. There's a problem, however. The sizes are mentioned in the supplementary information and I don't know how to cite this, for now I have used "|quote=". Do you know if there are any specific parameters for this? The rest of the references seem fine. Super Ψ Dro 18:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could use |at=? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then a syntax error appears. It seems that the parameters |at= and |pp= cannot be in a template at the same time. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: a 1912 book won't have an ISBN. Are you meaning to cite a later edition or reprint? If so, citation should reflect that
I had no idea that the ISBNs did not exist then, I have chosen to delete it.
  • Be consistent in whether you use sentence or title case for journal articles
Done.
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
Done.
Fixed.

Coordinator notes

edit

@Super Dromaeosaurus: As this is your first time through FAC, it is customary to require a spot-check of your sources for verifiability and plagiarism/copyvio issues. I've requested a check. --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: If I'm interpreting your initial checks correctly, it seems that a far more expansive audit of the cited sources against the text will be needed, correct? --Laser brain (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting you need to do it, just wondering in general. --Laser brain (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t go that far, but I am planning on checking 5 or 6 sources, and if these sources also have problems, I’ll check all of them (seeing as there’re only 21, it’s not too many)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-coordinator note
  • Could you add the (subscription required) tag after all those articles which need a log in to access - the scientific journals are (probably) all behind paywalls. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Dunkleosteus77

edit
The size of the species of Onychopterella are mentioned in the supplementary material. I honestly don't know how should I cite a source with it. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "maximum", which is simpler and doesn't say that it's the average size. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if that’s entirely accurate either. Lamsden specifically says his measurements are the maximum size, but the source Braddy 1995 you’re citing says it’s only the measurement of the paratype. Also I feel like we’re missing something because Lamsden says the maximum size for the species is 7 cm and he’s citing Braddy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He somehow omitted the paratype, which is odd. The paratype from what I see definitely represents an O. augusti and there would be no reason to assign it to another eurypterid or invalidate it. It must have been a mistake of Lamsdell. Super Ψ Dro 18:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still wanna say the paratype instead of max size as the source you're using displays no certainty that O. augusti could not have grown more than 14.3 cm. Similarly, you want to specify that 4 and 16 cm are the max sizes for O. p. and O. k.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat against mentioning that the paratype was the biggest there. In the history of research, it is already said that the largest O. augusti was the paratype. If I added it in the description, then shouldn't I explain that the largest O. kokomoensis was not a holotype nor paratype? Super Ψ Dro 10:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you I would've put "the largest specimen of" or some variation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave to the sizes to Slate Weasel make the size diagram, and they are in fact from the supplementary material that I mentioned above. And yes, you are right with the second image, now it's only said that it was published before 1924. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to cite Braddy for O. augusti, now it should be fine. Super Ψ Dro 18:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the only species with considerably large epimera... in the pretelson..." reference is given to Clarke, 1912, but it in the section discussing Onychopterella, I don't see a mention of the word "epimera" nor is the word "pretelson" ever mentioned in the publication   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the third paragraph of the description of O. kokomoensis, it's said "the last segment is produced at the postlateral angles into two short broad lobes with blunt extremities". The pretelson is the last segment, that's why it's called that, because it goes before telson. These "broad lobes" are the lateral extensions used to explain the definition of epimera. I guess these terms didn't yet exist or were very rare, since I don't remember seeing them in old documents, but in ones from the 50s or something like that. Super Ψ Dro 10:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Put an access date on ref no. 21
Since this source is going to be replaced, this is pointless.
All the other authors are mentioned at least once before this sentence, but Gabbott is first mentioned here.
I wanted to express some surprise but it's not a big deal.
  • ref no. 21 is saying it’s unknown if the Wilhelmi Formation (where O. p. was discovered) was either a peritidal or a subtidal zone, and you should probably cite “Habitat of Llandoverian-Lochkovian eurypterids“ instead of PBDB (which was its primary source)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Should I also replace the 19th reference with its primary source?
Yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO

edit

Did a few tweaks to the conversions and image placement, etc. [12] Ran a few auto bots and saw no major concerns. A good read and looks well covered. The reference checks above seem to have been addressed. I Support promotion to Featured Article.--MONGO (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By they way, the old MOS recommendation that images should be moved to the right at the beginning of a section has long been removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why that was. As an encyclopedia, the words should be first...shows how old school I am!--MONGO (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because in some cases, the layout will suffer, so if it is applied as a rule, the outcome will not always be a benefit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! But I have decided to restore the position of the images since that recommendation is gone. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 28 September 2019 (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) 28 September 2019 [13].

South Lake Union Streetcar

edit
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The streetcar with a crude nickname and largely detracted for being a slow-moving speculation machine, but now serves as a critical connection to the headquarters of Amazon and many tech offices in Seattle. This article passed GAN a few months ago and I don't think it would need major work to pass here. SounderBruce 23:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by RL0919

edit

I'll add more later, but the thing that immediately jumped out at me is this: The article is titled "South Lake Union Streetcar" and it is mostly called that in the text, which says that is the official name, but the bolded name in the lead is "South Lake Union Line", which isn't even a redirect. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Circling back around with more comments. (Sorry for the long gap, although I'm a little surprised there hasn't been any other activity in the interim.)

Lead:

  • The primary naming issue above still should be addressed.
    • I've decided to put both in, with the common name leading.
  • I realize the nickname is slightly embarrassing, but given that it is a widely used alternative name and has a redirect, I'd expect "South Lake Union Trolley" to be bolded where it first appears in the lead.
    • I'm leaning against it, as I don't like seeing bolded text so far down in the lead. It's also an unofficial name, so I'd rather not highlight it and spoil the fun.

Earlier streetcars and planning:

  • "The first electric streetcar to run along Westlake Avenue was operated by the Seattle Electric Railway and Power Company in October 1890, taking five days to construct after the company was awarded the city government's first streetcar franchise." The "taking" construction is awkward here. I'd go with the straightforward "it took five days", either after a semicolon or as a separate sentence.
    • Reworked the sentence.
  • "with the final streetcars on Westlake Avenue ceasing operations" – straightforward noun+ing situation here: drop the "with", used "ceased", and make this either a separate sentence or an independent clause.
    • Done.
  • "by then a low-rise industrial area" – use "at that time" or some other phrasing instead of "by then", to avoid the implied change from some (unmentioned) prior state.
    • Done.

Approval and construction:

  • "leaving half funded by the city" – $25M is more than half the previously stated $45M estimate or the following $47.5M estimate. Probably this phrase can be omitted entirely, since I think it could be presumed that the remainder would be funded by a source other than the levy.
    • Decided to use "the remainder", as it could be ambiguous because transit projects do often use state and federal funds.
  • "only 12 filed a formal protest" – "only" seems editorial here, unless there is some known typical number of owners that file formal protests.
  • "with others discussing a potential lawsuit" – another noun+ing situation that would be better as an independent clause or sentence.
    • Split the sentence and fixed it up.
  • There is mention of a criticism of "overstated promised ridership", but the estimated ridership isn't mentioned until the end of the next paragraph. I initially put the omission in my notes until I came across the number later. It's not an important flaw, but if you can bring the two closer that might help.
    • Moved it up.
  • Shouldn't "Mayor Nickels" just be "Nickels" after his first mention?
    • It can go either way, but I'd like to keep it for consistency. Nickels is the only mayor to be mentioned more than once (so far).

Opening and later improvements:

  • "which was also removed from the Mercer Street intersection" – what is the "also" here?
    • It was meant to convey that Mercer Street's signal priority was removed. I've reworded it here.
  • "with almost all candidates in the 2009 city council and mayoral elections saying" – noun+ing that could be an independent clause or sentence.
    • Split with a semicolon.
  • "High-rise development in South Lake Union, including offices to accommodate the expected relocation of Amazon, was opened alongside the streetcar alongside new condominiums, businesses, and retailers." Could do without the double helping of "alongside". Also, given that the sentence calls out "offices ... condominiums, businesses, and retailers", what other high-rise development was there?
    • Just a list of examples, but notably there was a lack of traditional offices in this high-rise boom. It's almost all tech.

Expansion plans:

  • "do not intersect, instead leaving a gap" – the simpler "do not intersect and leave a gap" would be better.
    • Fixed.
  • "The independent review was delivered several months late and found issues with vehicle procurement and estimated that the project would cost $252 million to construct." A run-on sentence.
    • Split.

Route:

  • "with a tail track continuing north" – another opportunity for an independent clause or sentence.
    • Fixed.

Fares:

  • "replacing an honor system" – "to replace" seems appropriate here (I assume the replacement wasn't incidental).
    • Fixed.

See also:

  • I think links to sister sites (such as Wikinews) normally go under "External links" rather than "See also".
    • Moved.

That's all I've got for now. Mostly just prose style comments, so it seems pretty close to ready. --RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Thanks for being the first to review this. I have addressed everything you've thrown at me. SounderBruce 05:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes mostly looked good. I made a few other grammar changes, hopefully nothing you find controversial. I didn't spot anything else to complain about, so I'm happy to support on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, eg the track length, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
    • Added citations for track length and electrification, which is all that should be necessary.
  • FN14: page?
  • FN16: source gives different date. Same with FN18, FN26, check for others
  • FN95: don't need accessdate for GBooks links, don't include the ISSN if you're not including the series, and you don't need the OCLC number when you have an ISBN.
    • Removed the ISSN and accessdate, but I would prefer to have a working OCLC link (which gives one-click access to library availability).
  • What makes The Transport Politic a high-quality reliable source?
    • The author (Yonah Freemark) is a frequent contributor to urban planning publications (e.g. CityLab/Atlantic Cities and occasionally the NY Times) and is considered an expert in the field of urban planning and transportation. The post used in the citation is presenting data from the city that would be hard to replace without running into SYNTH issues.
  • Why italicize NBC News but not KING 5 News?
    • Un-italicized NBC News, as it is a publisher.
  • FN115: the author's first name is a date? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by David Fuchs

edit

Forthcoming this evening. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • General and prose:
    • The left-aligned images in the "Service and operations" section collide with text headings repeatedly on screen sizes any larger than around 1366x768 FWXGA; I'd suggest removing one or both of them or shifting them right.
      • Fixed.
    • It travels 1.3 miles (2.1 km) and connects Downtown Seattle to the South Lake Union neighborhood using Westlake Avenue, Terry Avenue, and Valley Street. To me "using" seems a little weird to describe a streetcar route. Bus and train routes I've seen often use "along", and indeed that's what other parts of the article use.
      • Fixed.
    • So Vulcan never ponied up the $25 million mentioned earlier?
      • Found a citation that mentions Vulcan's contribution ($8.6M in the local improvement district).
    • The linkage between the two clauses joined by the semicolon in The streetcar was criticized for its slow speeds due to the lack of dedicated lanes and widespread transit signal priority; a transit priority intersection at Mercer Street was removed in 2009 during the street's reconstruction. leaves me confused. It's saying that a pro-transit intersection was removed? If that's just one of the problems and sources of the complaints it's weird to link them so causally.
  • Images:
    • Images look fine, are appropriately licensed.
  • Sources:
    • Source check performed using this version and checking statements attributed to refs 1, 5, 7, 9, 20, 42, 43, 58, 87, 92, 100, 103, 117, 118, 120, 121, and 123.
      • I didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing.
      • Refs 7 and 9 don't mention the actual Alaskan Way path of the streetcar.
        • Replaced Ref 7 with one that mentions Alaskan Way in particular.
      • Refs 42 and 43 don't adequately cite the service line McGraw Square, South Lake Union, and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (neither mentions the Square, instead talking about a hotel.)
        • Replaced with a mention of the mall (found in a caption); McGraw is the terminus, but the name wasn't in common use until 2011.
      • Ref 87 doesn't contain the 1.3 mile figure for the union line.
        • Added a citation that supports the mile figure.
      • Ref 92 doesn't adequately support The northbound track splits from Westlake Avenue at Thomas Street, running parallel one block to the east on Terry Avenue; a set of platforms between Thomas and Harrison streets serve the center of South Lake Union's high-tech office district.
      • Ref 100 is dead (404 link at source)
        • Fixed.
      • Ref 118 doesn't adequately cite The South Lake Union Streetcar uses four tri-section articulated streetcars built by Inekon in the Czech Republic. (Mentions Prague and Inekon, but doesn't support the time of streetcar, and mentions six street cars, not four.
    • Further source review to current refs 20, 25, 31, 32, 86, 96, and 102. Did not spot additional issues. As such, supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I've added this to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived soon if it does not receive some additional reviews soon. --Laser brain (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a quick comment: "combination of contributions from ... state grants, and a federal grant". Unless there is a subtle difference in meaning in the US, state and federal grants do not give contributions, but are contributions. I presume state and federal bodies were the ones making the contributions. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

edit

I hope to take a greater look at this article later. So far this looks like another great article by SounderBruce, and it would be a shame if there weren't enough feedback for this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius - resolved
  • with support from Paul Allen and his venture capital firm Vulcan Inc. Does this mean they provided the funding, or just worked on the idea. I know this is mentioned further on, but it would be good to clarify a few words.
    • Added "lobbying and financial support"
  • Construction began in July 2006 and was completed in December 2007 by the Seattle Department of Transportation. It was already mentioned that the streetcar opened in December 2007. Unless I'm missing something, usually it's assumed that construction is completed when the project is opened.
    • Replaced with timeframe, though I think it was completed a bit earlier than the opening implied.
  • The line is popularly known by its nickname, the South Lake Union Trolley (abbreviated as "SLUT"), which is used on unofficial merchandise sold by local businesses. Does this at all tie into the controversies mentioned in the following sentence?
    • Not entirely related, but I'm having trouble seeing a good place for the SLUT line.
  • The proposed 2.5-mile (4.0 km) streetcar would travel from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to the Westlake Center, where it would connect to the monorail, buses, and light rail trains. So just to be clear, the Seattle Center Monorail should be explicitly mentioned here. Otherwise it may seem like you are talking about the proposed monorail, since that is also linked with the displayed text "monorail".
    • Un-piped the link.
  • Westlake Avenue was originally a northbound-only street until September 2007, but was converted to two-way traffic for the streetcar while Terry Avenue became northbound-only. What was Terry Avenue originally? Two-ways?

More comments:

  • The streetcar line is officially named the South Lake Union Streetcar, but it is also known by a popular moniker—the South Lake Union Trolley (abbreviated as "SLUT"), which is used on merchandise sold by local businesses. - It seems awkward to wikilink "slut" (lowercase) with the display text being "SLUT"? I feel like this wikilink should have context - e.g. its use as a derogatory term for women.
    • I don't think it would be necessary to add a description of what "slut" means, especially with the link.
  • Streetcar service between the Pacific Place shopping center, South Lake Union, and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center began on December 12, 2007, with 600 people at the ribbon-cutting ceremony and full trains throughout the day - I take it that all of the trains were crowded to capacity. But this phrasing doesn't say so directly, so rather, you should just say directly that it was crowded.
    • Added the figure from the second source.
  • Streetcar ridership rose in later years due to an increase in new businesses around South Lake Union, necessitating new service improvements. ... - I wonder if the public opinion also improved in regards to this, since you mentioned how unfavorable was the public perception of the streetcar in 2009.
    • Most of this is informal, so finding a reliable source is a bit difficult.
  • and are planned to be expanded by 2020 - in which way? Extending the lanes? Extending the time frame of said restrictions?
    • It's a physical extension, albeit by only one block.
  • The first (and, so far, only) addition to the network, - I think this can be rephrased, e.g. "The only addition to the network so far,"
    • Fixed.
  • to mitigate the loss of a planned light rail station - was Sound Transit planning to build a light rail station there, but then canceled?
    • Yes, and that is covered in the First Hill article.
  • The streetcar project remains suspended as of January 2019, but is anticipated to open in 2025 if funding is found for the $286 million cost. - Nothing wrong with this sentence in general, but if the project is suspended, then i wonder how the sources got the date of 2025. Assuming that it takes at least six years to build the extension, this date is likely to be pushed back for each year that funding is deferred. Just my observation anyway.
    • Also, it seems that this is covered in the article Seattle Streetcar#Center City Connector. Again, not a big deal, just an observation of the source.
      • The date has been pushed back a year, so this piece will have to be continually updated for a while. Generally it is assumed that construction itself will take a fixed amount of time and most of the planning work is already completed, so we're waiting on funding and a new vehicle contract.
    • Also, I don't know if you are planning to make a new article for the combined streetcar line if the Center City Connector is ever built. It doesn't affect the outcome of the FAC though.
      • The operating plan would just extend both lines so they overlap in the downtown section (and for quite a bit into South Lake Union), so there is no need for a separate article. Since it will most heavily affect the SLU Line, the CCC information has been prioritized here.
  • Some stations have corporate sponsorships that are named at stations and raise additional revenue for operations - You should probably name a few examples.

More to come. epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the comments. Looking forward to closing this one out soon. SounderBruce 19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: No problem. I hope to have the rest of my comments by early next week. epicgenius (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • with connections to Westlake station in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (which carries Central Link trains) and the Seattle Center Monorail terminal - This may be confusing. I'm reading the sentence like this: there are two connections to Westlake station: one in the DSTT and the other at the Monorail terminal, and the DSTT carries Central Link trains. It may be just me, but if this is wrong, it should be fixed. If this is correct, it should be "... and at the Seattle Center Monorail terminal".
  • under-construction Google campus - Nothing wrong here, just wondering, when will this be finished?
    • Due to a recent crane collapse, it's not clear when the campus will be complete. I walked by there this weekend and it looked almost ready.
  • 9 hours per day on Sundays and holidays - I suppose per MOS:NUM, this should really be "nine hours..."
    • Fixed.
  • the line reached its highest-ever ridership levels in 2013 - daily or annual? Looks like both.
    • It is assumed to be both, given how the weekday average is derived from annual numbers.
  • The first three vehicles, numbered 301 to 303; The fourth vehicle, numbered 407 - are the vehicle numbers necessary? If they just run on the SLU line then maybe this may be appropriate. If not they should be remove. I know in NYC, bus and subway fleet rotates between different transit lines all the time in spite of supposedly fixed-in-place fleet assignments. Not sure if that's the case here.
    • The two streetcar lines have separate fleets because of their isolation, but it's not clear whether they will be mixed when the center connection is completed (if it does get built). There is a third generation of streetcars planed to be acquired for that project, but the contract was just canceled. SounderBruce 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • deployed upon request - passenger request?
    • Added.

That's all for now. I think this covers pretty much the whole article. Overall this seems to be in good shape. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

edit

Thank you for an interesting article. Just minor observations:

Earlier ...

  • In the first sentence, I'd like a year much sooner, and no long red link.
    • I think the sentence reads fine. The redlink will be resolved soon.

Approval ...

No reason not to support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from TRM

edit

I see a table there (in the "Stations" section) which doesn't seem to have any MOS:ACCESS compliance, could we address that please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I'm not well versed in accessibility for tables, but I did try to add some elements from WP:DTT. For the row headers, I can't seem to find a way to make them comply (with ! scope=row without adding the bolding and/or left-adjusted text. SounderBruce 18:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Does the table look fine now? SounderBruce 04:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good now, and the rest of the article is chipper, so I'm supporting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

edit

Initial comments, nothing major:

  • "but chose to defer the streetcar issue until funding sources could be found." - recommend "could be identified", "could be found" sounds too colloquial.
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 106 is used at the end of consecutive sentences under the second paragraph of the "Service and operations". Neither sentence is controversial and neither sentence is a direct quote, so that fist ref can be removed.
    • I don't see the harm in keeping it as is, especially since there is a monetary figure attached to the second.
      • Not harmful, but not really accepted practice (WP:CITEDENSE). The sentence The streetcar is owned by the City of Seattle and is currently operated by King County Metro under a contract with the city government is covered by Ref 106 after the next sentence The line's annual operating budget of $5.9 million (in 2016) is covered by a $1.5 million contribution from the King County government, an appropriation from the Federal Transit Administration, sponsorships, and the city's general fund. If the "monetary figure" sentence came first, I would understand the duplication of the reference. But in the current instance, it is unwarranted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point. It's been removed.
  • Some instance of WP:OVERLINK: e.g. Food truck, corporate sponsorship (which is a redirect), Thanksgiving, Christmas Day, ribbon-cutting ceremony, naming rights, general fund (which is a redirect), biotechnology, biomedical, and smartphone could all be reasonably understood within the context of the article and probably don't need links.
    • Removed a few of the links, but the days and concepts may be unfamiliar to non-American readers and should be kept.
      • Food truck seems absolutely unnecessary, as they are common across most countries. 2 billion people celebrate Christmas and it's not an American holiday. General fund is a common term to all businesses. I guess the rest are ok, but still don't think "reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from" per WP:OVERLINK. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with removing such links. If Thanksgiving (an American holiday not celebrated by the majority of the planet) is kept, then so too should Christmas for consistency. Food trucks, naming rights, and corporate sponsorships are not exactly common concepts associated with transit, so having their links is helpful to readers. "General fund" is also an uncommon term for those outside of the political realm, especially in how it relates to project funding. SounderBruce 05:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses of both "pm" and "p.m." - be consistent throughout. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • The lead says The South Lake Union Streetcar was the first modern line to operate in Seattle, beginning service on December 12, 2007., but the first section says Streetcar service in Seattle resumed in 1982 with the opening of the Waterfront Streetcar line along Alaskan Way, but the line ceased operations in 2005. Do you mean it was the first modern streetcar line to operate in Seattle (p.s. that would be a good red link to create)? You may need to differentiate heritage streetcar and modern streetcar.
    • Created a redirect using that redlink and added it to the paragraph, along with a small mention of the Waterfront line.
  • ...and a proposed monorail system. One proposal from Mayor Paul Schell in 1998 included re-routing a surface light rail line between downtown and the University District to serve the Seattle Center and South Lake Union, at the time a low-rise industrial area. The duplication of "propose" makes it unclear if the mayor is Mayor's proposal is for streetcar? Maybe add "streetcar" after "one"?
    • Done.
  • ...the Seattle City Council and political activists who saw other unfunded transportation needs. Seems like there needs to be more here. They "saw other ... needs" that were higher priority? Would have a bigger impact than the streetcar?
    • The quotes in the source are pretty vague, so I can only provide a small example here.
  • ...and trainloads of over a hundred people throughout the day. This doesn't seem to meld. The vehicle has a capacity of 140, so "over a hundred" would be one trainload? Do you mean hundreds? The source says that each train was still carrying over 100 people late into the day, which isn't exactly clear the way you wrote it.
    • Changed it to "each train carrying a hundred people", but I'm not particularly satisfied. Will try another fix later.
  • ...with an overrun blamed on additional utility work after the line opening. "An" -> "the"
    • Fixed.
  • ...to low advertising revenue and increased costs. Recommend "higher" instead of "increased", which sounds better when combined with "low" earlier in the sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • Its tracks were also identified as a hazard for cyclists riding on Westlake Avenue "Its" -> "The"
    • Fixed.
  • Public opinion of the streetcar and its low ridership grew unfavorable in its first years of operation The inclusion of "and its low ridership" confused this sentence a bit. It seems you are trying to say "Public opinion of the streetcar, due to its low ridership, grew unfavorable...", but the way it is written it reads "low ridership grew unfavorable", which doesn't make sense.
    • Reordered.
  • General comment: surprised there is only a brief mention of the O&M facility. Was this facility built along with the streetcar line? Had it existed before? What is its capacity? Are you able to answer any of these questions?

support from Lee Vilenski

edit

Looks like a great article. Seems like a lot of supports above, but as it's on the urgents list, I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It travels 1.3 miles (2.1 km) - is travels the best word (considering it is in the lede? The route itself doesn't move (I can see why it would be ok though) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying it's 1.3 miles long wouldn't be totally accurate (as it's a two-way route), so "travels" is a compromise that still makes grammatical sense.
  • can we link the dollar sign in the lede and first instance in main body? There are more than one type of dollar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is necessary, as it doesn't seem to be common among American articles that are strictly dealing with an American subject.
  • When you say SLUT in the prose - is it wise to link the slut? It might be better explained, than the term itself being linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed this above, but I feel like the link helps explain the term and having a note in the article itself would be overkill; the citations didn't need to explain the definition of "slut", so I feel we should follow their lead.

That's all I have for now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for dropping by. I've answered your questions above, but haven't taken any actions for now. SounderBruce 21:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, been meaning to take a look, but been struggling with time recently. Spent some time today checking through most of the prose. Article is in great condition, quite happy with the responses and the article in general. support Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 September 2019 (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) 21 September 2019 [14].

Kosmoceratops

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinosaur which is said to have had the most ornamented skull of them all, therefore the cool name. Writing this article has also been motivated by a certain US president slashing the national monument which is the only place this dinosaur has been found in half, and hopefully getting this article to the front page one day could spread some awareness (I've tried to keep its wording neutral enough for that). The text can be pretty complex in places (as the animal has been central in scientific arguments about very technical concepts), so I'm ready to simplify and rewrite anything if suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bobbychan193

edit

I was the copy editor in charge of this article after FunkMonk submitted it to the GOCE Requests page in July. During the copy edit, I read through the entire article and improved its prose throughout, contributing to the GA status it currently holds. The article is extremely detailed and comprehensive. There is room for minor improvements to be made, and I highly encourage experienced FAC reviewers to identify them to improve the article further. Overall, I think it is worthy of FA promotion. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is also nice that the CE has removed the wording further from the source texts, so there should be no close paraphrasing left. I did some minor adjustments to make some things less ambiguous, but otherwise it is kept pretty much as you left it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Yeah, I briefly browsed through the version history. The changes you've made look good. Congratulations on the GA by the way. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the CMN 8801 image and the Kaiparowits Formation map
Scaled up the map, as for that skull image, it isn't particularly important compared to the images that show the subject of the article, so I think scaling it it up would be unbalanced. Also, the small text on it isn't important to this article, so doesn't really need to be visible (only the skull itself is of interest here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As "amateur" images they have been reviewed for accuracy at WP:Dinoart and modified further to comply with sources, which have been listed on their file descriptions so they can be verified by reviewers and readers. This procedure has been discussed and approved on the FAC talk page and other places, and it is agreed such images can be used here according to WP:original images and WP:pertinence (see footnote with links here:[15]). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second of these images provides no source other than the DeviantArt page. This discussion certainly suggests that as a minimum requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was an oversight, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Verification
  • No spotchecks carried out. I am slightly concerned that, in the "Discovery" section of the article, lengthy and complex paragraphs are referenced by long citation strings at the paragraph's end, with no indication as to what parts of the text these citations relate. This makes verification of the text difficult if not impossible. Would it not be possible to distribute the citations within the text?
It's because the citations often support different parts within the same sentences, but I've tried to distribute it more than it was. In places I couldn't get it below three citations, though. One place I've kept four citations since the sentence is supposed to reflect multiple sources: "Media outlets stressed the importance of the area's fossil discoveries—including more than 25 new taxa—while some highlighted Kosmoceratops as one of the more significant finds". Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All links to sources working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Stick to one format for archive & retrieval dates
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent re. the inclusion of publisher locations for book sources
Added for all. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 lacking page ref
Can't find this anywhere, and the pdf I have is some unformatted manuscript version. I have taken the number of pages from that, but it is unlikely to be the final number, since the images are not integrated in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto ref 38
It says "e5016" whatever that means (it is common for online published sources), but changed it to the pdf page range. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, and to meet the requisite criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

I forgot about this. I read it while on a bus some time ago. Looked good IIRC. Will take another look and comment soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*parietalsquamosal - should this not be, "parietosquamosal "?

Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2016, Mallon and colleagues found Kosmoceratops and Vagaceratops to form a clade, with their new genus Spiclypeus as sister taxon - "the new genus"?
Yes, more formal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hence support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Super Dromaeosaurus

edit

Looks very good, although many of the terms are challenging for me. I'll continue later. Super Ψ Dro 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, quite a few links I had overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "ornamentation", "processes", "wetlands", "Utah" (first mention at discovery) and quadrupedal (lead).
Done both in lead and article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "subadult" at the lead.
Done there and in article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adapted to processing fibrous plants, and coprolites found in the Kaiparowits Formation may have been produced by ceratopsids." I find this "and" a bit unnatural. Maybe you could change it to "fibrous plants; coprolites found" or something like that. But it's possible that others with a better English knowledge disagree.
Changed to the more informative: "The teeth of ceratopsids were adapted to processing fibrous plants; coprolites from the Kaiparowits Formation that contain wood may have been produced by ceratopsids." FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe explain "postmortem".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complex slicing batteries" what do you mean with "batteries"?
A battery in this sense just means "a number of similar articles, items, or devices arranged, connected, or used together" in the dictionary sense, but I used the full term "dental battery" instead now, which links to the dinosaur tooth article, which should explain it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The forward-curving epiparietals had prominent sulci" explain.
Done, also added link. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually explain what a clade is but it's a somewhat basic term in paleontology, so it's up to you to explain it or not.
Added the more specific "group consisting of all taxa sharing a common ancestor". FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all except biologist and hypothesis, which I think are pretty common terms, per WP:overlinking. Linked mollusc shell and paleoclimate instead of just shell and climate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "coprolite" at the lead and maybe "cuticle".
Copied explanation for coprolite, and just found out there's an Arthropod cuticle article which I just linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a general use of adding a comma before "and" when enumerating (for example, "parts of the jugal, squamosal, and parietal bones"). I think that the comma in these cases should be deleted, but I leave it to your choice.
That is just serial comma, which is a style I prefer (I think it's good for directing the flow of the reading). FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a big problem.
  • The last links: "deposited", "shallow sea" (optional), "scavengers", "erosion", "Colorado", "endemism" (at paleobiogeography), "dispersed", "misnomer" (perhaps, I don't know how common is this word) and "Montana". Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked all just to be safe. Also linked sediments... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "palynomorphs" and "orogenic".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "western North Americ" missing letter.
What the... Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and drained into the Western Interior Seaway, and the Gulf Coast region of the United States has been proposed as a good modern analogue" again, I think this "and" can be replaced by something else.
Replaced with semicolon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a silty sandstone channel lithofacies" I assume that the last word is in singular. You probably should explain what a "lithofacies" is.
Facies is both plural an singular, as that article states. Added explanation, though I'm not sure if it makes it less confusing... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which suggests a pond environmet" fix this typo.
Amazing, how did this and the other one get through, and good you noticed, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier when you have to pay more attention when reading in a foreign language... Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be an invalid nomen dubium" italics.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paleobiogeography subsection is quite long, do you think there could be some way to divide it into... subsubsections?
I thought of it before, but it's hard to find a way to justify a split. Chronological? Responses to the initial claims? Not sure what such a section would be called. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess nothing can be done here... Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be everything. Very good article, I have no doubt that it will become a FA. Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed a lot of stuff that should have been fixed long ago, so a very helpful first FAC review (I think it's your first?)! FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, it's my first FAC review. I found this easier than a GAN review since you know that it's not up to you and you don't need to hurry. I might review more in the future. Regarding this article, I guess now I can give my support. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, there's not as much time pressure, but the FA criteria are stricter. But since you've already had a FAC nomination yourself that is successful so far, you know the drill... FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2019 (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) 21 September 2019 [16].

Amarte Es un Placer (album)

edit
Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My last FAC failed because of the lack of activity. Before re-nominating, I had a member of GOCE do another copy-edit. I look forward to addressing any concerns on the article. Erick (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I am a little confused by this part (it is a pop album with R&B, pop ballad, and jazz influences) because "pop ballad" is not really a genre of music like pop, R&B, and jazz. I am not sure if "pop ballad" is really necessary in this part, and I think it could be removed without losing any information.
  • The infobox says the album is pop and R&B, but the lead says it is a pop album with R&B influences. R&B influences is not the same as a fully R&B album so there is a slight inconsistency there. The body of the article says that it is just a pop album, i.e. (is a pop album composed of twelve love songs), so I think the best course of action is to just remove "R&B" from the infobox.

Great work with the article, and I am glad that you re-nominated it for the FAC. I only have two relatively nitpicky comments as I had commented during the first and second FAC. Hopefully, this nomination will receive more feedback. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47:, I went ahead and removed the unnecessary tidbits as you've suggested on your comments. If I have time tomorrow and don't feel too tired from work, I'll try to address your FAC. Erick (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Great work with it! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05

edit

Going to give this a look within the next day. Toa Nidhiki05 12:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update that I’ve not forgotten about this. Will review tonight, hopefully. Toa Nidhiki05
Lede
  • It was then the highest-grossing tour by a Spanish-speaking recording artist. > It become the highest-grossing tour by a Spanish-speaking recording artist.
  • It was certified gold in the United States, and achieved multi-platinum status in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Spain. > Remove the comma
  • The album had sold more than three million copies as of 2007 > The album has sold more than three million copies worldwide as of 2007
Background
  • In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances. It is the third record in his Romance series where he performs covers of classic Latin American boleros.> In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances, the third record in his Romance series where he performed covers of classic Latin American boleros.
  • Amarte Es un Placer is a pop album composed of twelve love songs, consisting mainly of orchestrated romantic ballads and several uptempo numbers. > Amarte Es un Placer is a pop album composed of twelve love songs. It consists mainly of orchestrated romantic ballads and several uptempo numbers.
Commercial performance
  • In the United States, the record debuted on top of the Billboard Top Latin Albums the week of 2 October 1999 succeeding Bailamos Greatest Hits by Enrique Iglesias > In the United States, the record debuted on top of the Billboard Top Latin Albums the week of 2 October 1999, succeeding Bailamos Greatest Hits by Enrique Iglesias
@Toa Nidhiki05:, I've addressed everything you mentioned in the comments. Erick (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on this article. I've happy giving a support for now on prose. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I've placed this on the Urgents list but it will need to be archived soon (again, unfortunately) unless it receives some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some good progress has been made here. I see the article had a source review during its first nomination in December 2017. Have sources changed since then? --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few more sources have been added, but no major changes. I can't see any obvious format/quality issues, and I'd be inclined to let this go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

edit

I'll be reviewing this over the next few days. I hope Erick won't mind me mentioning this, but he told me last week that he was in the path of Hurricane Dorian. The bulk of the hurricane avoided Florida, but it still caused some significant power outages. Hopefully the end of my review will coincide with his eventual and safe return. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC) @Homeostasis07: The hurricane didn't do much as I live in inland, but thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to review the article. Hopefully I'll do yours Tuesday. Erick (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • It was released by the record label WEA Latina on 13 September 1999. - fairly obvious that WEA Latina is a record label, so consider changing to "It was released by WEA Latina on 13 September 1999.
  • and was assisted by other composers - I don't think "other" is needed there.
  • Despite the popularity of his contemporaries like Ricky Martin - I don't think "like" is needed there.

Background

  • When asked why he opted not to record an English-language album as other Latin acts such as Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin had successfully done, Miguel replied: → When asked why he opted to not record an English-language album, like other Latin acts such as Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin had successfully done, Miguel replied:

'Composition

  • Manzanero composed three ballads for the album: "Soy Yo", "Dormir Contigo", and "Ese Momento".[17] "Ese Momento" deals with a... - consider changing the last mention of "Ese Momento" to "The latter deals with a..."
  • The song caused a controversy when... → The song caused controversy when...

Singles

  • 'Promotion' and 'Critical reception' are the two largest sections, so I'll come to those with a clear head tomorrow. Should point out now that I skipped ahead to both 'Accolades' and 'Commercial performance', and saw nothing to nit-pick about in either. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

  • Miguel had the 23rd highest-grossing tour in the country with more than $15.7 million earned from his 44 shows in the US. → Miguel had the 23rd highest-grossing tour in the US that year, with more than $15.7 million earned from his 44 shows in the country.

Critical reception

  • While Lannert regarded "Soy Yo" and "Dormir Contigo" as a "pair of moving romantic ballads" that could help the disc stay on top of the Billboard Latin charts. He opined it was time for Miguel to record an English-language disc and have Carey and her producers assist with the album. → While Lannert regarded "Soy Yo" and "Dormir Contigo" as a "pair of moving romantic ballads" that could help the disc stay on top of the Billboard Latin charts, he opined it was time for Miguel to record an English-language disc and have Carey and her producers assist with such an album.
  • Roger Catlin of the Hartford Courant felt that when the ballads "pile on", it was like a "Telemundo soap-opera overkill". → Roger Catlin of the Hartford Courant said that when the ballads "pile on", the album felt like "Telemundo soap-opera overkill".
  • The Houston Chronicle's critic Joey Guerra gave the album two-and-a-half out of four stars, saying he was underwhelmed with this production for sounding like Miguel's previous recordings. → The Houston Chronicle's Joey Guerra gave the album two-and-a-half stars out of four, saying that he was underwhelmed with the production for sounding too similar to Miguel's previous recordings.
  • Mario Tarradell of The Dallas Morning News wrote a more positive review of the album. He complimented "Te Propongo Esta Noche" and lauded the ballads like "Dormir Contigo" and "Ese Momento" as "sensual and solemn". → Mario Tarradell of The Dallas Morning News wrote a more positive review of the album, complimenting "Te Propongo Esta Noche" and lauding ballads like "Dormir Contigo" and "Ese Momento" as "sensual and solemn".

And that's everything I could complain about. Will be happy to support once these sentences are amended. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fore the review @Homeostasis07:. I addressed everything you brought up. I should be able to review your article this Thursday as I'm off work that day. Erick (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing all of my points. I'm happy to support this now. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AJona1992

edit

I supported the previous nomination and have re-read the article with the new comments that were brought up by reviewers on this nomination. I believe the article is FA worthy now. Best – jona ✉ 16:26, 15 September 2019 (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 Hawkeye7 via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2019 [17].

2019 Tour Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic professional snooker event from earlier this year. Eight-person (7 match) tournament, with two matches being decided on the final ball, and Ronnie O'Sullivan making his 1,000th century break in the final frame of the final. Great event, recently passed GA.

All comments welcome. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Kosack

edit

Lead

Tournament summary

First round

Century breaks

  • I notice you've been removing flags on other snooker GA articles recently. This may need doing here also if you're going that way.

References

  • I'd have the notes under their own heading rather than combining them with the references.
    •  Done

Had a quick run through, I'll try and look more closely when I find the time. Kosack (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points

Added a few more points @Lee Vilenski:. Kosack (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Kosack, I think I have it all. Please let me know what else needs looking at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is in good shape after the recent work undertaken. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

Unfortunately this is getting close to the one-month mark without any support for promotion. It will be archived soon if it does not attract some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do Laser_brain, I'll go and badger some people. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're about there now and was looking to promote but then I couldn't spot a source review for reliability and formatting -- if not done yet you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose - any ideas who I could badger who might do a source review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, would you like to take this one and I'll take care of closure as and when appropriate? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do it within the next 24 hours. --Laser brain (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nigej

edit

Lead

Tournament summary

First Round

Semi-finals

Final

Coral Cup

Main draw

General

  • Various mentions of the Coral Cup before we get to the Coral Cup section. Maybe not a problem.
  • Do we need repetition of "March 2019"? Isn't enough "March" enough for the 2019 Tour Championship.
    • I'll remove.
  • "between 21–22 March 2019" (and similar) read a little oddly to me.
    • reworded 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nigej (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Rodney Baggins

edit

Hi Lee, do you want me to list stuff here for you to check first, or shall I just go ahead and edit the article as I see fit? Or a mix of both? Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are some general comments after my first skim through:

  • MOS:DATERANGE says (in bullet 8): "Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both", so for example "from 19–24 March 2019" should really be "from 19 to 24 March 2019" (in lead and Tournament summary section). Other date ranges in the article with the same issue: "held from 19–21 March" (First round); "held from 21–22 March" (Semi-finals); "played from 23–24 March" (Final). The last two I would just change to "held on 21 and 22 March" and "played on 23 and 24 March" respectively. Also "between 1987–2005" (at end of Final section) should really be "between 1987 and 2005". This is a problem I've noticed in a lot of the snooker articles and it really bugs me!
Yeah, I was recently told this was the correct way to deal with this, and didn't check it out. You are totally right, I'll work through the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got this one  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you decided not to hyphenate the "best-of-n-frames" construct? Strictly speaking, this is a compound adjective that is used to attribute the word "match" and as such it should have hyphens to be grammatically correct. Also inconsistent at the moment, as Semi-finals section has "best-of-19 frame matches" and Final has "best-of-25 frames match" – if we do go with hyphens, these should be "best-of-19-frame matches" and "best-of-25-frames match" respectively. (Although, to be REALLY pedantic the first one should be "best-of-19-frames matches" with plural 'frames' but I admit that sounds plain weird!)
Nope you are correct. I'll work my way through. It's another issue I don't really know which is right, but enough people have commented now, that the hyphens must be. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got them all.  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent "frame nine", "frame ten", "frame five", "frames three and four" – all the rest use a digit.
 Not done - That one is a MOS:NUM issue. Numbers one-nine should be words, whilst numbers higher than 11 are digits. (Unless it's an age, or a name). Not much I can do to change that one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Score expressed as, for example, "four all" – not seen that before – I notice it's used inconsistently, because there's a "six-all" (First round) and a "nine-all" (Final) whereas all the others are non-hyphenated. Personally I would hyphenate, or better still I would not use this format at all, just say "6–6" or "9–9" like we normally do. Also, "one all" (Semi-finals) might be better as "one frame apiece"?
  • And this last one's a biggy... How do we deal with the fact that Coral Cup is a horse race, and Coral Cup is a snooker competition? I really think we need a new article called Coral Cup (snooker) to clear up this anomoly and also to contain all the cup-related information as a separate entity from the Coral article which is just about the sponsor.
I don't think it's a Biggie. I could redlink it, or create a redirect to the season article, or even the section on the coral cup on this article. We do know it will become a thing each year now, so I'll potentially just add it as a REDLINK. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to the redlink. It'll either be created or redirected. Clearly notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through the individual sections now and get back to you again if there's anything I'm not sure about. Otherwise I'll go ahead and make a few minor grammatical improvements if you're OK with that? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine,thanks for commenting, I'll work my way through. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Think I have got it all. Take another look through, make sure you are happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time Rodney Baggins Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested wording changes (RB)

Lee, you've probably noticed I've been making a few careful changes to the article. I've tried to make lots of little edits (rather than my normal method of blanket copyediting entire sections...) so you can follow exactly what I'm doing and easily revert any edits that you don't like. On my travels, I've picked up on the fact that you like to use the word "saw" a lot, which comes across as an idiosynchrosy that should perhaps be avoided (no offence!) Please consider these wording changes:

  • The series saw players qualify by virtue of their placement...

–→ The players qualified for the series by virtue of their placement...

  • The event saw the top eight players from the one-year ranking list play in a single elimination tournament.

–→ The event featured the top eight players from the one-year ranking list taking part in a single elimination tournament.

  • For the first time since the 2010 UK Championship, the Tour Championship saw an event, other than the World Championship, that was contested with every match being played over multiple sessions, with two in the quarters and semis, and three in the final.

–→ The Tour Championship was the first event since the 2010 UK Championship (and other than the World Championship) in which every match was played over multiple sessions, with two in the quarter-finals and semi-finals, and three in the final.

  • The second first round match saw reigning Masters champion Judd Trump draw ...

–→ In the second first round match, reigning Masters champion Judd Trump drew ...

  • The third first round match saw Ronnie O'Sullivan play Stuart Bingham.

–→ Ronnie O'Sullivan played Stuart Bingham in the third first round match.

  • The fourth and final first round match saw a repeat of the 2018 Masters final, with...

–→ The fourth and final first round match was a repeat of the 2018 Masters final, with...

  • The second round saw the four remaining players compete in two, best-of-19-frames matches

–→ In the second round, the four remaining players competed in two best-of-19-frames matches (note comma removed after 'two')

  • The first session of the match saw Trump take the first frame

–→ Trump took the first frame in the opening session of the match

  • The second session saw O'Sullivan clinch the first two frames

–→ O'Sullivan clinched the first two frames of the second session

  • Frame 16 saw Allen score enough to take the frame to the snookers required stage

–→ In frame 16, Allen scored enough to take the frame to the "snookers required" stage ("snookers required" picked out in quotes?)

  • The final frame of the session saw Robertson make a frame-winning 48 break

–→ Robertson made a frame-winning 48 break in the final frame of the session

  • The final session saw O'Sullivan win frame 17 with a break of 129

–(either)→ O'Sullivan won frame 17, the first of the final session, with a break of 129
–(or)→ O'Sullivan won the first frame of the final session (frame 17) with a break of 129

  • The win saw O'Sullivan win his 36th career ranking championship

–→ This was the 36th ranking championship victory of O'Sullivan's career ?

I do have more comments. Watch this space. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work my way through these, should be easy enough. Allow me a day or two, as I'm quite busy with work and stuff. 08:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I have gotten all of these, thanks for your excellent responses! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Breaking down" explanation? (RB)

The term "breaking down" or "broke down" is causing me some concern. I think this might be a bit of terminology that the uninformed observer (non-snooker fan) might not understand. At best they will think the player lost the plot, messed things up, threw a wobbler, or something. At worst, they will go into the glossary of terms and find that he must have suddenly decided to take his cue to pieces (see break down one's cue). Unfortunately there is no entry in the cue sports glossary for "breaking down" in the sense of "coming to the end of the break", so we either need to avoid the term, or provide a note in the article to cover it, or add a new entry into the glossary with a link through. There are actually three examples of this in the article:


Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there is more, or if you are happy to support, Rodney Baggins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments (RB)

Hello again, I'm not happy to support this article just yet as I'm still finding fault with it. Maybe I'm being too picky, but apart from the minor edits I've been making over the past couple of days, I have the following comments/queries: (take a deep breath)

(1) There's an anomoly with the tournament chronology: "The first round was held from 19 to 21 March" (over three days) so this would mean the first round was still finishing off on the 21st. But that was the same day the semi-finals started: "The first [semi-final] match was played on 21 March". So did the 1st semi-final take place while the 1st round was still being completed, on the 21st of March?? Or did the first round in fact take place over just two days, i.e. 19 and 20 March? So it was completed before the semi-finals started?

Looking into it, it was the 19th and 20th for the first round. Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Lead section:

  • Article title ("2019 Tour Championship") is not reiterated in first sentence of lead ("2019 Coral Tour Championship")
  • It has been pointed out to me that the championship does not literally consist of the players, they are just the pool of participants, i.e. they make up the "draw" for the competition. So we perhaps need to change the wording to make that clear, i.e. change "The Tour Championship comprised the top eight players" → "The draw for the Tour Championship comprised the top eight players"
  • "In a repeat of the Players Championship final two weeks prior, Ronnie O'Sullivan defeated Neil Robertson 13–11 to claim his 36th ranking title" – this implies that Ronnie also beat Neil by 13 frames to 11 and claimed his 36th ranking title in the Players Championship final – even though I know this isn't what is meant, that is literally what it says. The only thing that was repeated was the fact that the two players met in the final and Ronnie beat Neil. Not sure what to do about this, but I've seen it in some other snooker articles and it always irks me! We could say "Ronnie O'Sullivan defeated Neil Robertson in the final, in a repeat of the Players Championship final two weeks prior, to claim his 36th ranking title" – but that doesn't work in the 13–11 scoreline.

(3) Tournament summary: pretty much OK now apart from one thing – "of this length or longer" – this is confusing. What exactly does it mean and what is it referring to? Does it mean that this was the first final played as best of 25 frames (other than the worlds) since 1992 UK final? So has there been a final played over more than 25 frames during that time period?

Well, the inverse is the issue. If you say there hasn't been one of this length, then the Worlds (35) and the 1992 UK (31) also don't apply. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(4) First round:

  • "...went to the final black. After Selby attempted to double the black ball, Robertson potted the black to win the frame and match." → to avoid black/black ball/black repetition, could we change this to: "went to the final black. After Selby attempted a double, Robertson potted the black ball to win the frame and match." (This also works better because the glossary treats "double" as a noun rather than a verb.)
  • before Allen made a break of 71 → before losing his momentum in frame 16 allowing Allen to make a break of 71 ...(highlights Wilson's good play coming to an end?)

(5) Semi-finals and Finals: Still a few tweaks, leave that to me.

(6) References:

  • I've noticed that 20 of the references have World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association as publisher. This long name written out in full each time takes up an awful lot of unnecessary physical space – you might consider using the acronym WPBSA to save space?
    • I'm not worried about space, nor is it an FAC requirement. There are plenty of userscripts and add-ons that disable references until the ones you want to read,and in mobile (where it would be neccesary) it can be closed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The access date parameter is unnecessary if the citation has a fixed publication date that serves to uniquely identify it (as with online news articles with publication dates) – see Template:Cite web – this is also good for saving physical space in the References section. Access date is even more irrelevant if you are making use of the archive, because the archive date pins down the exact date at which the article was captured.
    • To be fari, cite web just says it isn't neccesary to include an accessdate for refs with a publication date. Online sources (even published ones) do get changed after publication which is why I prefer to include an access date. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of missing publication dates, but I can add those in for you.
  • There are some incorrect publication dates, but again I can correct those for you.
  • Refs. 15 & 16 are pointing to the same place, but neither of them are showing the correct title. Title of ref.15 is "Tour Championship semi-final: Judd Trump leads Ronnie O'Sullivan 6–2"; title of ref.16 is "Trump leaves Ronnie in trouble"; current title of article at that URL is "Tour Championship semi-final: Ronnie O'Sullivan beats Judd Trump 10-9". This is probably because the article was updated a couple of times as play was in progress. Might want to grab the relevant archives for backing up specifics in the text? Unless the specifics are in the final version of the article.
  • Ref. 33 was giving a 404 error but the archive was not relevant because it was showing the earnings after the 2019 Coral World Grand Prix, with Judd Trump at the top, Ronnie right down the list. I've fixed this by grabbing the latest archive from 31 March which shows the earnings after the 2019 Coral Tour Championship.
  • Ref. 35 archive is of no use whatsoever. Ref.35 shows the 1 YEAR RANKING LIST after the 2019 International Championship. Archive for Ref.35 (archive date 7 Feb 2017) shows the 1 YEAR RANKING LIST after the 2017 F66.com German Masters. So neither of these are any good for our article, which requires the 1 YEAR RANKING LIST after the 2019 Gibraltar Open. I can't find an archive that shows a snapshot of the list at this stage (would be around 20 March 2019) so not sure what to do here!

Almost there... Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll work my way through - thank you for your work and comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got most of these. Thanks for your time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments (RB)

I got rather carried away, but wanted to do my best for you, hope you have not been too frustrated with me! I am happy to support the article for FA now but must point out the following things:

  • In Tournament summary: "The final ... was the first non-World Championship match of this length or longer since the 1992 UK Championship final" still uses confused logic (for me) – I understand that the 1992 UK final was best of 31 frames, and since then, other than the Worlds (which we can effectively ignore as they are a special case), there has been no other final played over anything more than best of 25 frames. I think this might be better explained by simply saying: "The final ... was the longest non-World Championship match since the 1992 UK Championship final (which was best of 31 frames)."
  • In Final: "The winner of the match would also win the Coral Cup" – this implies that the Coral Cup goes to the winner of the Tour Championship. Looking at the numbers, it can be worked out that if Robertson had won this final, he would have earned just slightly more than O'Sullivan over the 3 events, and would therefore have won the Coral Cup, so it just so happens this year that the winner of the final would also win the Coral Cup, but that is not always necessarily going to be the case every year. Not sure what to do about that at the moment, but I just thought I should point it out to you!
    • I think that's the point being made. Maybe it's poorly worded. I'll see if I can come up with better prose.
→ Suggestion: "Given the prize money earned by both players up to this stage in the series, the winner of the match would also stand to win the Coral Cup itself (awarded to the player who accumulates the most prize money over the three Coral tournaments)." It came to me in my sleep last night! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And finally, I still have all sorts of problems with the references. I've added in some of the missing date parameters and made a few corrections, but there are still things that need sorting out. Maybe this is not a deal breaker for the FA and we could discuss it separately on the Talk page or something? Ref. 13 obviously contained live scores at some point, and has been used to back up some of the frame info, but there is now nothing there. Refs. 15 & 16 are still bothering me. Refs. 24 & 28 are exactly the same ref. And ref. 35 is an odd one. Anyway, I can always revisit that tomorrow, but please let me know what you want to do about that.
    Best wishes, Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Betty Logan

edit

Lead

Referencing

  • There are some style differences between the World Snooker citations. Compare the format in citations 2–6 to those in 28–30 for example. Both styles are acceptable, but a consistent style should be used throughout.
  • Another issues with the World Snooker referencing is that "World Snooker" is wikilinked in some instances and not in others. I would suggest just linking the term in the first reference, or all of them per WP:REPEATLINK
  • The Reuters reference in citation#32 is sloppy. It is not an editorial, it is an authored piece. The citation should be corrected to include the author's name and the agency= parameter should be set to "Reuters".

Frame numbers

Match scores

Image placement

This all looks very doable, with the lede issues being the biggest work. I'll get on these as soon as I get to a PC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 September 2019 [18].

Ursula K. Le Guin

edit
Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential authors of speculative fiction. I have rewritten many of our articles about her stories in the last few years, while building up to rewriting this, so I've gone quite deep into the source material, and I believe it to be comprehensive. I think it's no secret that I'm a fan of her writing, but I've done my best to be dispassionate about the reception she has received, and to give the criticism its due. This article benefited immensely from a detailed review by Mike Christie before I brought it here, and from a GA review by Chiswick Chap. I'm happy to hear all constructive feedback; it's a longish article, but I think you'll find it interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and Laser brain: It's possibly you're already looking at this (I noticed LB made an MOS fix earlier), but I wonder if you could assess whether this is ready to be promoted or not; if it is, a quick promotion would be much appreciated. If it isn't, that's quite okay, but I want to take a call on whether I can manage to get it on the main page for 21 October. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I think it's ready. I was just waiting for your response or action on Cas's comment to wrap up. --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I cleared it up just before pinging you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

- spotchecks not done

  • FN1 should be updated to |deadurl=yes - check for others
    Updated; archive-url is functional; searched for alternatives, but this being a personal webpage, was unsuccessful.
  • FN13: author name is incorrect
    Fixed, thank you.
  • FN21 is missing date
    Fixed, thank you.
  • Be consistent in whether refs present authors as lastname, firstname or firstname lastname
    It's that pesky |author=first last parameter. I think I've got them all now.
  • FN23: ISBN and link go to a different edition than the one cited
    Odd. Fixed now.
  • Fn26: OPB is a publisher
    Changed, thank you.
  • Compare FNs 50 and 82 and 84 - check for others
    Good spot, standardized, thanks.
  • Quotation marks within quotation marks should be formatted as single quotes
    Are you referring to footnote 80? Fixed; I cannot find any other instances, so please let me know if you were thinking of something else.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if you do see MOS:NOTUSA
    I find them quite useless, and included them out of habit/because I copied source formatting from elsewhere; removed.
    Looks like you missed the Nicholls ref. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, there were some that used a space between "location" and "=", and I missed those. Now fixed.
  • FN172: source gives author name as Em not Emily
    99% certain this is a retrospective name change, but it's displayed as such now, so okay. Fixed.
  • Non-English sources should identify language
    Added, thanks.
  • FN181 is missing retrieval date
    Added, thanks.
  • FN186 has no author - listed author is the publisher
    Fixed, thanks.
  • SFWA is a publisher, as is LOC, YALSA, check for others
    Done, thanks. A few others, too.
    Still a few more here - NEA, Reuters. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Got those...I clicked through everything with "website", and I think I got them all, though I'm uncertain about whether "BBC Radio 4" should be "website" or "work". @Nikkimaria: sorry for the trouble; what do you suggest? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The visible formatting will be identical, but I'd go with work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thank you: all done, just so you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN216: Lightspeed is a work
    Done, thanks.
  • Don't duplicate Sources in Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. @Nikkimaria: All taken care of, I think. Thanks a lot for a very thorough review. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sup Vanamonde. Just a quickie, but I was wondering about images: do you think you could rustle up a couple more? At >8K words, there's only two in the body. Perhaps colourise the quote boxes too? I'm as much thinking of breaking the text up as conveying information, but of course, I agree they shouldn't be tangential. ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Yes, fair. Just found one on commons that I didn't know existed, and there's an old one that I thought I had used but hadn't. The trouble is that she was never a very public figure, and justifying fair use for a biography that has several photos is, I think, difficult. I'll look for stuff that might illustrate the themes section...re: "colourise the quote boxes": what is this magic you speak of? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a few. Take a look. Also, any way I could interest you in doing a prose review? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto

edit

Yay, Le Guin!

Comments on lead and §Life:

  • "seven Hugos" (in lead and section on awards): as of last week, eight: The Books of Earthsea: Complete Illustrated Edition won best art book. (Section on awards also says 24 Hugo noms: it is now 26)
    Yes, thanks for that; it slipped my mind that she may have been nominated again, and I wasn't looking out for it (the numbers were accurate when I wrote the article some months ago).
  • "scholar Alfred Kroeber": given the importance of anthropology to many of Le Guin's major works, I would be extremely tempted to describe her father as an anthropologist in the lead – especially as we are describing Charles specifically as a historian and he isn't even notable enough to have his own article.
    Fair enough. Done.
  • I am somewhat surprised that Always Coming Home is the only one of Le Guin's books to get two mentions in the lead – I would consider the (unmentioned) Lathe of Heaven to be both more critically acclaimed (nominated for the Nebula and Hugo; won a Locus award) and better known, and even Le Guin's unquestionably most significant works (Left Hand of Darkness, The Dispossessed, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas") get only a single mention.
    True. The period 1980-1990 was rather a lean one, and I was trying to describe it. I've reworked. I don't think any book should be mentioned more than once in the lead.
  • "As a child she had been interested in biology and poetry, but had been limited in her opportunities by her difficulties with mathematics": presumably limited in her biological rather than her poetical ambitions!?
    Tweaked; it's more that she was limited in what she could do rather than her opportunities to do it, or at least that's what Reid says.
  • "They got married in Paris in December 1953": "got married" strikes me as colloquial – simply "they married" is more concise and I think tonally more appropriate.
    Done
  • "The couple had two daughters, Elisabeth and Caroline, by the time they moved, and a son, Theodore, was born in Portland in 1964." The discussion of Le Guin's children in this paragraph is chronologically a little odd: we hear about Elisabeth's birth in its chronological place (and are given a date); then there is some discussion of the move to Portland, and Le Guin's further Fulbright grants; then we hear about the birth of Caroline (presumably in 1958/59, but the date is never given) and Theodore (with a date, but chronologically out of place). I suggest reworking the paragraph slightly. Suggest something like:

In 1953, while traveling to France aboard the Queen Mary, Ursula met historian Charles Le Guin. They got married in Paris in December 1953. According to Le Guin, the marriage signaled the "end of the doctorate" for her. While her husband finished his doctorate at Emory University in Georgia, and later at the University of Idaho, Le Guin taught French and worked as a secretary until the birth of her daughter Elisabeth in 1957. A second daughter, Caroline, was born in $YEAR. In 1959 Charles became an instructor in history at Portland State University, and the couple moved to Portland, Oregon, where in 1964 their son Theodore was born. They would remain there for the rest of their lives, although Le Guin received further Fulbright grants to travel to London in 1968 and 1975.

Good point, done. Tracking down Caroline's date of birth wasn't too easy...
  • "He gave no specific cause for her death, but said it was likely that she had a heart attack" [emphasis mine]: is this not self-contradictory?
    Is it, though? He's speculating.

More anon. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, and also on the same section: "She would continue writing and publishing for more than 50 years, until her death". Two points here: though Le Guin kept writing until her death, both a short story and a non-fiction collection were both published for the first time after it, and a 59-year span of published writing would I think be better described as "nearly 60" than "more than 50" years. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Modified.

And the second half of the article:

  • The use of italics and quotation marks for titles of works is somewhat inconsistent:
    • "The Dowry of the Angyar" is italicised: as a short story it should certainly be given in quotation marks instead; "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is sometimes italicised and sometimes given in quotes, again it should be consistently given in quotes.
    • I am less sure about "Paradises Lost": as far as I know, it has only ever been published in collections rather than as a stand alone work, so I would expect it to be in quotation marks, but I think you could make the case that as a novella it should be italicised.
    • When it comes to series, we see both Earthsea series and Earthsea series; Hainish Cycle and Hainish cycle (and the same with Universe/universe, but Hainish novels and Hainish trilogy are consistently lowercased); Annals of the Western Shore is consistently italicised; Catwings consistently (well, in its one appearance) isn't.
I would argue that Paradises Lost should indeed be italicized, as it isn't a short story. Sources italicize it more often than they put it in quotes. Earthsea is complicated; there's both Earthsea the setting and Earthsea the series, and even with respect to the latter, many sources don't italicize it, although my reading of MOS:ITALICS is that we should. I've added italics whereever it's the series being referred to. Italicized "catwings". I've capitalized Hainish Cycle, as that's a proper noun that sources use (though Le Guin didn't like it) and decapitalized the others to "Hainish universe." Anything else?
  • "archetypal journey": what is this? So far as I can see, it is never defined. Later we hear about the influence of Jungian archetypes on Le Guin, but not in the context of a journey, and it is not clear if they are related.
    I've expanded a little based on the source; Spivack is tossing around big words a little bit, though, and I'm struggling to break it down into plainer language.
  • Why is The Dispossessed not wikilinked in Critical attention? And why is Very Far Away from Anywhere Else wikilinked when it just redirects back to this article?
    The Dispossessed is already linked in the body, not too far up; I'm already bending the rules at WP:OVERLINK, I don't want to toss them out altogether. Very Far Away from Anywhere Else doesn't link here; it redirects to the bibliography...which I think is the best situation until someone writes an article.
  • The Diary of the Rose is wikilinked despite there being no article, but none of Le Guin's other article-less works are. Any particular reason?
    To the best of my knowledge I have linked (or redlinked) titles that have obviously viable articles, and left the others out. I would argue, per WP:BKCRIT #5, that all of Le Guin's books are notable; but I don't want a flood of redlinks at the moment.
  • Possibly my opinions on which of Le Guin's works are significant is skewed, but The Lathe of Heaven is one of only two of her novels not mentioned in the chronology of her works. Very Far Away From Anywhere Else gets mentioned, and that doesn't even have a stand-alone article! (The other unmentioned novel is The Other Wind, which is perhaps not that important on its own, but it is the final published Earthsea novel, and a brief acknowledgement would fit chronologically and thematically with the mention of The Telling)
    I admit that Lathe of Heaven isn't my favorite, but that wasn't the reason it was neglected; it's relatively ignored by the sources. I think mentioning all the novels is a good suggestion, though, and I've done that now. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Le Guin read both classic and speculative fiction widely as a child. She later said that science fiction did not have much impact on her until she read the works of Theodore Sturgeon and Cordwainer Smith, and that she had sneered at science fiction as a child." Two sentences ending "as a child", and repetition of "science fiction" in the second sentence.
    Tweaked.
  • On Jungian archetypes: why are "Shadow" and "Mother" capitalised when "anima" and "animus" are not?
    I checked the sources; they capitalize all of them. Fixed. Good spot.
  • The first three Earthsea novels together follow Ged from youth to old age, and each of them also follow the coming of age of a different character. A Wizard of Earthsea focuses on Ged's adolescence and coming of age, and along with the other two works of the original Earthsea trilogy forms a part of Le Guin's dynamic portrayal of the process of growing old. It feels like there is some redundancy here, and the idea could be expressed better and more concisely.
    I've reworked this; on reflection I think Spivack's point is too subtle to be explained briefly, and this article cannot afford a lengthy explanation of a minor point.
  • Le Guin's novella The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Surely "Omelas" isn't a novella! It won the Hugo in 1974 for Short Story, and by that time the novella/novelette/short story distinction was firmly in place. And everything I have ever read about it describes it as a short story.
    Yeah, this is just a mistake. It's not only a short story, it's a very short short story; it's about seven pages, IIRC.
  • I am not entirely convinced that the photo of Annie Lennox adds anything to the article. Even if an image of androgyny would, Lennox didn't really become famous until a good decade after Left Hand!
    True...but it was honestly the best I could do to find an image that was free use, but that wasn't just of Le Guin. I don't think the connection is stretched, honestly; Androgynous looks did become popular only much later, which is partly why TLHOD is considered pathbreaking.
  • several remained in print many decades after their first publication: perhaps several remain in print?
    Done.
  • For her novels alone she won [...] one World Fantasy Award [...] Other awards won by Le Guin include [...] two World Fantasy Awards.
    Removed that bit.
  • She won her final Hugo [...] in the year of her death, for the essay collection No Time to Spare: Thinking About What Matters: no longer true.
    Modified
  • Her last publication was a 2018 collection of non-fiction, titled Dreams Must Explain Themselves and Other Essays 1972–2004. the source cited does not support this: several other works were published in 2018, and it makes no comment on the order. Digging around, it looks like Dreams was published in February ([19]). I know of three Le Guin books to post-date that: Conversations on Writing was published in July ([20]), So Far So Good: Poems 2014-2018 in September ([21]), and The Books of Earthsea in October ([22]). Books of Earthsea doesn't have anything in it which hadn't previously been published, so I guess you might not be counting that, but I believe both Conversations and So Far So Good both contained material which had not previously been published...
    Yeah, this is complicated...the sources are fuzzy on specific details, newer editions often have something unique, like an introduction, and I don't want my wording to go out of date in a couple of months. I've modified it to something that will give me more wiggle room, and will work on fixing the bibliography.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto and Caeciliusinhorto-public: I've worked my way through all your comments, I think; let me know if there's anything that needs further change. Thanks very much for the review. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have fixed almost all of my issues.
  • I am still unconvinced by He gave no specific cause for her death, but said it was likely that she had a heart attack. Whether or not it is certainly the cause, "heart attack" is still a specific cause, I think.
  • You've edited the comment about Le Guin's final publication in the section on Chronology of writings, but it's also in the section entitled Bibliography.
Other than that, the article is looking in excellent shape. Le Guin was a major writer, and this must have been an enormous undertaking – congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: Okay, fair enough. Both done now. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: since you've been active, wanted to make sure you hadn't missed this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde—Sorry about the delay in replying. I made a brief review of the literature and haven't been able to find any glaring omissions from the article. There is a festschrift which may have some useful things in it? It looks like it's more personal reflections from other genre writers rather than critical analysis, though. I haven't checked image copyright or spotchecked sources, but otherwise I believe this article meets the Featured article criteria and am happy to support. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've already used several reflections on her career that came from her fellow writers just after her death (including some from the same authors listed in that volume, and which might well be the same pieces); I don't want to overburden the article with that sort of material. Thanks for pointing it out though. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap

edit

As a rough peasant from the simple fields of GAN, I always feel somewhat diffident at the courts of the FAC. Having further already reviewed the article to GA standard, it's also somewhat difficult to take a fresh look. However, the additional polishing has improved the article, and perhaps introduced a couple of wrinkles.

  • "Lady Frazer" - seems an unlikely redlink, certainly with that as a heading. Elizabeth (Lilly) Grove Frazer wrote Leaves of the Golden Bough and was married to Frazer; remarkably, [Sir] James George Frazer's article doesn't even mention her or the marriage! Maybe we should drop the honorific and give her her actual name. It'd be nice if she at least had a redirect and a paragraph to redirect to, too, though that's beyond the call of duty.
    Fair point. I've piped it to "Elizabeth Grove Frazer", but left the link as reading "Lady Frazer" because that's how both the book commentary (in Nature, no less...) and Le Guin refer to her. I also added a paragraph to James Frazer; it was bugging me that there's a mention there of his sister's marriage, but not of his own? Bizarre.
  • I see I'm not the only person to be a bit discomfited to find an image of the magnificent Annie Lennox. Having pressed for images in several Le Guin articles, I ought to be pleased at the illustrations here; I know how hard it is to find anything suitable and CC-by-SA. However, unless a reliable source has linked Le Guin's advocacy of androgyny to Lennox I think the image's inclusion is a risky stretch bordering on original research.
    Ah well. Okay. Removed.
  • On the other images, it is certainly a shame that all the photos of Le Guin are in old age (the youngest a sprightly 55); a balance would be far preferable. Perhaps we might find suitable grounds for including one younger historic image with NFUR. This one from the 1970s has her holding a pipe? Hmm.
    It is indeed a shame, but what I've been told is that NFUR is difficult to justify when free-use images of the subject are already available...
  • One other thing is about sexism; her earliest writing was published as "U.K. Le Guin"; I recall reading that she quickly stopped this when she realized her editor was passing her off as a male writer. I suspect you'll easily find the source for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading that she specifically expressed regret that she had published "Nine Lives" in Playboy as "U.K. Le Guin". I could probably find the source for this if pressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That had me quailing at the prospect of going through all 400-500 of my science fiction anthologies, but happily it was in one of Le Guin's: The Wind's Twelve Quarters: Volume I (1975). Le Guin writes a one page introduction. Quite interesting. If you, or Vanamonde, send me a (blank) email, I will send you a photograph of it back. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the Panther Granada 1978 edition, it's on page 128, and she does call it "sexual prejudice". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've very much mistaken, this was the only instance of such a thing: I certainly haven't come across any others. I've emailed Gog the Mild for the source, and I'll add it soon as I get it. Chiswick Chap I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93:Hopefully it arrived several hours ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: It did; I was briefly offline; but also I'm uncertain of the page number. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I rarely use my Gog email, so was concerned that it hadn't sent. P. 128. As CC says. I have also sent you a page on Ishi, see below, which I found thought provoking; you may or may not. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap:: Added, for the record. Gog the Mild I'll take a look in a moment. I actually wrote the page on Ishi in Two Worlds, so I have a fair bit of material, but thanks for that page anyhow. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I see you've dealt with it under Early work which is fair enough. Of course it has a connection with the Gender and sexuality topic though more as history than as as Theme, so it's probably best where it is. I'm happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Guin has a couple of minor amusing details to add in this short piece; I doubt you've room for it in this article but it might be usable in a sub-article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, thanks for pointing that out. I seem to recall reading that piece at some point, and it was bothering me...I think you're right in saying that there isn't room for it in this article, though. We're already at 8k+ words. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • "a "major voice in American Letters" " Two things: 1. The MoS requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" [emphasis in original]. This (IMO) applies to leads, and the quote (IMO) is an opinion. 2. Why the italics? I assume from the italics and upper case initials that it is a journal. In which case will many readers understand that without explanation? (Or is it a multiple typo?)
    The italics were a mistake, now fixed. The MOS issue...In principle, I agree with you. In this case, however; the quote is already in the body, where White is named in the text; and the citation for the quote is in the lead, right after the quote; so, I'd rather not, because it would be disruptive to the flow. But. I'm willing to discuss it further, if you feel strongly.
  • The first paragraph ends with a comma.
    Fixed.
  • An optional thought: Add half a sentence to "who was the last known member of the Yahi tribe" explaining how this came to be. (I have always been struck by how Jared Diamond's photograph cation of Ishi (in The Third Chimpanzee) could have been lifted from/inserted into The Word for World is Forest and assumed that they came from a similar source – the work by Le Guin's mother.) These circumstances clearly had a considerable influence on her work and it would be nice to nod to them as we pass. (Perhaps ' ... ,after it was exterminated by white settlers in a series of genocidal massacres.' [cite: Diamond (1993), p. 303] or similar?) Unless you would prefer to develop this "Influences" section?
    I've added a bit using a review of Kroeber's volume; I prefer that to Diamond, who is somewhat further removed from the proceedings.

Bed time. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies for the delay in getting on with this.

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

  • Optional: "They would remain there for the rest of their lives" As that is not literally true, is there a more felicitous way of phrasing it?
    Reworded
  • "a teacher at the undergraduate level." Genuine query: should that definite article be there?
    This sounds correct to me; however, I have rephrased to make the phrase flow more naturally.
  • "delivered a Commencement speech" Lower case c.
    Fixed.
  • "while her first short story was" Should 'published' be in there?
    I guess. Fixed, also another instance later.
  • "four other stories followed in the next few years, in Fantastic or Amazing Stories. Among them were "The Dowry of the Angyar" " I am looking at an introduction to this last by Le Guin where she says it "was actually the eighth story I got printed". If you are sure of your facts, then fine, but I could not help but notice the apparent inconsistency.
    Excellent spot, thank you. I'm not sitting next to my bookshelf at the moment, but White's own bibliography seems to contradict that; so I suspect that on p.45 she was somehow referring to a subset of those stories, and I missed that point. Fixed.
  • "The first two were published as half of an "Ace Double" " Would that be 'The first two were each published as half of an "Ace Double" '?
    Done.
  • "and reconciling opposing forces" Would this be more consistent as 'and the reconciliation of opposing forces'?
    Yes, it would. Done.
  • "from this period were later anthologized in the 1975 collection The Wind's Twelve Quarters" I doubt that many readers would take that to mean that TWTQ included work from as early as 1962. Why not simply give the period, instead of "this period"?
    I don't really like having two different date ranges in quick succession; I've added the clarifying "including her first; does that work?
  • "all of which were released after her death in January 2018" A natural reading of this is likely to imply that the works were all released in January 2018. As the date of her death has already been given, perhaps delete "in January 2018"? Or replace with the actual period during which they were published? A similar comment applies to the similar statement in "Bibliography".
    Hmm. In the absence of the common I wouldn't parse it the way you did, but I guess it is ambiguous. Removed, and let's see if someone else grumbles.
  • "major voice in American Letters" in the lead; why the upper case L?
    Not sure, to be honest, but that's how White does it, and it is a quote.
Fair enough, I suppose.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I don't know how I completely missed the fact that you had posted the rest of your review, but I did. I came here to nudge you into responding and saw it. Apologies, and I believe I have now responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. A fine article. Worthy of its subject. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie

edit

Support. My comments are on the talk page, and every issue I raised there has been dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images seem to be in suitable sections; no ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: There are two links in the image description; the second still works. I've removed the first. I could try to add alt text, I suppose, but it seems to me that when the images are essentially of standing or seated people, there's nothing the alt could add that isn't already in the caption. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT text is a mite complicated. If the image serves a purpose (isn't just decorative, e.g a map) the ALT text needs to substitute for that function. If the image is purely decorative, no ALT text is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Okay, that's about what I thought; I would say that all the images are decorative, broadly speaking. Also; I just decided to switch a picture out [23] but the new one's an FP, I doubt there's issues with it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That file seems OK as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look...

  • Would be good if not all four paras started with her name or variant thereof.
    Good point, tweaked one of them; the other's are harder to do without contorted sentence structure.

Apart from that, nothing is jumping out at me - nice work. Given the lack of anything else, the above is not stricly a dealbreaker, so support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 19 September 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 September 2019 [24].

Jane Grigson

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Grigson will be known to most as the writer of the food column for The Observer, or as the author of numerous books about European cuisines and traditional British dishes. Most of her books were not "recipe books", per se (although they obviously included stacks of eminently cookable recipes), but books about food – where it came from, its position in history and its social and cultural importance. This article has recently been through a major revamp and a solid PR. If anyone has any further constructive comments, suggestions and criticisms, we would be delighted to hear them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

spotchecks not done

Many thanks Nikkimaria. All sorted now. Let me know if you have any futher queries. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
  • File:Antoine Raspal (1738-1811), Intérieur de cuisine , vers 1776-80.jpg needs a US PD tag and a more direct source link.
  • File:Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe - Monet (Pushkin Museum).jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:JohnEvelyn1687.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:JohnEvelyn1687.jpg: the link against Source does not connect to this image.
Now a different not-the-correct-page.
It's correct, but it can't be accessed directly from within the EU. There are multiples examples of an engraving of the portrait, but only this is the only one I could find of the original painting. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alexandre Dumas pere.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:Giovanna Garzoni - Chinese Porcelain Plate with Cherries - WGA8489.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:De Nieuwe Vismarkt te Amsterdam, by Emanuel de Witte.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • IMO the 2nd, 3rd and 4th images could usefully have alt text added.
  • Caption: "Charcuterie and French Pork Cookery contained information and recipes for pork "delightful when cooked or cured, from his snout to his tail", according to Grigson." Possibly some punctuation after "pork"?
  • Link charcuterie.
You have put the link in the alt text - très drôle.
Oops - now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor truffles for you to root out. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A delightful article. Great work from the pair of you, we expect no less. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by comment I started reading this with the intention of reviewing it, but given it's length, it's too daunting a task for today; I may come back if I find the time. One quick comment though; there's a lot of commentary about her books in the biography section, given that there's an entire section devoted to them later. I'm dealing with a similarly tricky situation at Ursula K. Le Guin, and recognize that it's not possible to segregate completely, but I do wonder if the comments relevant only to her books, and not to her career, can be collected in a single section a bit more. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While we were developing the article quite a bit of the material now in the Life section started off in the Works section, but biographical material on Grigson is hard to come by – there is no full-length biography of her – and we have felt it necessary to balance the article as we have. Unlike, say, Elizabeth David, whose life was full of incident, Grigson's life seems to have been one of conscientious and not very eventful industry, and we think the current version reflects the fact that her books constitute the major part of the Life section. With Elizabeth David we wrote a separate article on her books, but we have felt it best to cover all Gregson's along with the Life in a single article. We have aimed at giving a brief overview of each book in a sentence or so, along with the reviews, in the Life section, and focusing in the Works section on the contents, publishing history, etc. Tim riley talk 08:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

A few things:

  • "for the Sunderland Echo," italics?
  • "cave-cottage" is there any possible link?
  • "homard à l'Americaine" since this is not self-explanatory to many readers, suggest a footnote with an explanation.
  • "The book concludes with glossaries of fish names and cookery terms and measures.[126]" the two "and"s might lead to ambiguity, though not I suppose much.
  • "any that refuse to open" possibly "any that do not open"?
Up to 1970s.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Wehwalt - I'm much obliged. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! Tim riley talk 07:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in her earlier books, Grigson made no claim to originality in her recipes, and was scrupulous about crediting those with a known author." Do recipes have authors or should it be inventor/creator?
  • "The book contains mostly English recipes, but draws from time to time on the cuisine of Wales and Scotland.[145]" Should "cuisine" be "cuisines"?
  • "The book was reissued in Australia and the US in 1984 and in Britain in 1988 and reprinted in 1989." consider a "was" before "reprinted".
  • I wonder if the "Style and Legacy" section could be organised, perhaps, a little more clearly.
  • "Julia Harding & Jose Vouillamoz" an ampersand? I think WP:AMP says not to.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt. As ever, your comments are very much to the point and most helpful. Tim riley talk 17:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for support and for v. helpful comments before that. Tim riley talk 22:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

edit

Learnt much of interest about Ms Grigson when reviewing at Peer review, [25]. Found very little to nitpick about then, and am pleased to Support now. KJP1 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC) As I've had quite an easy run on this, I'd be pleased to pick up the Source review. It will take a few days, partly because there's rather a lot of 'em. KJP1 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)0[reply]

Thank you very much for the support, KJ, and I speak for SchroCat as well as for myself in looking forward to the source review you have kindly undertaken. (I propose to let SchroCat deal with your comments there as you and he speak sfn cuneiform and I don't.) Meanwhile, thank you very much! Tim riley talk 22:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second, unnecessary, Source review!

edit

Impressively sourced and cited. Will give comments in dribs and drabs over the day. May be best to wait until they're all in. Don't think there will be many. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cited books by Jane Grigson
  • Order - I'm not getting the system for listing the books. It's neither chronological, nor alphabetical. What is it?
  • Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book. London: Michael Joseph. 1978. ISBN 978-0-7181-1675-0. and Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book. New York: Atheneum. 1979a. ISBN 978-0-689-10994-2. - Aren't these the UK and the US editions of the same book?
Other cited books
  • Davidson, Jane (2002). "Jane Grigson's Fruit Book". In Davidson, Alan; Saberi, Helen (eds.). The Wilder Shores of Gastronomy: Twenty Years of the Best Food Writing From the Journal Petits Propos Culinaires. Berkley, CA: Ten Speed Press. pp. 331–332. - Here, you include the page numbers, which I can see might be helpful as it's an article within a wider book. But you don't, for example, in Allen, Darina (2015). "(Re)creating the Irish Farmers Market". In McWilliams, Mark (ed.). Food & Markets: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2014, where it would be pp. 11-14. Do we need consistency?
  • Mennell, Stephen (1996). All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present (Second ed.). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. - uber-picky but both the book's inside cover, and Worldcat, describe the publisher's location as "Urbana and Chicago". Looking at the Wiki entry, this does indeed say Champaign. Not sure what to suggest.
Internet
  • The Art of Charcuterie". WorldCat. Retrieved 18 June 2019 & The Art of Making Sausages, Pâtes, and Other Charcuterie WorldCat. Retrieved 18 June 2019. Are these not online versions of "Charcuterie and French Pork Cookery", cited as the first of Works by Grigson? Same for "Exotic Fruits and Vegetables, the second "English Food" and a number of others. Maybe it doesn't matter, as you're citing them to support specific points, but I thought I'd ask?
  • Forbes, Paula (15 March 2014). "IACP Announces 2014 Food Writing Award Winners - this is giving a red error message. A manifestation of our recent problem?
Journals and magazines
Newpapers
  • Heading is missing an "s", i.e. Newspapers
  • McIntire, Jane (2 August 1951a). "Attraction of Fine Pottery". Sunderland Echo. p. 2. & McIntire, Jane (27 November 1951b). "North-East Started Renaissance in Art and Learning". Sunderland Echo. p. 2. & McIntire, Jane (20 February 1953). "Stanfield Delights a new Audience". Sunderland Echo. p. 9. These look slightly odd to me as they are Grigson, writing under her maiden name. No idea what MoS says. Any thoughts on how it might be clarified?
  • Pardoe, F. E. (28 November 1979). "Those you have drunk". p. vi. Not seeing the newspaper cited here.
  • Ray, Elizabeth (8 December 1974). "Booked cooks". p. 30. Or here.
Radio
  • Desert Island Discs - worth linking - [26], although you need to be registered? Apologies, I see you have linked it, in Internet, above. Needed twice?
I realise I've been an absolute idiot and that Nikki's already done a Source Review! But the above was the full extent of my gleanings in any event. So, you've now got two for one. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding my thanks to SchroCat's. ("Absolute idiot"? Nonsense – we've all been there one way or another.) A second source review, however inadvertent, is no bad thing, and many thanks for yours, KJ! – Tim riley talk 17:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from caeciliusinhorto

edit

I've already done my prose nitpickings at the recent peer review – happy to add my voice in support now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benigne, Caecilius – most grateful for your support. – Tim riley talk 17:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto, echoing my colleagues thanks. Your comments were spot on and helpful at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2019 [27].

Coffin Stone

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a stone in Kent that was perhaps once part of a chambered long barrow erected in the Early Neolithic period. Several other articles in this series (Medway Megaliths) have already reached FA, and this article is presently a GA, but hopefully it can join the others. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett

edit

Who could resist a coffin stone? I look forward to reading this and commenting later. Eric Corbett 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And just to warn you, I am going to be very nit-picky if you don't mind. But if you do, then I'll leave your article well alone.

  • "The topmost stone was placed there by a farmer in the twentieth century" I think you could justify the wordy "twentieth century" in the body of the article, but not in the image caption.
  • I don't see that linking "English" to "England" in the first sentence of the lead is particularly helpful.
  • " ... part of a destroyed chambered long barrow" A bit a bit awkward. What about "... was once part of a chambered long barrow"?
  • The issue that might arise through such a change would be one of repetition; the sentence before this (in the paragraph above it) contains the wording: "was part of a chambered long barrow". Thus, making such a change could lead to near-total duplication of wording in quite short succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Long barrow building was an architectural tradition ..." I think that "Long-barrow" should be hyphenated.
  • "... was an architectural tradition widespread across Neolithic Europe although comprised various localised regional variants" Seems like there's a word missing there? Comprised of perhaps? Comprising?
  • "... found human bones near to the stone" Why "near to" rather than just "near"?
  • "... might once have stood upright in the local vicinity" Doesn't "vicinity" imply local?

Location

  • "The Coffin Stone is located in Great Tottington Farm ..." Why "located in" rather than just "in"?
  • "It is also a short distance north of the Tottington springhead." I think it would be helpful to add a few words explaining what the Tottington springhead is, rather than expect the reader to follow the link.
  • Rather than ending up with repetitious wording like "Tottington springhead, a natural spring at Tottington", do you think it would make sense to simply change "Tottington springhead" completely to "a natural spring at Tottington"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... about 400 metres (1,300 ft) northwest of Little Kit's Coty House" You had "south-eastern in the lead, so for consistency this ought to be "north-west".
  • "As of 2005, the site was not signposted ..." That was fourteen years ago. Is it signposted now?
  • I'm not sure. Unfortunately this seems to be the most up-to-date Reliable Source that mentions this issue. It could be scrapped without any great loss to the article, but then again it may prove useful to some people reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Eric! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from JM

edit

I saw this at GAC, but someone beat me to it.

  • I'd recommend against including publishers for journals, but if you're going to do it, you should be consistent; The Reliquary lacks one.
  • "then it would have been built" The stone wouldn't have been built - the barrow would. I think this needs tweaking.
  • "Long barrow building was" Can I recommend "The building of long barrows"? As you are using it, "long barrow" is a compound adjective, meaning it should have a dash. That will make for a confusing wikilink. The alternative would be "Long-barrow building was".
  • "The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, the Coffin Stone, and several other stones that might have once been parts of chambered tombs, most notably the White Horse Stone." Is it not questionable to list the Coffin Stone with several long barrows, rather than with the stones that may have been parts of tombs? How about something like "The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, and several stones that might have once been parts of chambered tombs, including both the Coffin Stone and the White Horse Stone."
  • I wonder whether it's worth bringing the material in the lead about the archeological investigation into the lead's first paragraph? I also wonder whether it's worth mentioning that some people have considered it a natural feature?
  • I only mention the recent excavation being appropriate for the first paragraph as it seems to throw a spanner in the works with traditional theories. I'm sympathetic with your worries (I take it) about undue weight and recentism, but the excavation here does seem to be a significant part of the overall story. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks strong. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for giving this one a read over, Josh! Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, do you feel that you would be willing to give this article your support for FA status? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes, happy to. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The width of the stone is different in the lead vs the article text

Thanks for taking a look at this, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sup MBO. Just FYI on the above, but the Jessop ref appears to want an ISBN? Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the ISBN in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Support from The Huhsz

edit

What size is the stone? After the latest "corrections" we now state that the stone is a very different size from what the BBC thinks. Is the BBC wrong? This seems a very basic thing that we should be able to get right. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I add that I think it's odd to include only two dimensions in the lead. MBO: Has no one reported measuring it recently? Do the BBC's dimensions match any you've come across in the academic literature? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is worth including all three dimensions in the lede, and I have now done so. As for the discrepancy between the different measurements, I believe that I can explain it. The measurements included in this article were those attained in the 19th century and published by Edwin Dunkin; they have also been republished in Paul Ashbee's accounts of the stone. At some point since Dunkin measured it, another big slab was placed largely on top of it, making it much more difficult to accurately measure. Thus, when Brian Philp and Mike Dutto described its measurements (presumably based on their own personal assessment), they could only say that it was "about 4.40m by 2.80m by at least 50 cm" (2005, page 6). The BBC website has taken this measurement, but dropped the "about", to claim that it is "4.4 metres long and 2.8 metres wide". So the BBC are making Philp and Dutto's rough measurement seem far more concrete than it really is. I'll add Philp and Dutto's comments to the article as a note so that it might clear up this issue for any future readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @The Huhsz:; did you have any further comments for this article, or would you be willing to offer your support for its nomination? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
  • A marker for a visit shortly. Somewhat astonishingly I've actually visited this (albeit about 20 years ago), on a day when I went to the two nearby coty houses. I'll be along with comments shortly, and probably a source review unless I'm beaten to it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Location
  • "As of 2005": is there anything from the last 14 years we can use? (I presume not, but thought I'd check anyway)
  • Not that I am aware of. Unfortunately with 'minor' sites like this, often the Reliable Sources can be quite old. Hopefully something new will appear in future that will allow us to update this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Context
  • Link to Kent for non Brits?
  • "from the continent.[6] The region of modern Kent would have been a key area for the arrival of continental European settlers". It may be worth considering "from continental Europe.[6] The region of modern Kent would have been a key area for the arrival of continental settlers", just to clarify.
Medway
  • You link Little Kit's Coty House in the lead and in the body, but Kit's Coty House is only linked in the lead
Description
  • Echoing the comments in the thread above: it looks a little odd having only some of the measurements in the lead, and those being slightly different
Antiquarian descriptions
  • Itinerarium Curiosum II: I'm just trying to work out the "II" at the end. The British Library and WorldCat don't list a second volume or addition and just show the title as "Itinerarium Curiosum"
  • You're right, there only seems to have been one volume with this title. It seems tat the volume was titled Itinerarium Curiosum, Or, An Account of the Antiquitys and Remarkable Curiositys in Nature or Art, Observ'd in Travels thro' Great Brittan. Centuria II; this is why Ashbee, in his article, refers to it as "Itinerarium Curiosum ii". It nevertheless makes sense to remove the "II" altogether here, which I have now done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological investigation
  • "the vicinity of the megalith and they were unable": the "and" sits uncomfortably here. Would a "but" or semi-colon work better?

That's it from me. I'm going to support now on the basis that it is perfectly good to go now – my suggestions are just that, suggestions that may be advantageous. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking a look at this one, SchroCat! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

edit
  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting is consistent throughout.

Pass source review – SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2019 [28].

Battle of Settepozzi

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a naval battle between the Venetians and the Genoese in 1263, in the context of the War of Saint Sabas and the restoration of the Byzantine Empire by Michael VIII Palaiologos. Few details are known about the battle itself, but its diplomatic repercussions were great, leading the Byzantines to a rapprochement with Venice soon after. Consequently much of the article deals with the political setting and impact. I began the article back in 2010, but over the last year of so have expanded it considerably, as I have gained access to more sources, and as some questions of detail have emerged. The article recently passed a very productive MILHIST A-class review (thanks to all who helped) and is, in my view, ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

I assessed this at GAN and ACR and was happy with it.

  • "In 1263, a Genoese fleet of 48 ships was sent to the Byzantine stronghold of Monemvasia when on its way it encountered a Venetian fleet of 32 ships" Suggest 'In 1263, a Genoese fleet of 48 ships which had been sent to the Byzantine stronghold of Monemvasia encountered a Venetian fleet of 32 ships'
  • "which was already embroiled since 1256" "was already" → 'had been'.

That's all I have. A fine, detailed article. worthy of FA status. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your help throughout the article's evolution, Gog the Mild. Best, Constantine ✍ 20:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. Thanks for your help with my evolution as a Wikipedian. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by caeciliusinhorto

edit

A few comments on first read-through:

  • It is a little strange that the background we are given in the lead begins with the treaty of Nymphaeum in 1261 and only then mentions that the war of Saint Sabas had been ongoing since 1256; I would rewrite this sentence so it's in chronological order.
    • There is a good reason for this, though: the prime driver for the Nicaean–Genoese alliance was the politics of Michael VIII. Palaiologos inserted himself in the conflict, and the Nicaean/Byzantine-Genoese relationship resulting from it is the chief context of this article. Settepozzi has far more to do with that than with the ongoing War of Saint Sabas, which up to that point had been fought mostly in 'colonial' fashion in the Levant, and not in the Aegean.
  • Background: it might be worth briefly explaining to non-Byzantinists what the empire of Nicaea and the Latin Empire are, and why there was an "old Nicaean ambition to recover Constantinople".
    • Done
  • In the section on "Questions of chronology", the first paragraph gives several different dates for the battle, but I am left wondering 1) why should I believe one over any of the others? 2) why does it matter?
    • The date of a historical event, particularly if it has been itself the subject of analysis and speculation, is IMO an important fact. It also has implications on events associated with it, e.g. if it occurred in January or February, then the sailing of another fleet on 28 May should be interpreted as a reaction to the defeat. As stated above, initially I had these facts in footnotes, but as they grew and became more intermeshed, I decided to create a dedicated section
  • "his anger boiled over" strikes me as a little informal in tone.
    • Rephrased
  • "according to Canale": "Canal"?
    • Fixed

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, thanks for the suggestions. I've tried to address them. Any other trouble spot or suggestion? Constantine ✍ 10:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Constantine: Okay, I'm happy with the prose, and though I'm not particularly familiar with this period (it's dangerously recent for my taste!) I haven't found any obvious recent literature which you are missing. Happy to support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Seems like a nice, obscure topic, some preliminary comments below before I read. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why the image caption of the map is so small, seems to be the template itself that does it? Not so helpful, I think.
  • The image captions could have words linked.
    • Done
  • Link Republic of Venice and Republic of Genoa at first mention in article body, as well as other such terms that are not linked there.
    • Done
  • "overthrow of the Boccanegra" Earlier you refer to this name as a person, but here it seems like a group, or family?
    • Fixed
  • "Georg Caro placed it in March at the latest,[23] whereas Camillo Manfroni" Who are they? You present other writers as historians etc.
    • Done
  • You are inconsistent in when you use Michael VIII or just Michael. If both, would perhaps be best to only use the former once, at first mention. Otherwise it is probably best to be consistent and use Michael VIII throughout.
    • Very good point. Done.
  • I think the intro could be split into two paragraphs, a bit of a wall of text now.
    • Done
  • You mention "the restoration of the Byzantine Empire", but shouldn't something about this be mentioned under repercussions then?
    • This had occurred before the battle, in 1261.
  • "This did not prevent another, even more lopsided and complete defeat at the Battle of Trapani in 1266." Much more strongly worded in the intro (where it is not sourced) than in the article body.
    • Not sure that this is the case: a defeat does not get more lopsided and complete than losing your entire fleet by having it captured by your enemy.
Hi FunkMonk, please have a look on my edits and replies above. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this article at Milhist A-Class, and have little else to add:

  • on re-reading, the sentence beginning "The resulting Treaty of Nymphaeum..." seems contradictory. If Nicaea was allied with Genoa, how did the treaty mean that the Venetians were supplanted by the Genoans in the Latin Empire? Do you mean "effectively mirroring", in that the Genoans now had a similar arrangement in the Nicaean Empire as the Venetians had in the Latin Empire?
  • I scaled up the maps

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Regarding your question, the latter. I rephrased to make it clear. Constantine ✍ 15:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • links to sources are all working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 40 requires pp.
  • Wiel 1910: according to WorldCat the OCLC for this edition is 4198755 (see [29])
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources appear to meet the requisite criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed/added. Constantine ✍ 15:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA-5

edit

The only comment I have is that Byzantine Empire is overlinked. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I cannot find the duplink, and neither can the tool. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In these sentences between a Genoese–Byzantine fleet and a smaller Venetian fleet. and the former capital of the Byzantine Empire, which since the Fourth Crusade. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

@Cplakidas: Status of addressing the various comments posted here? --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2019 [30].

Spider-Man (2018 video game)

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 superhero action adventure video game Spider-Man. Critically praised, it has been called the definitive take on the superhero in the medium akin to the Arkham games for Batman. It is as complete as it can be sans information on a sequel and following copy edits and a thorough GAN, it is ready to ascend and become the Superior Spider-Man article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, it is inspired by the long-running comic book mythology and adaptations in other media.). It seems rather wordy at the moment and seems these parts (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man) and (inspired by the long-running comic book mythology) repeat the same genereal information that the game was inspired by the Spider-man comics. I was wondering if there was a way to simplify the prose? Maybe to something like (It is based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, including his adaptions in other media) unless I am missing something?
  • I would make sure the citations are in numeric order. I see a few instances where this is not the case.
  • For this sentence (The character can precisely aim webs to pull himself towards specific points), shouldn't it be "the player" instead of "the character" as you are referring to the amount of control the player has with the character and gameplay.
  • A wikilink for the term "radial menu" would be helpful to unfamiliar readers; I am familiar with the concept, but I have never heard the title before so I was a little confused there.
  • Would this sentence (Spider-Man has several unlockable suits that are based on existing versions of the character in media) be a good spot to link to the "adaptations in other media" article? From what I see, I can only see the wikilink in the lead, but not in the body of the article and this sentence seems to be the first place that Spiderman's other media appearances are mentioned.
  • I am assuming that the word "token" (i.e. Research Token, Backpack Token, etc.) is capitalized in the game, but I just want to double-check that.
  • Mary Jane Watson is linked twice in the body of the article. The same comment applies to Miles Morales.
  • Why do some parts of the "Plot" section have citations while others do not?
  • For this part (and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018), I do not believe "Art" needs to be capitalized.
  • I have a question about this part (without a formal agreement in place, discussions about the potential new project were not recorded.) What is meant by "were not recorded"? Like the audio was not recorded or the full details of the meeting were not put down anywhere? I am assuming there must be some record of this meeting since it is included in this article. I am probably overthinking this part, but some clarification would be helpful.
  • The last part of the second paragraph of the "Development" section does not have a citation.
  • The first time you mention DLC in the body of the article is here (He said they wanted to keep players engaged, starting with the Spider-Man: The City that Never Sleeps DLC,), but you do not fully spell out the acronym until later. I would move that up to this sentence since it is the first time it is mentioned, and I would wikilink it like you did in the lead.
  • For this sentence (Peter's relationship with Otto Octavius came from a desire to give Peter a job that embraced his intelligence.), I think you could get away with replacing the second "Peter" with "him" to avoid the repetition of the character's name and I think most readers would understand the meaning from context.
  • I have a question for this sentence (Intihar described Otto and Peter as parallels of each other.). Did Intihar specify what these parallels are?
  • For this part (and Li is incarcerated at a nearby maximum-security prison called The Raft.), you capitalize the "The" in "The Raft", but you do not do it anywhere else so I would make sure to be consistent one way or the other.
  • I have a question about this part (Before dying, May reveals she knows he is Spider-Man and that she is proud of him.). I have never played this game so apologies if this is obvious, but does May die not matter what choice the player makes regarding how the antidote is used?
  • For this image caption (Creative director Bryan Intihar (left) and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con.), it should not have a period at the end since it is not a full sentence. Also, do you know the person to the right? It seems odd to only mention two people in the caption when three are present in the image.
  • There are some instances where four citations are used. I could see some reviewers raising questions about Wikipedia:Citation overkill for these parts. I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise your attention to it.
  • I would move the "origin story" wikilink up to this sentence (The team avoided retelling Spider-Man's origin, reasoning "everyone kind of knows Spider-Man was bitten by a spider.") instead since that is what "origin" is referencing and it comes first in the body of the article.
  • For this part (describing it as a more streamlined version of the physics-based system used in Spider-Man 2,), I would include the year the game was published.
  • I would add the year that Batman: Arkham Knight was released.
  • I have a question about this part (The game also became one of the best-selling Western-developed PS4 titles there, being surpassed only by Call of Duty and Minecraft,). I am assuming that the sentence was referencing individual games, but the Call of Duty link goes to the franchise page?
  • The "Mateo, Alex" citation has an error message.
  • The "Saveedra, John" citation has an incorrect link to the Den of Geek page.

Great work with the article! I am not a particularly good FAC reviewer, but I hope that I was able to help at least somewhat. I certainly admire you for taking on a subject matter that has received so much coverage as it can be quite difficult to balance everything and account for everything so bravo for that. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, it was a pleasure to read this. Makes me realize how little I know of comics lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, it is inspired by the long-running comic book mythology and adaptations in other media.). It seems rather wordy at the moment and seems these parts (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man) and (inspired by the long-running comic book mythology) repeat the same genereal information that the game was inspired by the Spider-man comics. I was wondering if there was a way to simplify the prose? Maybe to something like (It is based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, including his adaptions in other media) unless I am missing something?
I get what you are saying, it is actually based on the Batman: Arkham Asylum through to Batman: Arkham Knight articles which feature similar openings. I know we're saying the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man since that is the origin, by saying it is based on the history of comics and media, I think it's just addressing that it is based on both. Whereas if I said "Based on the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man and his adaptations in other media" it reads (to me) like it's based largely on his adaptations in other media. Might just be me though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make sure the citations are in numeric order. I see a few instances where this is not the case.
  • For this sentence (The character can precisely aim webs to pull himself towards specific points), shouldn't it be "the player" instead of "the character" as you are referring to the amount of control the player has with the character and gameplay.
  • A wikilink for the term "radial menu" would be helpful to unfamiliar readers; I am familiar with the concept, but I have never heard the title before so I was a little confused there.
  • Would this sentence (Spider-Man has several unlockable suits that are based on existing versions of the character in media) be a good spot to link to the "adaptations in other media" article? From what I see, I can only see the wikilink in the lead, but not in the body of the article and this sentence seems to be the first place that Spiderman's other media appearances are mentioned.
  • I am assuming that the word "token" (i.e. Research Token, Backpack Token, etc.) is capitalized in the game, but I just want to double-check that.
Yes it's capitalized. If you YouTube Spider-Man PS4 Tokens, it comes up there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary Jane Watson is linked twice in the body of the article. The same comment applies to Miles Morales.
  • Why do some parts of the "Plot" section have citations while others do not?
They were the sections that I felt were most challengable since the scenes occur in optional content or late in the game.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018), I do not believe "Art" needs to be capitalized.
  • I have a question about this part (without a formal agreement in place, discussions about the potential new project were not recorded.) What is meant by "were not recorded"? Like the audio was not recorded or the full details of the meeting were not put down anywhere? I am assuming there must be some record of this meeting since it is included in this article. I am probably overthinking this part, but some clarification would be helpful.
  • The last part of the second paragraph of the "Development" section does not have a citation.
  • The first time you mention DLC in the body of the article is here (He said they wanted to keep players engaged, starting with the Spider-Man: The City that Never Sleeps DLC,), but you do not fully spell out the acronym until later. I would move that up to this sentence since it is the first time it is mentioned, and I would wikilink it like you did in the lead.
  • For this sentence (Peter's relationship with Otto Octavius came from a desire to give Peter a job that embraced his intelligence.), I think you could get away with replacing the second "Peter" with "him" to avoid the repetition of the character's name and I think most readers would understand the meaning from context.
  • I have a question for this sentence (Intihar described Otto and Peter as parallels of each other.). Did Intihar specify what these parallels are?
Not much but I added the ones he mentioned. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (and Li is incarcerated at a nearby maximum-security prison called The Raft.), you capitalize the "The" in "The Raft", but you do not do it anywhere else so I would make sure to be consistent one way or the other.
  • I have a question about this part (Before dying, May reveals she knows he is Spider-Man and that she is proud of him.). I have never played this game so apologies if this is obvious, but does May die not matter what choice the player makes regarding how the antidote is used?
Yes she always dies. I've reworded this a little to emphasise that she is seconds from death. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this image caption (Creative director Bryan Intihar (left) and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con.), it should not have a period at the end since it is not a full sentence. Also, do you know the person to the right? It seems odd to only mention two people in the caption when three are present in the image.
I didn't know who the other person was because I couldn't see the name placard, but I've did some sleuthing through images from the same event and found who it was and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some instances where four citations are used. I could see some reviewers raising questions about Wikipedia:Citation overkill for these parts. I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise your attention to it.
I had a quick look through and I can only see 4+ in the reception section, but I felt they were for claims that needed backing up. I think the rarity of the use is OK, but if it becomes an issue for others I'll take a look at whittling them down. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the "origin story" wikilink up to this sentence (The team avoided retelling Spider-Man's origin, reasoning "everyone kind of knows Spider-Man was bitten by a spider.") instead since that is what "origin" is referencing and it comes first in the body of the article.
  • For this part (describing it as a more streamlined version of the physics-based system used in Spider-Man 2,), I would include the year the game was published.
  • I would add the year that Batman: Arkham Knight was released.
  • I have a question about this part (The game also became one of the best-selling Western-developed PS4 titles there, being surpassed only by Call of Duty and Minecraft,). I am assuming that the sentence was referencing individual games, but the Call of Duty link goes to the franchise page?
This was to the series because the source just says Call of Duty, which could b elike one of 4000 games, but I've done some digging and it is Black Ops 4. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Mateo, Alex" citation has an error message.
  • The "Saveedra, John" citation has an incorrect link to the Den of Geek page.

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Your responses make sense to me so thank you for the clarifications. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

edit

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Marvel's_Spider-Man_Web_Traversal_System.webm: this is being used for commentary on gameplay elements, rather than on this particular video - the given licensing tag does not apply.
  • Marvel's_Spider-Man_Official_Theme.mp3 exceeds 10% of the original - see WP:SAMPLE
I added alt text.
I don't know what you mean. There's no other video related tag I can see at Category:Wikipedia_non-free_file_copyright_templates that I can use as an alternative.
I mean, rather than using the promotional video to illustrate gameplay, we should use a user-created playthrough. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is user created, I created it from my version of the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, okay, that wasn't clear to me from the image description. In that case we'll just want to switch to a generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've replaced the tag. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced
Again not 100% what you mean, but any materials in that image are for marketing purposes and so are designed to be seen, and they're all too small, off-angle, and/or obscured to be of any kind of underhanded use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately "designed to be seen" isn't the same as "appropriately licensed". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well who can I ask to make that judgement? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What judgement are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it definitively exceeds de minimis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect you'll get "definitive" since this is a judgment call, but perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus or Kees08 could be called upon to give a second opinion? They've also provided image reviews at FAC lately. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
De minimis is a thorny matter. Regarding File:Marvel's Spider-Man stand at E3 2018.jpg, I'd say it's probably too much - it's essentially a photo of copyrighted artwork, which is central to the image and its use in our articles. Commons:De minimis has little case law, but in terms of how Commons has handled these it seems like the closest equivalent would be "File:Cover Austria 1938-650px.jpg" which was deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have not dealt with De minimis yet, whether that strengthens or weakens what I will say is up to you. If any of these elements are copyrightable, then it would fail de minimis. So let's explicitly say what the copyrightable elements are. I believe File:Spider-Man-PS4-2018.png this portion is not (though that file probably was not made in the year 18, so the page could use a little fixing). Plain text is not copyrightable. Then there is a model of Spiderman, as well as the set design behind him. I think the model of Spiderman is copyrightable because of Commons:Freedom of panorama. I'm not sure on the set design since it is 2D Artwork, but with the 3D model of Spiderman included, I believe the point is moot. Based on that, I think the image should be removed from the article and DR'ed on Commons. If anyone thinks I am way off base let me know. Kees08 (Talk) 22:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what would your judgement be on this Nikkimaria, Kees08, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's a confusing issue. Costumes are ok, statues are not. I've removed the image and replaced it with a plain one of an actor from the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference isn't between statues and costumes, but between photos whose purpose is to show the copyrighted work (as most photos of statues are) and between photos whose purpose is to depict cosplayers (as "depicting a copyrighted work" and "depicting a thing that happens to have some copyrighted aspects which cannot be avoided" are not legally the same thing in some places of the world). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64

edit

This article really makes you feel like Spider-Man. Jokes aside, I reviewed this at GAN and see no errors now, so I support. JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

edit

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • General:
    • Article seems to meet comprehensiveness and breadth criterion, no serious instability.
  • Prose
    • discussions about the potential new project were not documented—this seems like a construction to avoid saying "off-the-record" as in the source, but you should really just say off the record or informal, because "not documented" doesn't really clarify what was actually going on (I highly doubt there was no paper trail, etc.)
    • narrowly beating another PS4 exclusive God of War's 3.1 million sold in May 2018—the fact that it was also a PS4 exclusive seems already suggested by the rest of the sentence, I'd cut this to simplify the sentence.
    • If you're going to refer to reviewers by their publication rather than their names (which is totally fine), you should change the pronouns to gender-neutral ones. EGM isn't a "he".
    • In general I think the reception section could do with a tightening. There are a lot of quotes, and while I don't think any rise to the level of problematic from a copyright perspective they do run into issues from a readability standpoint. Fluff like descriptors as "all top-notch stuff", "an entertaining romp", etc—things that feel like they'd be highlighted on a GOTY poster or box—should probably be cut and summarized.
      • The overuse of quotes I feel like is similarly a problem in the development section.
    • The plot section is current 770ish words (not including characters and setting), and should be cut down.
  • References:
    • What makes Comicbook.com a high-quality, reliable source?
    • The citations are a bit inconsistently formatted with regards to work/publisher. Shacknews should be italicized, for example, if other publications are being italicized.
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 34, 42, 45, 55, 58, 68, 87, 92, 100, 105, 112, and 153.
      • Ref 9 has the wrong URL (archive is fine.)
      • Ref 9 does not adequately cite Many of these offer special abilities that can aid in combat, such as increasing Focus gain, reducing gravity, enhancing stealth, making the player invulnerable, and unleashing an electromagnetic pulse to disable enemy weapons.
      • Ref 34 doesn't really say who has disappeared during a long holiday as in the text; his "vacation" is a pretext, he didn't disappear while on a vacation.
      • 105 doesn't adequately cite Spider-Man remained the top-selling video game for three consecutive weeks until it was replaced by the multiplatform title FIFA 19. (mentions three weeks, not that it was replaced by FIFA.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok think I've addressed most things here. I'm still working on the plot, finding it difficult to cull it while it still makes sense. I tried not to use off-the-record as I didn't know if it would count as a colloquialism or not but I've added it in now. Comicbook.com seems reliable IMO, the about page ties it to a company name and second website, the owner is apparently behind quite a few companies so it's not just a fan blog, and they have "some" tie to Gamespot though I can't figure out what it is. There probably was critical commentary on the music in reviews but I don't tend to include that so I probably glossed over it, I am of the belief that kind of stuff belongs in an article of its own if the detail is there. The music file is to compliment the discussion next to instead since all of the music in game is based off that one original theme, meaning that 10 seconds can convey a lot about what is being discussed there. Again, IMO. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That it can convey a lot is great, but that's not really solving the issue of NFCC#8, where you have to argue that it's a major detriment to the article subject as a whole with not including it. Given that there's no major critical commentary about it that implies the music is not a major component of the subject that needs non-free mmedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the sound file is gone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've trimmed the plot to 704 words, probably a few less if I hyphenate Mary Jane or switch it to MJ but I think it's as short as I can make it while still including the necessary plot points. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging David Fuchs in case he hasn't seen a response has been made. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Fuchs, is there something I haven't addressed? Thought I hit everything. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into it further, I don't think Comicbook.com meets the high quality threshold required of reliable sources; they don't have a clear editorial policy or masthead/editorial system. Merely being own by a big company or affiliated with another reliable source doesn't convey reliability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, I've removed the two last two comicbook.com sources as the associated info. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've struck the last remaining issue; I will do another lookover before supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

edit

I've never actually played this game myself (I've not played a new game since The Evil Within back in 2014)... but over this past summer I've sat in my brother's living room long enough to watch my 11-year-old nephew play a decent chunk of it (his house is right next to my job, so I basically spent at least 40 minutes every Monday-Friday watching my nephew play this on my lunch-break). So I hopefully have a fairly decent grasp of its mechanics/story. I hope to be able to provide something substantive to this review, although it seems like a pretty damn substantive article already. Expect something here within 24 hours/48 hours maximum. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, Darkwarriorblake: I took the liberty of correcting a couple of typos I found on the article, but I noticed these edits more than likely interacted with you trying to fix the issues David Fuchs raised above. I apologize if my edits resulted in any edit conflicts.
As I said, I found a couple of typos in the entire article, which I've taken the liberty of fixing myself. Otherwise, I thought the prose was brilliantly written. You've done a fantastic job of making the article as easy to follow as possible, even for someone like me, who generally can't stand most of the superhero stuff we've been subjected to these past 15 years. There was no point in the prose where I thought any particular sentence needed either expanding on or subtracting from. You did a damn fine job of creating a great balance between technical aspects versus things the casual reader would understand. So I'm happy to support this article for promotion on 1a, b, c, d and e. I don't really know what's going on with the formatting of the Bibliography section, but I assume it has something to do with this, which shouldn't impact on the promotion of this particular article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Homeostasis, and yes, people are doing weird things with the reference templates at the minute. It seems to be fixed now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:59, 6 September 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2019 [31].

Almost There (album)

edit
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m nominating this article again because I think it meets the featured article criteria. The last two nominations stalled due to inactivity, so hopefully the third time’s the charm.

For a brief overview, this is the first album Christian rock band MercyMe released after signing to INO Records. The album was praised by critics and did well in sales almost exclusively off the success of “I Can Only Imagine”, which was a Christian radio hit in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003. It’s been certified 3x Platinum (3,000,000 in sales) as of 2019, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and “I Can Only Imagine” received that certification as well, making it the best-selling Christian song ever.

Pinging all editors involved in the previous FAC noms: Serial Number 54129, Lirim.Z, Nikkimaria, Aoba47, Brandt Luke Zorn, and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

edit
  • I don't like articles failing an FA due to lack of eyes. I'll take a look:
  • Not a fan of the "Personnel" subsection. Needs some explanation, rather than just where this comes from. In fact, this is just mentioned again in the ref
  • Is a full table necessary for one figure on number of sales?
    Good point. Pages normally have one but it’s already noted multiple times in the article, and there are not multiple entries, I’ve removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Critical reception, you have [15][11][18][14][55] - 5 refs. Borders on WP:REFBOMB, could you combine these into one reference?

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine. I'm not a fan of a lack of prose for sections, but it clearly meets the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit

I will do a full review of the article by the end of tomorrow if that is okay with you. I am leaving this as a placeholder. I am happy to see this up for another FAC and I hope it gets more attention this time around. I look forward to reading through the article again soon. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (After releasing six records as an unsigned band, the band decided to pursue a record contract because it became too difficult to sell records, book shows, and manage themselves.), I would replace the first instance of "records" with "studio albums" as that appears to be the more correct word choice. The word "records" is rather vague so it would be better to clarify that point.
  • I would just recommend using something more precise than "records". "Albums" would work. I have seen the word "records" refer to both albums and singles so that is why I am cautioning against it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by this part (is the first studio album) as it appears the band released other studio albums before this one so saying it is the "first studio album" does not seem accurate to me.
  • This was the first studio album the band had made, but they had recorded 6 independent albums off of a record label before that. These albums weren’t recorded in a studio (but rather in places like church gymns and the like) and weren’t released on a label. I had generally grouped them as “independent albums” because they aren’t really in the same category, and the band and media generally don’t group them with the band’s efforts that have been released on a label. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still uncertain about this. I would still think that independent or self-released albums would qualify as studio albums. I do not think a studio album just means major-label releases. Also, even if the band recorded in more unconventional places, like a church's gym, they still would have needed equipment to record everything so in effect these spaces became studios. They are not like the high-ended recording studio often used for more mainstream albums, but I would still believe these spaces would qualify as studios. However, I will leave that for other editors to decide and discuss, because I am quite uncertain about it. It is not a major issue for me, and it would not prevent me from supporting this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. If others take issue with this I can revisit I. I will note that Billboard does not identify the independent albums as studio ones; they said the band’s most recent album (2017’s Lifer) is their ninth. If independent ones were included, it would be their 15th. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (appeared on the band's unsigned records), I think "self-released records" would be the better phrasing. Something about "unsigned records" does not seem correct to me.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, move the wikilink for "I Can Only Imagine" up to its first use. The same comment applies to the body of the article.
  • For this (Billboard ranked it as the fourth best-selling Christian album of the 2000s in the United States.), I would wikilink Billboard.
  • For this part (they released their fifth unsigned album,), I would use either independent or self-released rather than "unsigned".
  • I have a question about this part (Although Kipley had been involved on some minor projects). Does the source clarify what these "minor projects" were?
  • I am confused by this portion (According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to get the song on the album; they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, but felt that they had been pushed a little too far towards the adult contemporary genre.). It immediately follows the sentence on "Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song)" and how much the band disliked it so it is weird that this part makes it seem like the band fought for that song. I am assuming this part is not in the correct spot.
  • I am confused by this part (because they felt the adult had been pushed to an adult contemporary sound.). What do you mean by "the adult"?
  • I would put citations in numeric order.
  • For the first sentence of the "Composition" section, I could see some editors raising concerns about Wikipedia:Overlinking. It may be helpful to bundle the citations together to avoid that. I have always been told to avoid using four citations in a row; three is fine, but I think that is the limit. The sentence as a whole has seven citations so it is quite a bit.
  • For this part (the "guitar nuances" of Scheuchzer), I would say (Scheuchzer's "guitar nuances") instead.
  • For this part (of Scheuchzer to U2's guitarist The Edge), I do not believe "the" of the Edge should be capitalized. The same comment applies for the Cure in this part (the song was compared to the work of The Cure).
  • I would wikilink Third Day.
    Missed this one Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (In its 25th anniversary edition, CCM Magazine listed Almost There as one of '100 Albums You Need to Own'.), CCM Magazine and Almost There should be in italics.

I am not really a fan of worship music tbh, but you have done a great job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope this nomination gets more attention in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit
  • That's a very odd referencing system, e.g., one <ref> tag populated with a bulleted list of references that had been used previously. My knee-jerk reaction would be to Oppose, but... why did you do things that way? Was there a reason, or was that the only way you could think of to handle the situation? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a bit irregular. The problem is, every time I touch references, I always want to turn them into my preferred style. That would be major surgery. So let's just drop this for now. If the FAC passes, no harm no foul. If it fails, and if you have any desire to do so, feel free to contact me & I'll redo it all from top to bottom. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

edit

I did review the files used in this article in the previous FAC, except that File:How Great Is Your Love.ogg is now in the article instead of File:I Can Only Imagine 2001.ogg. I still am a bit wary of these samples; I don't see how they meet WP:NFCC#8 unless the sample is representative of the whole album. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment! I would say it is quite representative of the album’s sound, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I don’t know if a reliable source is needed for that but the song is a good example of what the album’s median sound and lyrical content is like. Toa Nidhiki05 11:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've had an additional thought here, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I would like to include both samples, but "House of God" is not quite representative of the album. However, I feel the sample is quite useful in informing the reader of just what the band mean when they said they pushed for "House of God" to bolster their rock credentials. Perhaps moving it to "Background and recording" would be sufficient? There it actually serves a purpose for the reader. If this still is not enough I would be fine with removing it, however I would like the "How Great Is Your Love" sample to remain as it is representative of the album. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would help; WP:NFCC#8 is Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (emphasis mine) and I don't see how this would be the case. By the same line of thought "How Great Is Your Love" will need a better inclusion argument than "As the song is the most successful release from the album both critically and commercially, its inclusion is essential to the album and the album's article by extension." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve deleted “House of God” and corrected the description and justification “How Great Is Your Love”. The latter is representative of the album and has been covered by multiple sources, the vast majority of album FAs here include at least one representative sample so hopefully this is sufficient. Toa Nidhiki05 14:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I am not sure if that is reflected in the current article text and certainly isn't reflected in the non-free use rationale on File:How Great Is Your Love.ogg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I still feel there needs to be a sample. Toa Nidhiki05 22:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

edit

Lead

  • Produced by Pete Kipley, the album - some repetition of "the album" at this point. Maybe consider using simply "it", or "the record"?
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After releasing six albums as an unsigned band, the band decided to pursue a record contract because it became too difficult to sell albums, book shows, and manage themselves - some repetition of "band". What about changing the latter instance to "they", since it should be clear to every reader who is being referred to. I'd also consider piping to recording contract, for the more music industry-illiterate reader.
  • Four of the songs on the album had previously appeared on the band's self-released albums - less is generally more. I'd consider changing this to "Four songs on the album had previously appeared on their self-released albums"
  • Also, I'd consider ending the first paragraph after the above sentence. The next sentence, Critics have characterized... refereences Critical reception, which is what the next paragraph seems to be focused on.
  • however, it underperformed on the charts, leading to poorer than expected sales for the album - I'd find a way to incorporating the word "initially" somewhere in that sentence if I were you, since the next sentence says that sales picked up on the release of the next single.

Background and recording

  • The band later brought on drummer Robby Shaffer and bassist Nathan Cochran. sounds a little to informal. What about "Drummer Robby Shaffer and bassist Nathan Cochran later joined the band."? It might also help if you specify when they joined the group. The current source (written in 2000) indicates that "Nathan join[ed] the fold over three years ago and Robby a little over two years ago." So maybe something along the lines of "Bassist Nathan Cochran joined the band in 1997, with drummer Robby Shaffer joining the following year." This is absolutely apropos of nothing, but I noticed that the Members section of the band's main article currently has an "additional citations needed" tag. It may be a good idea for you to transfer this reference to that section.
  • In October 1999, they released their fifth self-released album, The Worship Project. 2 uses of "released". The first half of this sentence could be changed to "In October 1999, they issued.
  • All of the other songs on the album were new songs which had not been recorded before. Consider changing to "All of the other songs on the album were new, and had not appeared on any of their previous albums."
  • With the exception of "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm, Millard and MercyMe wrote all of the songs for the album.[7] The band included "I Worship You" after Kipley brought it to them; although the band wanted to write their own material, they liked the song so much that they put it as the first song on the album.[8] This may read better as "Millard and MercyMe wrote every song on the album, with the exception of "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm.[7] Although the band wanted to write their own material, they said they liked this song so much that they wanted it to appear as the first track on the album.[8]
  • According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to get "House of God" on the album; they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, but felt that they had been pushed a little too far towards the adult contemporary genre. The first half of this sentence is a bit too informal, so maybe something like "According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to have "House of God" included on the album" would be better. And I don't really understand the second half. I take it that it was the label who were pushing the band a little too far towards the adult contemporary genre? If that's the case, the sentence could probably be changed to: "they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, and felt the label was pushing them too far towards the adult contemporary genre."
  • You picked up exactly what I was trying to get at. This sentence as well as the one above about "Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song)" both focus on conflicts with the label - the band ceding on including the former, but insisting on including "House of God" because of the label's push towards a more adult contemporary sound. I've added your wordings here verbatim. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hopefully be able to review the rest of the prose tomorrow. But something else I noticed in the 'Track listing' and 'Credits and personnel' sections: you have the first line in parenthesis (brackets). If you want it that way, that's fine with me. Just thought I'd point this out. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the brackets are intentional, although I have no preference as to including or removing them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. I'm happy with the changes you've made this far. Continuing my review:

Composition

  • Almost There has been described by critics as being a worship and a pop rock album. The album was noted as being stylistically similar to contemporary Christian bands like FFH. - some repetition of "being" and "album", and an unnecessary plural ("bands"). Something like "...a worship and pop rock album, and was noted as being stylistically similar to the work of contemporary Christian band FFH." may be better.
  • You could do with describing who Steve Losey is during his first appearance in the article (in this section... and then removing the "of AllMusic" from 'Critical reception and accolades').

Release and commercial performance

  • As a result of the single's radio airplay... - a single can only receive airplay on radio, so the "radio" here can be removed.
  • In 2003, the album again received increased sales as "I Can Only Imagine" received airplay on mainstream radio formats. - What about "Sales of the album increased throughout 2003 as "I Can Only Imagine" received airplay on mainstream radio formats."?

Critical reception and accolades

  • "In the ever–growing genre of modern worship, MercyMe steps up to the plate and drives a home run over the fence". He praised the album as having a "fresh sound", but felt that much of the album was "somewhat low–key." Incorrect dashes have been used here. Change them to -'s (also in In a later review for the album's "Platinum Edition" re–release,... although I'm not sure you even need the "re-release" there).

And that's pretty much it. Sorry for being so nit-picky, but that's just the way I am. I'd be happy to support once the rest of my nit-picking is sorted. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all with me. All the changes should be complete now, Homeostasis07. Toa Nidhiki05 01:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Couldn't get near my computer last night. I'm happy with the changes you've made, so will support. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 15:52, 1 September 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [32].

HMS Roebuck (1774)

edit
Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a two-deck fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy, built specifically to operate in the shallow waters around America, where the British ships-of-the-line couldn't go. Roebuck served throughout the American Revolutionary War and took part in notable operations against Philadelphia and Charleston. Presumably because she was old and her type wasn't required during the French wars, she was after converted for use as a hospital and troop ship, taking part in the captures of Martinique and St Lucia in 1794. When Britain declared war on the Batavian Republic, Roebuck was part of the fleet sent to capture the Dutch Navy in the Vlieter roadstead. She served as guardship towards the end of her career and was eventually broken up in 1811.

The article achieved GA in April and received a peer review in June. The article had another polish, when it went through a comprehensive A-class review earlier this month. I look forward to hearing ideas for further improvement. Ykraps (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM

edit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and given the improvements made during that review, I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

edit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • No formatting issues
  • Sources appear to be comprehensive and to meet the requisite quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

This looks an excellent article and very interesting. A few comments:

  • In the construction section, Roebuck is described as the prototype of her class and there are a couple of mentions of other ships of the class. It may be worth mentioning how many vessels were in the class, perhaps as a note.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captain's journal is listed as a source and cited several times - however, in these sections, his surname is spelt Hammond as opposed to Hamond in the body of the article itself.
    Sources differ as to the number of ems. For the sake of consistency within the article, I had to make a choice. It is unfortunate that Hammond is so prominently featured in the reference section but most sources use the single em spelling.--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article, Sir Andrew Hamond, 1st Baronet, also uses a single em.--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you have cited by the title Chronicle rather than the authors e.g. Jones et al? It stands out to me since you cite by author for Clowes.
    My reasoning was that the Naval Chronicle is a collection of writings and not all are written by those three authors. Some are official documents, dispatches and letters. The publication also featured guest writers. However, part of Clowes book was written by A. T. Mahan, so I guess it's okay. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my comments done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for your suggestions. Do you have any further comments, either about the article or in relation to my replies? Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • flying the flags of Vice-Admiral Richard Rodney Bligh amd then Rear-Admiral You mean "and"?
    Good spot! Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where a portion of their guns were also removed You mean "was"?
    Collective nouns are a bit complicated in British English. I think 'were' is correct in this case. A portion from a single ship would be 'was' but a portion from each of several ships is 'were'. However, I have rewritten to avoid this unnecessary complication.--Ykraps (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say "were" too in this context because it sounds better. However, I wouldn't write it because it states "a portion" which is not plural but singular. But anyway it is changed. Cheers.

That's anything that I've got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [35].

When You Get a Little Lonely

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is a country album by Maureen McCormick, an American actress best known for Marcia Brady in the sitcom The Brady Bunch. It was released on April 4, 1995, through the label Phantom Hill. McCormick wanted to use the album to break away from her Marcia Brady image, but it received mainly negative reviews and did not appear on any chart. In a 2008 interview, she said she was disappointed by restrictions to the album's recording process; McCormick as continued to perform country music and has participated in the reality television show Gone Country.

I had previously nominated this article for an FAC, although that nomination was far too premature. Fortunately, I found a significant amount of coverage through Newspapers.com to further expand the article, and I now believe it is ready for the FAC process. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations. Thank you in advance and have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05

edit

Going to get the ball rolling and give this a look. Toa Nidhiki05 13:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Not sure the lede flows as well as it should. For example, the second sentence talks about the album’s genre, but then it goes into her rejecting earlier record offers and having previously recorded albums. I would rearrange things slightly to move the genre section towards the end, along with the album’s production. Otherwise, pretty good.
  • Change “has previously recorded” to “had previously recorded”.
Background and recording
  • She had considered hundreds of songs before deciding on the eleven for the final track listing > She had considered hundreds of songs before deciding on the eleven in the final track listing.
  • On October 21, 1995, she performed songs from the album during an Indianapolis Ice games against the Detroit Vipers. > On October 21, 1995, she performed songs from the album during an Indianapolis Ice game against the Detroit Vipers.
Release history
  • Capitalize “cassette”.
References
General
  • Just a brief note, but I do agree with some other commenters that there is a some trivia here that doesn’t necessarily need to be here. This is clearly a notable subject and it’s very well covered, but it verges on overkill at points. It’s not enough to get me to oppose, but in places like the “Legacy” section it seems a bit excessive. This is just a comment, not a request to change anything right now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment. I changed the "Legacy" section title to "Aftermath" because I feel that is more appropriate. I thought the section was important because it covers both McCormmick's disappointment when looking back on the album and her continued work in country music, which I feel is related to this album. However, I would be more than happy to revisit this section if necessary. I have worked on the article for a while so it can be a little tough for me to disentangle what is important from what is trivial or not necessary for this particular article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have made all of the requested changes. Let me know if anything else needs work, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this looks good for now. I'm satisfied with what it looks like for now so I'll support this. Very comprehensive article and I think this will be an excellent addition to our featured articles - can't really think of too many other critically panned FAs. If any concerns remain about the amount of content here I'm sure they can be worked out very quickly. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! I never thought about it, but it is true that a majority of FAs are on projects that received much more critical praise then this one lol. Maybe it is something to do with more critically panned projects either being forgotten or not attracting enough interested editors to work on the related article enough for an FA. Hope you have a great rest of your weekend, and if there is anything I can do to help you, then please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from Yashthepunisher

edit

Support Comments from DAP

edit

An enjoyable read and fantastic work per usual. Tidy prose sans a couple of minor typos I caught at first glance: one in the third paragraph of the Background and Recording subsection with "Barring Coffing", and the other in the third sentence of the Critical reception subsection (but said her upper register as "a little screechy at times"). That's about it, very few comments to add that haven't already been addressed. Once these typos have been addressed, I'll be happy to offer my support. DAP 💅 3:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @DAP388: Thank you for the compliments and the recommendations! I have revised the typos. The phrase "Barring Coffing" did make me chuckle lol. Hope you are doing well, and let me know if anything else needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good. Happy to support. Cheers! DAP 💅 4:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

edit
  • I am honestly not entirely certain. I am quite unfamiliar with that side of things (i.e. Wikipedia and image policy) so I cannot say for certain either way. I saw the image being used in the main article on McCormick, and I thought it would fit here. I could remove it if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I went back to the original image, and replaced the source link with an archived URL. The source links to an eBay sale; that seems a little strange to me because I would not think eBay would be a great source for images. However, I am not an expert at this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
eBay links however can be a source for photographs of the object, and such photos can be used to prove that something lacks a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to explain in the caption how it represents McCormick's plan to experiment with genre on the album. McCormick says in an interview that she wanted to experiment with different sounds, but she does not name any specific song with this. Mike Hughes (i.e. reference 15) describes the song with these categories (i.e. up-tempo and dance-hall), but he does not tie it into an overall assessment on how the overall album sounds. I could remove the audio sample completely if my caption falls under Wikipedia:No original research. I thought an article about an album would appear odd without an audio sample, but I would be fine with removing it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the ALT text is good; to me it sounds like it describes the images rather than supplanting them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I have responded to your questions above, and I have also changed the ALT text according to your suggestion. For the longest time, I had thought ALT text was supposed to describe what in the image rather than restate what the image was. I cannot remember where I got this from (maybe a mixture of GAN/FAC reviewers and what I saw in other articles). Apologies for my mistake with that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the reference. I was not doubting you about it as I actually received a similar note recently about ALT text. Again I am not sure where I picked up my incorrect assessment, but apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments on other aspects of the page:
  • "critics questioned McCormick's connection with country music" is an odd sentence.
  • The prose otherwise seems OK to me, although I am not really a good prose person.
  • Don't really know anything about the topic to assess its sources.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Moise

edit

I reviewed When You Get a Little Lonely at the time of its first nomination and didn't support then, but I believe the article has improved really a lot. Kudos to Aoba for his persistence. Right now I'm doing a second read-through, and making some small edits as I go along. Here are some comments:

  • "While completing When You Get a Little Lonely, McCormick was offered a cameo role on The Brady Bunch Movie (1995) but turned it down to focus on the album.[1] She had been approached the previous year about a cameo but was unable to accept because she was playing Betty Rizzo in a Broadway production of the musical Grease." Could you make it clearer in the article, were these two different offers about different cameos (or possibly the same cameo), both in The Brady Bunch Movie?
  • "She wished it was "more organic" and that she could have written at least one of the songs." She wished it was more organic, or wished it had been more organic? If we're talking about the recording process, I'd argue "had been". If it's the album that's organic, then "was" could be okay, but it's less clear to me what an "organic album" would mean.
  • Good point. I have revised that part by clarifying what the "it" is referencing and using "had been". Here is the full quote from the source: "We had incredible musicians on the album, but I just would’ve liked it to have been more organic.". It seems like she wished the recording for the album had less rules and restraints or was allowed to develop more "organically". Let me know if it requires further clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the prize was a John Rich-produced single that was sent to radio". I think this means the prize was having John Rich produce a single for the winner, which would be distributed to radio stations. But "a ... single" especially does not seem clear. It could be interpreted as meaning the winner just got to take home a single. Moisejp (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I have revised that part to hopefully clarify the meaning. The full sentence from the source is the following: "If you haven’t been watching CMT’s Gone Country, in which folks like Dee Snider, Bobby Brown, Carnie Wilson, and Maureen McCormick write and perform country songs with the hope that theirs will be the single produced by Big & Rich’s John Rich and sent to radio, you’ve been missing out." Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also did some source spot-checking just now, and it all seems good. Just I think "McCormick appeared in the music video for Brad Paisley's 2007 song "Online" " should maybe be sourced to ref 2 instead of ref 5. Both ref 2 and 5 are used in the following sentence, so it would have been easy to mix up during editing. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support. It's well written and comprehensive, and as I mentioned above my spot checks give me pretty good confidence that the information in sources was used accurately throughout the article. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

edit
  • AXS is a publisher not a work
  • FN6 is missing author
  • FN10 should include full publication information
  • FN12 is incomplete
  • FN13: page? Same with FN8, 28
  • Be consistent in whether you use |via= for GBooks links

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

edit

Read the whole article three times trying to find something to complain about. The only points I'd make are:

  • There are 40 instances of "album" in the prose. I'd suggest changing some of them to "the record", or even "it"... when it's blatantly obvious that the album is being referenced. In 'Background and recording', you could probably rephrase "The album's executive producer Barry Coffing arranged and produced all of the tracks." to "Executive producer Barry Coffing arranged and produced all of the tracks." Etc.
  • I take it it's common knowledge in the US that Nashville, Tennessee is known as "Music City", but I had no idea what was being referred to by "Music City's finest". May be a good idea to link Music City—which currently links to Nashville's article anyway.
  • appears as a guest artist, duetting with McCormick on "We Must Have Done Something Right". - could probably lose the "with McCormick" there, since it's fairly obvious at this point that it's her album on which he's featuring as a duet vocalist.
  • During a 1995 interview, McCormick... - "McCormick" is used twice in two sentences. What about changing this instance to merely "she", since it should be obvious that - in tandem with the previous sentence - you're referring to the artist.
  • 12 uses of "album" in this section alone. Consider rephrasing a couple.
  • Typo: "It's very Brady sort of voice". - source says "It's a very Brady sort of voice."
  • Typo: According to 2015 AXS article, - should probably be "According to a 2015 AXS article, and I think AXS should be linked in this prose.

Otherwise, this is a brilliantly written – and fascinating – article, and will be happy to support once these comments are addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:22, 1 September 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [36].

Project Rover

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people that build the atomic bombs decide to become rocket scientists. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Quality/reliability
  • The publisher for ref 99 is given as NASA, but are you sure about this? The article is written in a rather informal style, and the format is quite different from that of the NASA website. It's an interesting article, but it reads rather like a private blog, perhaps based on data obtained from NASA. (Would NASA refer you to "course notes for Physics 6"?)
    It's part of NASA's Public Outreach and Education (POETRY) program. See [37]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, the sources appear to meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

Read through "Pewee"; more to come later. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Hi! Will you have further remarks? --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: (and Hawkeye) due apologies, I'd forgotten I hadn't finished this. I'd like to finish up; I will do my best to do so today; but if I'm the only one holding up the review, feel free to close it. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming: am I missing where you explain why RIFT was cancelled?
    I didn't cover it. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link, and I'd suggest gloss also, "half-lives".
  • Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acronym NTS is used once; I'd suggest dispensing with it altogether.
    Dispensed with. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reactor could not be destroyed in space by blowing it up into small pieces." It's unclear why they would want to do so; I assume its for disposal, but I don't think I should have to read on to find that out.
    Added "so another method had to be found for disposing of it at the end of a space mission" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it made it harder to charge the Soviets with violating the treaty." It's ambiguous whether the Soviets actually violated the treaty, or whether the US wanted to charge them for no good reason.
    My sources don't say. It appears that they had something in mind, but I cannot find it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accidents paragraph seems rather out of place, but to be quite honest it's hard to find a better place; would it possible to introduce one of the deaths at a point where its related to material you're discussing, and then shoehorn in the others there?
    Don't think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link/explain "curies"
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, the first sentence of "Cancellation" has too heavy an editorial voice, and comes across as being unnecessarily "pro-Rover", if you will. There's many possible fixes, but I'll leave it up to you to tweak it.
  • Same with the first sentence of the next, specifically the word "plenty".
    Changed to "many" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannon needs a gloss in the body
    I don't know what you are asking for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm asking you to describe him as "Junior senator for Nevada" or something similar, when he is introduced in the body.
  • "Anderson and Smith killed Nixon's pet project, the Boeing 2707 supersonic transport (SST)"; with what, a pistol? This strikes as being both too colloquial and needing more detailed. Also, drop "SST".
    Added that it was their votes. Dropped SST but note that most sources refer to it as such; the Wikipedia is the only place I've seen that refers to it as the Boeing 2707. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point about colloquialism holds true elsewhere as well; would be "good for"; "up to the task"; "near-record"; "well-sized"; some of these might be EngVar, but I suspect others may come from the more journalistic tone employed by books about the topic, but which I find to be jarring in an Encyclopedia entry.
    Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although its budget request was just $17.4 million, Congress allocated $69 million; Nixon only spent $29 million of it." Very confusing; why did Congress give more than asked for, and why was Nixon spending any of it?
    It's the US system; the executive says what it needs, Congress allocates the money, and then the executive spends it. Congress allocated more money because the senators determined that more was needed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a tone throughout the article, most apparent in the Cancellation section, that, boiled down, is something like "Rover was amazing and was going to give us nuclear rockets but nasty bureaucrats cancelled it". Now if this is actually reflective of the POV of the independent sources, then it's not necessarily a problem (and for all I know, it might be an accurate assessment); but I think you need to be aware that this is how it sounds, and I want to flag it for anyone more familiar with the subject.
    It would depend on whether you think space exploration is a good idea. Note that many people believe that NERVA and Rover were cancelled by Congress; as the article makes clear, it was cancelled over the objection of Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, that's not answering my question, Hawkeye7 ... I, personally, think space flight is a good idea; but what I think is quite irrelevant. What do the sources think? Does the POV of the article reflect that of your most weighty sources? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The main source is Dewar, who wrote his PhD and later a book on the subject. The rest is sourced from books and reports published by NASA and LANL, both of whom are very thorough when it comes to making primary sources available. But the original point stands: if you want to explore deep space, then you need the nuclear rocket engine. The question really is whether this is something you want to do. So the article indeed reflects the sources; the question is whether more prominence could be given to the opposition. The obstacle here is the technology-focused article structure. My preference would be for the political to-and-fro to be in the NERVA article, which is about the NASA side of the project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: Okay, fair. But I would nonetheless ask that you elaborate a little more on the opposition; not necessarily to give it more weight, but perhaps to make it clear that it was based on a disinterest in planetary space-flight (which, if I'm reading you correctly, it was). Also, to be quite honest I think splitting the material the way you have is a mistake (I didn't even realise until you mentioned it that NERVA had its own article). A project-based structure might make sense from a historian's point of view, but to the layperson, I think it would make more sense to have an overarching "nuclear rockets in the US space program" article, with sub-articles for specific pieces of technology, or whatever, that required it. At the moment, you have a bit of an artificial dichotomy. That said, I'm not going to oppose over this, because I think that for the scope set out in the lead, this page is doing a good job. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't create the structure; I merely improved the two existing articles. In some ways it would be better if Rover and NERVA were merged, which would remove a lot of duplication between the two articles, but the topic-based encyclopaedia structure militates against it: what would the merged article be called, and what would its scope be? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, with one article at FAC, that's not something I'm going to oppose over; if you bring the second one here without substantial restructuring, however, it might be. That said, I'm still asking you to add more detail about the opposition. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To implement that, I would have to withdraw this article, and demolish both to create a single article. My biggest concern about this is the scope of a combined article, as to how much of the work in the 1980s through 2000s would need to be covered. The sources are not nearly as available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll come back to the lead after these concerns are addressed.
    Added a bit more on opposition to Rover. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, concerns addressed, support. This article is comprehensive and well-written. I want to note again my dissatisfaction with the larger structure, though. Given the title and scope of this article, I'm willing to overlook any duplication of material here from other articles that haven't been through FAC. As they stand, however, I think NERVA and this page have too much in common for them both to be FAs. I don't think fixing the structure necessitates withdrawing this. The overall scope to me has to be the entire history of nuclear rockets in the US space program. This could quite reasonably be a sub-article of that, in which much of the technical detail is covered; but both this and NERVA can't be viable sub-articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Maury

edit

Ahhh, right up my alley!

  • "while NERVA involved the development and deployment" - "overall development"? I'm not sure I see the distinction between the development of the engine here and Rover.
    "Project Rover became part of NASA's Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) project, and henceforth dealt with the research into nuclear rocket reactor design, while NERVA involved the development and deployment of nuclear rocket engines, and the planning for space missions." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reactors were fueled with uranium-235" - I would add "highly enriched here", but I'm not totally sold on it.
    I could say "highly enriched uranium" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "protective cladding to withstand hydrogen propellants" - unless I'm mistaken, the issue here is that the hydrogen is highly corrosive in these environments. If there is a direct statement to that effect I would suggest adding it, otherwise the reader may be led to believe it's something natural to hydrogen, or the fact that its in liquid form.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plutonium was rejected because it tends to form compounds" - I don't think that is what Dewar is saying, as the next sentence notes that it is an attractive quality. This appears to be solely due to the temperature concern, although I'm somewhat at a loss as to why this might be. I *think* it's that the Pu compound does not have the same temperature capacity as UC2, but I'm not sure Dewar is being clear.
    My fault. Re-worded to "Plutonium was rejected because while it forms compunds easily, they could not reach temperatures as high as those of uranium." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm even less clear why U233 would be better than U235 in that case. Is there any other source that talks about this?
    "Uranium-233 was seriously considered, as it is lighter and therefore held the prospect of saving weight" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "various ovens and later the Nuclear Furnace" - (edited) the explanation of what this is is much later in the article. I think a couple of words here "a custom test reactor, the Nuclear Furnace", is warranted
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concrete wall 3 feet (0.91 m) thick to protect the electronic instrumentation from radiation from the reactor" - gebus, in the tube era? Thank god these things never flew.
  • "but its timing was off" - "but events interceded"?
    "overtaken by events" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Silverstein appointed" - I know he's been mentioned in passing already, but Silverstein's role here really needs to be explained. So far we only know him as some guy on a panel several years earlier. Yet now he's appointing the leader of the entire program? If I am reading the timeline correctly, by this time, 1959/60, he was the lead of the Silverstein Committee. I think that needs to be mentioned to property frame the events that are taking place. A full para on the Committee and the various Saturn concepts blends this time smoothly and also explains why NASA would want to have anything to do with it.
    I've written "Silverstein had long had an interest in nuclear rocket technology. He was the first senior NACA official to show interest in rocket research, had initiated investigation into the use of hydrogen as a rocket propellant, was involved in the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) project, built NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, and had created a nuclear rocket propulsion group at Lewis under Harold Finger." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in February 1962" ... "1 February 1961" - I think this should be re-arranged to be chronological.
    Moved sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " also as a coolant" - I am having difficulty seeing how an isolated tank would act as a coolant. Was it itself cooled?
    Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Temperatures were much higher than expected, up to 2,900 K" - is this the design temperature or the "higher than expected"? Add the "other one" in either case.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiwi A Prime test.[47] Finger called" - para break.
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and have a RIFT of a production engine" - a what? this does not appear anywhere else in the text.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a bootstrap start" - this needs explanation.
    Added and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, GTG, back tomorrow. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

Nothing to do with the review but worth noting: practically every test of these systems resulted in various degrees of fuel loss to the environment. It's difficult to imagine any situation short of Footfall where one of these might actually be cleared to fly. I can only conclude it was the odd partnership of NASA and the AEC that kept it alive, the later was still trying to come up with new uses for atomic energy (building a harbor, anyone?) through this period and the combination of high-ranking officials involved in AEC with their geographic distribution made it, for a time, unkillable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dewar goes into greater detail about the political battles that Anderson, Cannon and Smith fought to preserve and protect Rover and NERVA. A favourite scene in the article is Milton Klein being called to explain President Johnson's abrupt U-turn on NERVA when he had no clue. Note though that Smith's state of Maine was not much involved in NASA or AEC work, and that she was a Republican while the others were Democrats.
That fact is that if you want to go to Mars, or beyond, then you have to use a nuclear thermal rocket. Only it has the power the mission requires. Only it can be parked in space for several months and then restarted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have inserted one word in the lede and a couple of gr and sp touches here and there, and have a couple of more items:

  • where the first atomic bombs were designed - I think this para would read much more easily if this statement is removed. I think people will understand LANL's history, but it not I think it deserves as separate short para.
    Okay, removed this. I wasn't sure how familiar people were with the Manhattan Project or the LANL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • best reactor material - moderator material? or is this, as later, the construction material as well?
    Changed to "neutron moderator". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they assumed ... beyond the capabilities of available materials. Their work used very conservative numbers" - something appears to be missing. assuming temperatures beyond available materials does not seem conservative!
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official sanction" - in common use, a sanction is a penalty. I think you should use a different term here. Perhaps "development begins"?
    "Sanction" means "official permission or approval for an action". Changed to "approval". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Ramo-Wooldridge.[12] After hearing" - para break.
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "longer distances therefore seemed weak" - no therefore?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it is lighter and therefore held the prospect of saving weight" - one hopes that something that is lighter would save weight... but the issue here is "how much lighter and why"? 235.0439299 vs. 233.03963 is less than 1% difference, and I find it very difficult to believe this would have any measurable effect on the overall design mass. Is this really all the source has on this? Perhaps there is some other reason that 233 would be lighter, like a smaller core size or such.
    I wondered about this too. The second sources says "large ν-value an a high probability of fission" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size of the core determines" - this statement seems out of place in a para on control drums. It seems it would fit better in the various places where different sized reactors are mentioned.
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overtaken by events.[31] Two days later" - maybe separate this. "overtaken by events.[para break]Two days later, on 4 October,..."
    Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackass Flats" - was this the area's name, or did they call it that after they set it aside? If the former, "The AEC allocated a 127,200 hectares area known as Jackass Flats in Area 25..."
    It was the area's name before it became part of the NTS. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the remotely controlled electric L-1," - to keep the sense of the statements the same, "the electric L-1 was remotely controlled,"
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leak through microscopic holes that would contain other fluids" - I think there is a missing "into" here - do the holes themselves contain the fluids?
    Changed to "too small to permit the passage of other fluids" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the development of NASA's Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) based" - NERVA has been explained and linked already, remove
    No, it hasn't. That was in the lead. This is the article. It is necessary to repeat it here, becuase this is where the references are that the lead was generated from. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "controlled.[60] LASL's original objective" - para break
    Moved text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "November 1961, but on the morning" - new sentence at the comma
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the technicians in the control room chose to believe the faulty " - This section never actually states which was faulty. I assume the quarter-full?
    Correct. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"high pressure 5,171-kilopascal (750.0 psi) " - given the rounding I'm guessing the actual provided number is 750 psi? If so, put that as the main unit.

OT but interesting historically: "The plastic coating on the control cables was chewed by burrowing rodents and had to be replaced" - this is a common problem today with residential solar panels. All that is old...

Query from WereSpielChequers

edit

Hi, that was interesting, thanks for writing it. I have made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.....

ϢereSpielChequers 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific impulse relates to the efficiency of use of the propellant, but overall efficiency includes weight of the engine, so unlike civil and even naval nukes, these rockets had to be built light, with very highly enriched Uranium and presumably minimal shielding and safety. I still doubt that before loading propellant they'd be light compared to an unfuelled jet/rocket engines of the same thrust. That makes sense when you are talking about long periods of gentle thrust for spaceships heading from orbit for Mars etc, less so for ships taking off from Earth. The article alludes to some of this, and implies use of pure U235. I suspect the actual enrichment percentage might be classified, or would have been at the time as the higher the enrichment that could be achieved the lighter an atomic bomb could have been. But the actual percentage of enrichment would be good to add if possible (I really doubt it would have been 100%), and a comparison of rocket weight between nuclear and chemical would be relevant. Part of the concern re safety and security of the devices would be related to the percentage of enrichment, especially if they were using bomb grade enriched Uranium. ϢereSpielChequers 15:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The exact ratio was classified, at least at the time the reports were written. I'm pretty sure they used the standard weapons grade product (93%), and I'll keep an eye out for a document with the exact enrichment. I've made it clear that Rover used highly enriched uranium and not pure U-235. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be able to include the nuclear reactor template inside the rocket engine template, but the latter does not permit this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Kiwi_A_at_test_cell_post_plan.jpg: the wording of the tag seems to suggest that it only covers images created between 2007 and 2018? Same with File:Raemer_Schreiber.jpg, File:Bradbury_in_front_of_Kiwi_B4-A_reactor_N6211910.jpg, File:Kiwi_A_fire-up.jpg
    The contract has been running since 1943, with renewals every five or ten years, and was evidently renewed in 2018. It no longer bothers to quote those dates. All images are freely available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • centimetres
  • kilometres
  • metres
  • organise
  • litre
  • square metre
  • millimetre
  • micrometres
  • cubic metres
  • aluminium
  • backwards
  • modelling
  • ageing
    All corrected.

That's anything from me and greetings from the MILHIST. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

edit

Hi Hawkeye, I just fixed some minor typos before noticing a review was underway. Here are a few questions I had...

That's it for now... Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, and your help on Tim Fischer too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had another read through, a few more comments...

That's it from me. Thanks JennyOz (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, happy to sign support (pls check my last tweaks), regards, JennyOz (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

edit

Looks like this is close enough to the end I will not have time for a full review, but perhaps look through my comments on the recent GA to see if any are applicable here? For instance, I saw:

Not sure if any other comments apply. Kees08 (Talk) 15:21, 30 August 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [39].

Pyramid of Nyuserre

edit
Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back with my third nomination of a pyramid article, although I had originally anticipated that this would be my second FA nom. I created this article last year, built it up for DYK and GA, and then left it alone for many months. I came back to it multiple times, and after refining it further, I think it's ready to be reviewed for FA. Some eye catching facts: 1) Nyuserre had to complete not 1, not 2, but 3 other pyramids before building his own. This included completing the largest pyramid built in the Fifth Dynasty, which was about equal in size to one of the Great Pyramids of Giza. 2) The last people ever to enter the pyramid risked having 90,000 kg blocks collapse onto their heads. 3) Nyuserre employed a pink granite lion to guard his privacy after his death. No I don't know his hourly rates/salary, nor his current place of employment. 4) Nyuserre invented the pylon (okay I'm stretching that a bit), two of which exist in his pyramid complex. And 5) 7 dynasties or ~500 years after his death, Nyuserre's cult had lived on/been revived. How many cults do you know of that have stuck around for 5 centuries? Weird flex, but ok. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

Bagging a place in the queue. Detailed comments will follow shortly. Looking very good at first glance. Tim riley talk 20:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the necropolis map
  •  Done - upscaled 30%
  • File:Abusir_map.png: source link is dead
  •  Done - replaced with archive link
  • File:Cross-section_of_Nyuserre's_causeway_by_Borchardt.png: the CC license at the source site appears to refer to the digitization - should include an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:Restoration_work_inscription_from_Nyuserre's_mortuary_temple.png.Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - The, uh, let's say, art program of the article has been vastly expanded. As a result, it's been suggested that a new image review would be wise. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Ludwig Borchardt's date of death? Also, are we certain that he is the author of all the images from his book? For example, File:Borchardt_(Blatt_4).png is attributed to two other people. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Q1) He died in 1938, so definitely Old-PD-70 in Germany. Q2) The images are from his book. Would he not have the copyright? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, it would depend on what agreement he or the publisher made with the original creator, if they made one at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I expect they'd had some arrangement, particularly given the label of "Rekonstruktion von Ludwig Borchardt" or "reconstruction by Ludwig Borchardt" on the images. How would I go about finding out if there was an arrangement? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the book from which the images were taken, you could see if there is any mention, either adjacent to the images or elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can access the book here, albeit it's entirely in German. It was digitized under a CC-by-SA 4.0 license. I don't see anything useful on or around the images to identify copyright holdings. E.g. Blatt 1 just has "Ausgeführt" meaning "Credited" for the creators. I've managed to identify some of the creators: "Th. Schinkel" is a Theodor Schinkel, died 1919. "A. Bollacher" is an Alfred Bollacher, b. 1878. "W. Büring" is a Wilhelm Büring. "O. Rubensohn" is Otto Rubensohn. "O. Völz" and "E. Decker" are too obscure though. Damn, it'd be a real loss if those images were unuseable. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I figured out why Völz and Decker are obscure, they are a couple of workers from a construction company hired(?) by Borchardt: "Die Leitung der Arbeiten lag in allen drei Grabungsperioden in den Händen des Verfassers des vorliegenden Bandes. Ihm zur Seite standen im ersten Jahre die Kandidaten des Hochbaufaches Decker und Völz, welche bis zum 7. April in Abusir tätig waren." Mr rnddude (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so works by those two would be considered a work for hire, most likely. Is Bollacher's death date known? Are there any other of these images with unknown/unclear authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Q1) From this source: 1877–1968. So, if Bollacher holds the copyright, PD-old-70 will come into effect in 2038. Although, the painting is credited to both Bollacher and Decker. Büring was born 1878 as well, but I can't find a death date. Q2) None of the photographs credit anyone else, and the substructure drawings are credited to Borchardt. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking up something for Sahure's pyramid in one of Verner's works (Forgotten Pharaohs, Lost Pyramids (1994) p. 63) when I came across the painting by Bollacher and Decker. Verner labels it as being by Borchardt. That's left me wondering if I've misunderstood "Ausgefürht" here, because Verner is fluent in German and so I can't imagine that he's mis-attributed the work. As I mentioned, the painting does also have the label "Rekonstruktion von Ludwig Borchardt". Mr rnddude (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Ceoil

edit
  • In the lead, the "first, second, third" stuff may follow too close to the break down given in a source; and anyway it doesn't fit how a lead should read, as the article body doesn't mirror. Would restructure.
  • Same with words like "tolerable". Dated sources?
  • I'm a bit confused re Lepsius XXIV - we say The pyramid was constructed during Nyuserre's reign, as evidenced by Ptahshepses' name[l] appearing on blocks, and then No name is found inscribed anywhere in the complex Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead begins with a very strong and engaging opening sentence, followed by an okish (only) follow up sentence, and then a para break. Impact totally lost here...would bulk up and throw in a few hooks.
  • The second paragraph of the lead reads (to me) as Nyuserre, Neferirkare, Nyuserre. Its very hard to follow; we even have "and brother, Neferefre. Nyuserre's monument..."
  • In the lead, the word "core" appears in the narrative before you mention "complex" (which you do not explain). Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restructured and fleshed out the first three paragraphs of the lede. I have a brief comment on: "... monuments of his father, Neferirkare Kakai, mother, Khentkaus II, and brother, Neferefre, completed". I had the option of writing it as "... monuments of Neferirkare Kakai, Khentkaus II, and Neferefre" but this leaves out their connection to Nyuserre, or "... monuments of his father, mother and brother" but this leaves out their identities. If it's too difficult to follow, maybe moving the sentence has impacted readability, then perhaps "... monuments of his father, mother, and brother" might work, but it feels a bit easter-egg-y. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, in this new structure, giving the names in generational order, makes sense. Before they were a bit thrown about the place. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose, excellent stuff and first rate as usual. Ceoil (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from caeciliusinhorto

edit

A few comments:

  • Nyuserre's monument would have had to have been placed south-west of Neferefre's complex: I don't quite understand this. Why could the pyramid not have just been slightly to the northwest of where it in fact is, between Neferikare's and Sahure's pyramid, and therefore on the same axis?
  • Though Nyuserre reigned for around thirty years, he built a smaller pyramid comparable in size to Sahure's: smaller than what?
  • the cornerstones of the lowest layer specially anchored to improve the structure's stability. what does "specially anchored" mean here?
  • Verner didn't bother to explain: "In order to increase its stability, the lowest cornerstones were anchored in the foundation in a special way." No footnote, no explanation. I'd had that in the back of my mind, but it didn't come up in other sources. So, I've removed specially. To my mind, unless I can explain what's special about the anchoring, it doesn't belong in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chambers of the Abusir pyramids and their mortuary temples were ransacked for valuables: a separate thought entirely to the differences in construction between the Abusir pyramids and earlier ones; I would give this a separate paragraph.
  • I don't follow the "at full size" bit. The necropolis map, substructure map and causeway cross-section are difficult-ish for me to read as is in the article, but when I click on the image to enlarge then it's effortlessly readable for me. This is true for both my laptop and my mobile phone. I know some editors change setting in their preferences to make images inherently smaller or larger. 220px is the default, and that's what my preferences are set to. I also have "media viewer" enabled. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, not sure what the problem was, but viewing it in media viewer it is okay for me now... Striking as nonsense.
  • Based on Borchardt's expeditions in combination with their current sondage: what does "sondage" mean? Gloss as a term of art or use a word understandable to lay readers.
  • Although the embankment was excavated to a depth of 10 m (33 ft) below the crown of the causeway, uncovering 12 layers of casing in total, Krejčí believes that the base of the causeway is ~3 m (9.8 ft) deeper still. Based on the results of the excavation, Krejčí concludes that the base of the causeway must have been at least 21 m (69 ft) wide. With regard to the causeway, the key finding of the dig was that the causeways "represented huge, voluminous constructions". There are an overabundance of "causeway"s in this section, but these sentences are particular offenders – five uses of the word in three sentences is definitely too many.
  • ambulatory w/l despite our dreadful article? Or gloss at least.
  • North of the chapel is a square chamber – which the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer named the antichambre carrée; a reference to its square shape Lauer called the square antechamber "square antechamber"? Imaginative man!
  • "Antichambre carrée" is the name that is used in RS regardless of whether it's in French or English. If you don't know a word of French, most likely you're going to miss out on that detail. I've revised the formulation of that explanation to "North of the chapel is the antichambre carrée – so named by the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer in reference to its square shape – ...". Briefer and more direct. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • consummate form Not quite sure what is meant here?
  • The latter meaning of consummate, of course: "ultimate/completed/perfected/final" form. I don't know why I went all out on vocab there. I suppose "Antecedents to the antichambre carrée have been traced to the mortuary temples of Sahure, Neferirkare, and Neferefre" works as well and is more explicit about what is being discussed. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nut ate the sun at sunset and rebirth-ed it at sunrise: not sure about "rebirth-ed". The OED does allow "rebirthed" as a verb, but specifically links it to rebirthing (breathwork).
  • His successors Menkauhor, Djedkare Isesi and Unas abandoned the site in favour of sites elsewhere.: repetition of "site... sites". Perhaps "chose to be buried elsewhere"?
  • the Abusir papyri: what these?
  • My first thought is to wikilink it. The Papyri are administrative documents found primarily in Neferirkare Kakai and Neferefre's complexes. I might add a footnote or couple sentence when I check it again tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Egyptologist Jaromír Malek... The Egyptologist Ladislav Bareš: I know other people like these constructions, but I really don't. Anyone arguing about the exact date the funerary cult of Nyussere ceased is obviously an Egyptologist. If we must keep them, can the sentence structure be varied so we don't have two consecutive sentences beginning "The Egyptologist John Doe..."? (There's another instance of loads of Egyptologists together in the section on excavations, too...)
  • Moreover, if this is the case, then Nyuserre's cult survived through to at least the Twelfth Dynasty, under the priest Inhetep. I don't see how this follows from there being priests of the cult between the ninth and tenth dynasties? More explanation needed?
  • This may take a bit of time, but very briefly. Harshefehetep I and II were alive anywhere between the Ninth and Eleventh Dynasties. Malek, iirc, put them at the Eleventh Dynasty. There's also the priest Inhetep of the Twelfth Dynasty. I'll leave a second comment here when I've reviewed the relevant literature again. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have reviewed Malek (2000), Morales (2006), and Daoud (2000), and having done so, I don't see that there's much to do here. Malek, who doesn't believe that Nyuserre's cult survived from the Old to Middle Kingdom, himself concedes that if Ḥry–š.f–ḥtp I and II belong to the Herakleopolitan Period then ... the estates of Nyuserra's pyramid and the King's funerary cult survived through the Herakleopolitan Period and continued in the Twelfth Dynasty. All three sources date In-htp to the Twelfth Dynasty or Middle Kingdom. The crux of the debate is whether Heryshefhetep I and II are Herakleopolitan Period or Eleventh Dynasty (i.e. Middle Kingdom). Mr rnddude (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a little confused, tbh. Am I understanding you rightly that: (1) nobody disputes that the cult was active until the end of the Old Kingdom. (2) it is disputed whether the cult was active during the First Intermediate Period. (3) the cult was definitely active in the 12th dynasty. Therefore (4) if the Heryshefheteps were active during the First Intermediate Period, then the cult was continuously active from the fifth to the twelfth dynasty? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Yes, sources agree that there is clear evidence of activity up until the reign of Pepi II, the last effective king of the Old Kingdom. (2) Quite, it's down to interpretation (usually contentious dating of tombs). (3) Yes, there's evidence for this for many Old Kingdom rulers including for Sahure, Nyuserre, Unas, Teti, Pepi I and Pepi II. The best (imo) example comes from a priest Ihy's tomb near Teti's pyramid which bears inscriptions with the names of Teti and Amenemhat II's (Twelfth Dynasty) pyramid. It's not, to my knowledge, in dispute that these cults were active during part of the Middle Kingdom. (4) Yes. The FIP is a rather short period of ~100–150 years. The Seventh and Eighth Dynasties were very short lived (Manetho's well known "70 kings for 70 days" comment about the period, but more likely being ~20–40 years (range borrowed from Malek and Grimal)) and then came the Herakleopolitan Period (~100-120 years). Thus, if you consider that the cult was active till Pepi II, active during the Herakleopolitan Period (Ninth-Eleventh Dynasty), and then also active during the Middle Kingdom (Eleventh–Twelfth Dynasty) then that's pretty well continuous. There's also the priestess Satimpi, mentioned at the end of that paragraph, who Daoud dates to the FIP based on the style of writing on her false door. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While working on Djedkare Isesi's pyramid, I came across a work by Veronika Dulíková (2018) in a journal I was referencing where she made the following remark: Jméno Niuserreova pyramidového komplexu „Trvalá jsou místa Niuserreova (kultu)“, jako by předznamenalo jeho nesmrtelnost ve smyslu jejího aktivního udržování po několik dlouhých desetiletí až do Střední říše approximately translated: The name of Nyuserre's pyramid complex ... "Lasting are the (cult) places of Nyuserre", really foreshadowed his immortality in the sense of her [the cult's] active maintenance for many long decades until the Middle Kingdom. It's probably not a remark to include in our article, but it's from a very recent article (which is entirely about Nyuserre's reign) and may indicate a shift in views on the matter of cultic activity in the FIP (and references Morales' 2006 article in AS2005). The article focuses on other matters, and this was really just an aside remark about the pyramid's name though. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just re-read the relevant section and it does make sense to me now. I think you have now dealt with all my queries. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djedkare Isesi buried various members of his family and officials on the slope south-east of the mortuary temple We've just been told that Djedkare Isesi abandoned the Abusir site!
  • The members of the royal family buried there are Khekeretnebty with her daughter Tisethor, Hedjetnebu, and Neserkauhor, along with the officials Mernefu, Idut and Khenit, and one unnamed tomb. It is jarring to have "one unnamed tomb" in a list of people buried at the site.

Also made a few hopefully uncontroversial changes to the prose. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the easy to fix issues right now, the rest I'll get to tomorrow. Thank you for your comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have dealt with all of my queries, and I am happy to support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all appear to be working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 46 requires pp.
  • Likewise 68
  • Likerwise 94
  • Likewise 132
  • Likewise 139
  • From the Sources list:
  • Retrieval dates should be in a consistent format – compare, for example, Barta 2015 with "Discovery of a unique tomb..."
  • Edwards 1975 – "Harmondsworth" is the location, the publisher is Penguin Books
  • Grimal 1992 – "Blackwell Publishing" rather than "Blackwell publishing"
  • Gros de Beler 2000 – location is Paris, not France
  • Malek 2000 and Malek 2003 missing publisher location
  • Verner 2007 requires retrieval date
  • Quality/reliability: I can't see any issues here. The sources are extensive and appropriately scholarly, and appear to meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that attention to detail. I have a script for picking up p/pp errors, but it apparently ignores cites with & symbols. Oh, and Malek 2000 was already tagged as published in Prague. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sup random, good to see you again and with a bloody nice article to boot. What think ye of following a colon with semicolons? As in complex encompasses: a main pyramid;, etc. Hope all's well and good luck with this one! ——SerialNumber54129 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. Typically semicolons should only follow a colon in lists where there are internal commas – I must plead ignorance on the rule for numbered lists (e.g. the mortuary temple (left) image caption). I see you've brought a new baron to FAC. Book me in for a prose review. Thanks for the compliments, and all is well here. I hope you are well too. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Received. Couple o'more: Krejčí, Jaromír (2011) needs page numbers? And above, in your amusing intro, you mention 90000K of stone ready to collapse on some bods. I'm sure I've misread something, but I couldn't see that in the article, and it sounds v. WP:READER-friendly. Lastly, I suppose if we don't know what a cult pyramid is for, it's difficult to expect an accurate name; but, as you call it a cult pyramid, do the sources give reason to believe that that was the most likely scenario out of a number? ——SerialNumber54129 18:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re 90,000 kg: I suspect you missed it because I wrote 90 t in the article rather than 90,000 kg. Seemed more professional. Refer: Each stone in this structure was about 10 m (33 ft) long and weighed 90 t (99 short tons) in Substructure.
    Re Krejčí, Jaromír (2011): Quite right, page numbers added.
    Re cult pyramid: Unfortunately, some names used in Egyptology are misnomers. For example, the causeway isn't technically a causeway of any kind. It's more like a rectangular tunnel. Now, the cult pyramid is a special kind of enigma. It's like a miniature of the main pyramid outfitted with a substructure and a small burial chamber. The thing is, it's always been found empty. A more accurate summation of what Egyptologists know, rather than hypothesize, about the structure is: squat. The main guess (really), amongst sources, is that it was a "purely symbolic place to hold the king's spirit (i.e. ka)". In this sense, it can be related to the primary function of the royal cult: enabling the transformation of the king into an akh by way of uniting his ba and ka (refer footnote j for a detailed explanation). It's given two names by Egyptologists: satellite pyramid and cult pyramid. German sources favour "kult pyramid", French sources favour "pyramide satellite", English sources seem to use whichever the author picks. I use cult pyramid because it's the first name for the subject that I came across (Verner's work), and also because satellite pyramid is also often used to refer to queen's pyramids (refer for example Setibhor's pyramid, specifically: A satellite pyramid complex is located at the north-east corner of the wall of the complex of Djedkare's pyramid). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JJE

edit

Sourcing seems reasonably good and well formatted. Prose, I am wondering if "The main pyramid constructed from seven steps of limestone.[38] A cult pyramid near the south-east corner of the main pyramid.[39] An unusual L-shaped mortuary temple placed on the southern end of the pyramid's eastern face.[5][39] " is supposed to be some kind of list as in its current form it's ungrammatical. "It was further hemmed in by a group of mastabas to the east that had been built during Sahure's reign.[2][28][c] This combination of factors may have constricted the size of Nyuserre's pyramid." and "As with Sahure's temple, there were two columned entrances into the valley temple.[57][58] In contrast with Sahure's temple, the columns here depicted papyrus stalks instead of palm trees" - perhaps these would flow better if the two sentences are merged? Turah does not link to the correct page. Rest of the prose seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1) It is a list, isn't it. I've rewritten it to form complete sentences to avoid having two lists back to back.
Re point 2a) The preceding two sentences before "It was further hemmed in" are part of the "combination of factors" that are mentioned in the last sentence. So I'm not sure on merging the last two sentences together.
Re point 2b) I thought about using "but" as a conjunction to merge the two sentences, but I'm not sure it works: As with Sahure's temple, there were two columned entrances into the valley temple, but in contrast with Sahure's temple, the columns here depicted papyrus stalks instead of palm trees. Also a lot of "temple" in the sentence. Perhaps: As with Sahure's valley temple, there were two column adorned entrances, though Nyuserre's columns contrast with Sahure's in that they represent papyrus stalks instead of palm trees. It's a bit tighter, and only once mentions temples.
Re point 3) The two common spellings for Tura, are Turah and Tura. For whatever reason, Wikipedia's article has it as Tora, and I just didn't realize that. That's my bad, and I've fixed it to correctly link to Tora, Egypt. Thank you for looking at the link and noting that blunder.
Thanks for the brief but attentive review. I'm off to bed soon, but will check in tomorrow morning. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment amended to include point 2a at 02:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC). I missed it on first reading. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section also has more potentially mergeable sentences such as "Nyuserre was the last king to be entombed in the necropolis. His successors chose to be buried elsewhere. " and "The temple has additional new features."; in general it seems like there are many of these short-ish sentences. Anyone seasoned enough with its prose is engaging and of a professional standard to comment on whether they are a problem? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the first sentence, and I've removed the second as unnecessary. To my knowledge, short sentences appear at the start or end of a paragraph, or following a longer explanation. I've identified a bunch of merge-able sentences, which I've subsequently merged. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an explicit support, per the points raised in my analysis and image review by Nikkimaria.

FunkMonk

edit
  • "The Nyuserre pyramid is situated in the Abusir necropolis, between Saqqara and the Giza Plateau" You could state where in Egypt this is, northeast, etc.
Maybe both for clarity? For example "Lower Egypt (the northernmost region of Egypt)". FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abusir gives great import in the Fifth Dynasty" I have no idea what this means, "was given great import" maybe?
  • "working for the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft or German Oriental Society" WHy is this needed whe you don't give such info for the other people mentioned?
  • Except I did, the other major project that has taken place at Nyuserre's pyramid is run by the "Czech Institute of Egyptology" or "Cesky Egyptologicky ustav" (there's tone marks left out). Perring and Lepsius were brief visitors, though Perring did clear the entrance. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can add, if preferred, that Lepsius' expedition was sponsored by King William IV of Prussia, and that Perring was an engineer working under Howard Vyse, a British army officer and colonel stationed in Egypt. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Ok, I just went ahead and did it. Thinking about it, it seemed significant enough to warrant a mention. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good with the balance. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His results are published in Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Ne-User-Re (1907)" Likewise. The other authors mentioned undoubtedly also published their finds in some or the other journal.
  • There's a qualitative difference here. Borchardt's is the seminal work on Nyuserre's, Neferirkare's and Sahure's pyramids. Yes, Lepsius published his findings in "Denkmaler aus Agypten und Athiopien" (a very important work in its own right) covering about a page of basic information (bottom of p. 134 to p. 135). Borchardt pulled the pyramid out of the dirt and wrote the book on it (I mean that literally, it's a 200 page book and the most extensive source written about the pyramid). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that should be stated specifically then? Now it just looks like a randomly mentioned book. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt at this. It's difficult to overstate Borchardt's contributions at Abusir. Verner, the former director of the Czech Institute of Egyptology and head of the Abusir excavations, said: One can only, perhaps, emphasize the aspects of [Borchardt's] achievement which far transcended the limits of his period and today still represent a standard which many excavations at the end of the twentieth century are a long way from reaching (written in 1994). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Czech Institute of Egyptology has had a long-term excavation project at the site since the 1960s." Still?
  • Yes. They're still toiling away at Abusir; recent news. I've changed it to "at Abusir" though since that's more what I meant. It's more than just a group of pyramids, there's an entire ancient necropolis (several even) there to consider. Similar story at Saqqara with the Franco-Suisse (originally just France) project that started in the 1960s as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The valley temple and causeway of the complex were originally intended for Neferirkare's monument, but were co-opted by Nyuserre for his instead" How is this known?
  • It's inferred from the fact that the causeway heads for Neferirkare's mortuary temple for more than half its length, and then diverts towards Nyuserre's pyramid instead. The causeway is a bit like a driveway; you might imagine that if it's heading straight for house a and then changes direction to end at house b, that the driveway was probably intended for house a at one point. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be stated specifically, if it isn't already later in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned later under Causeway: The causeway's foundation had been laid about two-thirds of the way from the valley temple to the mortuary temple when Neferirkare died.[43] When Nyuserre took over the site, he had it diverted from its original destination to its new one.[70] As a result, the 368 m (1,207 ft) long causeway travels in one direction for more than half its length then bends away to its destination for the remainder.[5][70][71]. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be good to show this image[40] which makes its proximity to another pyramid apparent?
I wonder if it could replace the image under Main pyramid? It seems to show the exact same angle, just with more context. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. I've moved the image to the left and up a bit as well. It looked a bit weird with the image in the layout section directly on top of it. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty striking, I think. Especially relevant because the adjacent text does go into its proximity to the other pyramid. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "left it in a ruinous, formless mound" As a ruinous, formless mound?
  • "was careless and unsafe" Why?
  • I'll get back to you on this, but off-the-cuff, the core of the pyramid was built by just placing little stone blocks where-ever they fit and putting mortar on the top. The structure was held together mostly by the limestone casing which was much more carefully cut and properly joined. Remove the casing and what you're left with is the willy-nilly construction of the core. It lacks structural integrity, and risks a cave-in. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the section to better detail the manner of construction. I've changed "unsafe" to "unstable". Verner says "less safe from the point of view of stability", which I took to refer to the risk of collapse. This would be congruent with the concerns that Maragioglio and Rinaldi of a cave-in whilst in the substructure of the Abusir pyramids. However, I don't see similar language in other sources – Lehner goes so far as to say, basically, "ok so it's sketch, but it gets the pyramid form and its cheap" –, so I've opted for an alternate expression. Link to rewrite. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The burial- and ante- chambers" Why are these terms linked here in this somewhat confusing way, when both terms are used earlier in the text without being linked? Should be at first occurrence of each.
  • "Based on Borchardt's expeditions in combination with their recent findings, the Egyptologist Jaromír Krejčí estimates" Recent is a bit iffy to use in an article like this, better to give a more precise date. If this article will be read fifty years on, what will recent mean?
  • Terms and names could also be linked in image captions.
The first one only. Ceoil (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fragments of the wall reliefs from the temple are often exhibited in German museums" Often, or in many museums? Often seems a bit unclear; is it meant they are often put on and off display?
  • In the image captions with descriptions following numbers, should the first letters really be capitalised after the semi colons? For example "(5) an altar; (6) Transverse corridor; (7) Chapel with (8) a set of storage rooms; (9)". There are no full stops to be seen, so looks a bit odd?
Looked odd to me, but no big deal if it isn't actually inaccurate and no one else cared. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any photos of these wall reliefs or reconstructions of them?
  • File:Berlin 122009 016.jpg is probably the best example, it's the only one where detail can be made out easily, at least from the reliefs taken out of the mortuary temple, there's a couple from the sun temple but that's a different building altogether. There's already three images in that section though, so where to put it? cause it'll sandwich the text if I slot it in anywhere under mortuary temple. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's not much room left. Doesn't seem like it would fit without replacing another image (the article has a whole lot of maps, but that makes sense for the topic). FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prototype of pylons" Why is prototype of part of the linkk, and not just pylons?
Not a big deal, but to me it looked like it would link to an article about pylon prototypes... FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amended links to just pylon, because your comment makes sense. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a pyramidion?
  • The top (or capstone) of a pyramid or obelisk is called a pyramidion. It has an article, so I've wikilinked it.
  • "It may have hosted the pharaoh's ka" The term could probably be explained in parenthesis.
Could be helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she did the same to king" The king?
  • "He argues that archaeological trace evidence, including from near Nyuserre's monument," Evidence such as what?
  • Some examples given, though the mainframe of the case for cultic persistence is found in the paragraph below, and is based predominantly on Morales' hypothesis, with reference to Daoud's and Malek's works. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but should "may be associated to the royal cult" say associated with instead? FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "connected to" originally, but changed "connected" to "associated" whilst cleaning it up without fixing "to" to "with". Done now. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it be stated when Nyuserre was entombed, and how much of the pyramid was completed before he died?
  • Eh, no. Consider Djedkare-Isesi for a moment. He has the rare distinction of being discovered in his pyramid. His mummy and the linen wrapping underwent C-14 testing. The results gave a range of dates between 3340 and 2460 BC, and a common range (i.e. lowest high and highest low) of 2886 and 2507 BC. That's three hundred and eighty years of uncertainty. Now I'll check Borchardt, but I don't think anything of interest was found in Nyuserre's pyramid substructure (hell it was missing most of its stone, much less a body or burial equipment). As to completion, you can safely assume all of it. Neferirkare's and Neferefre's have clear indicators that someone else completed them. Neferirkare's was completed with mudbrick and wood, which is short-lived material, and Neferefre's was converted into a mastaba. There's no indications, at least from the sources I've read, that Nyuserre's pyramid received any such treatment. Besides, Nyuserre reigned for 30 years, long enough to complete his monument (well, with the assistance of aliens, of course). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have checked Borchardt, and it's rather as I suspected. They found nothing, and could not find anything had they wanted to. Borchardt summarises: Von der inneren Ausstattung der beiden Räume, vom steinernen Sarkophag, dem Holzsarg, von den Kanopen oder den Beigaben, die man dem Könige jedenfalls in reichem Maße mitgegeben hatte, haben wir nichts gefunden, haben aber auch das Geröll, das heute den früheren Platz der Kammern ebenso wie den Gang hoch erfüllt, außer an der Oberfläche nicht darauf hin durchsucht, um unsere Arbeiter nicht in Gefahr zu bringen. Approximately: From the interior decoration of either room, the stone sarcophagus, the wooden coffin, the canopic jars and offerings, which had been given to the king in abundance, we found nothing. The debris, which today fills the chambers and corridors has not been searched, except for on the surface, in order not to endanger our workers. I suggest, as Borchardt's work is easily accessible (follow the link in the article), that you review the images on pages 104–105 and 107. The pyramid's internals are a right mess, and frankly, I'm impressed the team had the balls to stand underneath those gigantic, haphazard looking, stone slabs. I've added a bit to the article on this point. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this article wasn't so image heavy already, I'd suggest adding some of those, they seem to be old enough for public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are old enough to be PD: PD-old-70 for Germany, and PD-US-1923 for the US. Honestly, Borchardt has some of the finest images available for this article. Alright, alright. What's the rule for galleries? Cause if I'm adding more images, then my absolute priority would be Blatt 1 (which is an excellent recreation of the Neferirkare family necropolis) and Blatt 2 (to replace the Abusir necropolis map? perhaps). I might also have a use for Blatt 3 (Valley Temple), Blatt 4 (Mortuary temple), and Blatt 19 (Substructure). I could also add Abb. 27 (p. 44), Abb. 28 (p. 45), und Abb. 29 (p,46) für den Aufweg (Causeway); Abb. 40 (p. 65) die Löwenkopf (lion's head) für die Totentempel/Pyramidentempel (Mortuary temple); Abb. 83 (p. 104), Abb. 84 (p.105) und/oder Abb. 86 (p. 107) für den Vor- und Sarg- kammer (Ante- and Sarc- chambers [Substructure]); und, endlich, Abb. 89 (p. 110) oder Abb. 90 (p. 111) für den Bestattungen (Burials). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main thing about WP:galleries is that it shouldn't just be decorative, so that you make the context of the images clear and enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. A good example of this could be Gothic boxwood miniature. Maybe that relief could be shown then too... But I think a new image review would be needed after adding so many images. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article now contains a total of 28 photos, maps and paintings. I've limited galleries to the substructure, causeway, and mortuary temple, though I've added images into practically every section. I could argue that one, or perhaps two, images are "decorative", but I think they all add something to the article. I'll need to go through the captions once more. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, it gives the article a bit more breathing space now that the images have been spread out, I think. But might be good to request a second image review. Personally I'd crop the borders of some of the images (then they will also become larger as thumbnails), but it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would be unusual as obelisks were central features of Egyptian sun temples, but not of pyramid complexes." It seems a bit odd that this is important enough to mention in the intro, but in the article body itself it is relegated to a footnote.
  • "and into Middle Kingdom" The?
  • "Whereas the funerary cults of other kings died out" Of kings in general, or only those at Abusir?
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 September 2019 [41].

Douglas Albert Munro

edit
Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Douglas Albert Munro, the only member of the U.S. Coast Guard to receive the Medal of Honor and namesake of USCGC Munro, and several other American warships and military posts. Munro was killed in action during the Second Battle of the Matanikau. His uncle was Francis Fairey, a onetime member of the House of Commons of Canada. Munro is also the namesake of a very snappy, quick march. The article has passed GA, and recently passed A class review at the Military History WikiProject. My hope is to get this to Today's Featured Article in time for the 100th anniversary of his birth. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Nick-D

edit

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

  • I'd suggest tweaking the second para of the lead to note what Munro's duties were at the time of his MoH action and death
  • "and had lived in Canada since age 8, " - the tense is unclear here
  • "The United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941" - as Pearl Harbor is also noted here, I don't think this is necessary
  • "landing craft tanks" - I think that the plural of landing craft tank is landing craft tank
  • Do we know how Munro went from being assigned to a communications station to commanding groups of small craft? There seems to be a fairly significant gap here. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick-D; these have all been updated but let me know if I missed anything. To point #5, I've expanded what I could based on available sources under the section "Guadalcanal campaign" but there's still a bit of a leap. Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that helps explain things. My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Alt text needs improvement - it should not be identical to the caption

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources appear to be working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats: these were quite thoroughly checked for consistency etc during the recent A-class review, and I can't see any other issues
  • Quality and reliability: The sources seem appropriately chosen and of the required standard to meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Excellent article that covers all the points I'd expect, and does so very well. There is one general point: is there any chance you could slim down on the number of "Munro"s you use? With 143 in a relatively short article, I feel like I've been hit round the head by them a little! For example, in the Youth, schooling section there are 14, six of which are in the second paragraph, despite Munro being the only person referred to.

That's being really picky though, and I'm happy this meets the FA criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • SchroCat - thanks for both your support and your comment! I agree with your point. Now that I reread the article with this in mind, it jumps out at me, too. I'm glad you mentioned this as I don't think I would have seen it otherwise. I'll work through cutting down on some of these today. Chetsford (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I've had this on the Urgents list for a while, but it will need to be archived soon if it does not receive some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: Status on addressing the recent volley of comments? Also, Ian Rose, do you think you'll have time to review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain - sorry, I'm just finishing them up in sandbox now and will implement them all within the next 30 minutes. Chetsford (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

edit

I'll recuse coord duties to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took a while to get back here...

  • Why is the term "reportedly" used on several occasions -- is there doubt about the information being related? If opinions, it might be better to attribute inline (e.g. "according to...") than use "reportedly".
  • Spotchecking FN17c, I couldn't find anything to support "NOB Cactus is the only known instance of a naval operating base led by a Coast Guard officer.", in fact I couldn't see mention of Cactus at all, at least not on p. 14.
  • Other sources spotchecked (FNs 3k, 8c, 21c, 21d, 23, 25, 42) seem to support the text.
  • Happy with the level of detail and the prose (let me know any concerns with my copyedit). As usual, I'll take Nikki's and Brian's image and source reviews as read.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose - thanks for the review. I've corrected the source which, I think, accidentally got modified out during a previous review, and deleted two of the "reportedly"s which were superfluous and not necessitated by the text. Chetsford (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • James Munro, was born in California as James Wilkins Link California.
  • ultimately settling in South Cle Elum, Washington Are we speaking about the State or D.C.? And if it is D.C. then standardise it with adding D.C. after the city.
  • ship-to-shore communication.[4]:95-96 --> "ship-to-shore communication.[4]:95–96".
  • Established on August 9 by Coast Guard --> "Established on August 9, by Coast Guard".
  • the Coast Guard Good Conduct Medal, the American Defense Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal (with one battle star), and the World War II Victory Medal, most posthumously Are there articles for all these medals?
  • On September 27, United States Marine Corps Add the before the United States.
  • and the marines was cut after You mean were?
  • the landing craft were instructed You mean was?
  • Munro's death, during which three volleys Three volleys needs an hyphen.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this review, CPA-5. I've updated everything per your suggestions, with two notes, but let me know if I missed anything. The two notes were - #8 I kept as "were" as "landing craft" in this instance is plural instead of singular, #2 refers to the city of Cle Elum in the State of Washington, not the city of Washington in the District of Columbia. Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chetsford: Could you please link the first Washington State and unlink the second one in the article?

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

I see this hasn't received much attention. I will try to be quick, feel free to ping me if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link to Vancouver should be moved to its first appearance
  • I think "American Legion" could use a gloss
  • The article on cheerleading doesn't actually discuss the term "yell king", so perhaps a gloss there, too?
  • Do we know what he studied in college?
  • Is there a reason "USCGC" and "USS" aren't included within the links to ship names?
  • Can you find a link for "amphibious operations"?
  • Can you explain where Lunga Point is? I haven't the faintest clue.
  • "The downed aircrew was rescued by a flying boat" This doesn't make it clear whether Munro et al actually found the aircraft (or was it's position already known)?
  • A location for Matanikau river would also be helpful, especially because the link, rather confusingly, goes to Actions_along_the_Matanikau. I'd also suggest moving the piped link from "Matanikau river" to "attack the flank of Japanese positions"; this is less easter egg-y
  • The second paragraph of "Second Battle of the Matanikau and death" strikes me as too detailed, given that it doesn't involve Munro at all. Can it be pruned a little?
  • Guadalcanal is again, so far as I can tell, not linked.
  • Can you link and gloss "medal of honor" at its first use in the body?
  • Does "personal life" really need three paragraphs? Surely you could condense them into one, in the order 1-3-2?
  • Link/explain "ship's sponsor."
  • What is a "lighted flagpole", and why is it any different from a regular with respect to allowing a flag to stay up all night?
  • "most posthumously" This is confusing; do we not know when each medal was awarded? If not, perhaps at least break that off into a separate sentence.

That's all I have for now; a brief article, but so far as I can tell there's no obvious holes in coverage. More details of his training period would be nice, but I can see why they may be hard to get hold of. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, Vanamonde. I made all these updates with two notes, but please let me know if you see I missed something. The two notes were regarding the history of male cheerleaders and flagpole lighting protocol. I actually included brief descriptions of each in the notes section (they were originally in the body but were moved to notes during the A-class review), but LMK if you think I should move them back to the body. Chetsford (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as most of my concerns have been addressed, and the two others are minor. @Chetsford:; I apologize if I was ambiguous; but with respect to ship names, what I was expecting to see was [[USS McCawley (APA-4)|USS ''McCawley'']], rather than [[USS]] ''[[USS McCawley (APA-4)|McCawley]]'' (for example). I missed the footnotes, somehow, apologies; I think for the flagpole, it's fine in the footnote; for the yell king, might be nicer to just have "yell king, or male cheerleader" in the body. I'm supporting anyway, as these are not crucial concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misunderstood! I've updated the ship names and added body text explaining what a yell king is. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support comments by Pendright

edit

Lede:

  • During the Guadalcanal Campaign, Munro was assigned to Naval Operating Base Cactus at Lunga Point, where small boat operations were coordinated.
  • Consider the definite article the before Naval Operations Base Catctus.
  • Link small boat operations
  • He died of a gunshot wound at the age of 22 while using the Higgins boat he was piloting to shield from Japanese fire a landing craft filled with marines.
Consider something like this: He died of a gunshot wound at the age of 22, while using the Higgins boat he was piloting to shield a landing craft filled with marines from Japanese fire.
Incidentally, I made the same suggested fix, though without a comma, when copyediting. Just noticed the suggestion here, so thought I'd mention it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apology – I’ll continue when all of your comments have been addressed. Pendright (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link Higgins boat Pendright (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many ships and buildings have been named after Munro, ...
Does many mean large numbers?

Pause here - Pendright (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the review. I've made all these updates with one note / question ... the sources do not use a definitive article in front of NOB Cactus, do you think we should insert it anyway? Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The call is yours to make. Consider all of your comments addressed to this point. Now that the above review is completed, I’ll be continuing my review. Pendright (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youth and schooling:

  • Munro and his shipmate Raymond Evans were known as the "Gold Dust Twins", so-called because they were inseparable.
Remove the quotation marks around the Gold Dust Twins and link it.

Family:

  • By age eight, he had moved to Canada, his divorced mother having remarried a Canadian citizen whose surname he took.
Consider removing the comma after eight and replacing the comma after Canada with a semicolon, resulting in two clean, closely related, indepndent causes.

Youth:

  • His father repatriated his family from Canada to the United States in 1922, ultimately settling in South Cle Elum, Washington, ...
Is ultimately esential?
  • In youth, Munro showed a high level of musical aptitude, mastering percussion, trumpet, and harmonica.
consider adding his after in and removing the comma after youth.
<>The thought will be complete omly when the comma after youth is deleted. Pendright (talk)
  • He performed in a drum and bugle corps sponsored by the war veterans' organization the American Legion, the Sons of the American Legion Drum and Bugle Corps, eventually becoming the corps' drill master.
Does "war veterans' organization" refer to the American Legion?
  • If it does, it seems redundant,
  • If it does not, then it should be followed by a comma.
  • At Central Washington College of Education, Munro was a yell king, or a male cheerleader.
It would read better in the active voice:
Munro was a yell king (a male cheerleader) at the Central Washington College of Education.
  • In 1939, with the threat of war growing, Munro decided to withdraw from Central Washington College of Education and enlist in the military.
Consider changing CW College of Education to
just college, and replace military with the USCG?
  • He spent most of his last night in Cle Elum with his friend Marion "Mike" Cooley, with whom, according to Munro's biographer Gary Williams, he had been "almost inseparable" since childhood.
  • Comsider a comma after biographer.
  • Would they fit better than he after Gary Williams?
  • Munro underwent entrance processing in Seattle, during which he met and became friends ...
Consider this: Munro underwent the U.S. Coast Guard's entrance processing in Seattle, Washington, where he met and became friends ...
  • Munro would spend the rest of his Coast Guard career with Evans and the pair became known to shipmates by the moniker "the Gold Dust Twins".
Consider replaceing moniker with "the nickname of"

Guadalcanal Campaign:

  • In mid-1941, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the United States Department of the Treasury transferred authority for the Coast Guard to the United States Navy.
Consider this: In mid-1941, with tensions with Japan on the rise, the U.S. government began emergency mobilization, and transferred the Coast Guard from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of the Navy. (By law, it was the president’s legal right to do so - the
Treasury Department had no say in the matter.)
  • Munro and Evans volunteered for reassignment to the attack transport USS Hunter Liggett, which was being outfitted and manned by the Coast Guard as part of preparations for War Plan Orange.
  • Or did - Munro and Evans volunteer for reassignment to the attack transport [service and were assigned to] USS Hunter Liggett, ...
  • Link "attack transport"
  • Is War Plan Orange relatd to the above comment,"the government began emergency mobilization" ... If it is, should they be tied together in some way?
  • Cross-trained as both a coxswain and a signalman...
Link signalman.

Pause here, back soon! Pendright (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the item marked <>, all of the comments to this point have been addressed. Pendright (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naval operating Base:

  • Following the Allied victory at Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo, Munro and Evans were among Navy and Coast Guard personnel who staffed Naval Operating Base (NOB) Cactus at Lunga Point on the northern coast of Guadalcanal, which served as a communication hub between land forces and offshore vessels.
  • This is a 47 word sentence - consider breaking it up into two sentences.
  • After among, change to read "Coast Guard and Navy".
  • Established on August 9, by Coast Guard Commander Dwight Dexter, NOB Cactus is the only known instance of a naval operating base led by a Coast Guard officer.
This sentence would benefit if rewritten in the active voice.

The second battle of:

  • ... among them Navy coxswain Samuel B. Roberts, who had been mortally wounded while using his landing craft to draw Japanese fire from the marines.
  • Considing adding "was" between them and Navy
  • Consider adding "away" between fire and from
  • ... Monssen opened fire on the Japanese positions with her 5-inch (127 mm) guns
Add caliber before guns
  • As Munro's boats approached the recovery points they came under heavy fire from Japanese forces that had ccupied a ridge abandoned by the marines.
Consider this: As the boats under Munro's charge approached the recovery points, they came under heavy fire from Japanese forces at a ridge abandoned by the marines.
  • Munro used a .30 caliber machine gun aboard his landing craft to direct suppressing fire against the Japanese positions as the other boats recovered the American forces.
When the word "boats" is used (throughout much of the artile) it seems to be in a generic sense, whether for a landing craft, a Higgins boast, or a LCT? Both the Higgins boat and LCT are landing crafts, but one is used to carry men and the other tanks. While linking makes this distinction, it doesn’t seem to be woven anywhere into the article itself.
  • Munro was struck by incoming Japanese rounds and lost consciousness.
Consider replacing rounds with gunfire.

First burial:

  • In a letter to James Munro, Hurlbut described Munro's grave as being marked by a wooden cross constructed by Evans.
Identfy Hurlbut as ...?

News of death and:

  • According to Williams, the public details of Munro's actions were first chronicled in the Seattle Times on October 15, 1942 ...
Identfy Williams as Munro's biographer.
  • A memorial service was held on November 1 at the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church in South Cle Elum, with sentries and a cordon of honor outside the church provided by a combination of Washington State Guard and volunteers from the American Legion.
Consider this: A memorial service was held on November 1 at the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church in South Cle Elum. The Washington State Guard and American Legion volunteers provided sentries and a cordon of honor outside the church.
  • Colonel Puller nominated Munro for the Medal of Honor, the highest U.S. personal military decoration, possibly at the suggestion of Commander Dexter.
Identfy the positions held by Colonial Puller and Commander Dexter and the military branches they represented.

General comments:

  • May I ask why it is necessary to have so many section and sub-section headings.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright - sorry for my delay and thank you for the review. I think I got everything but please let me know if something was missed. Best - Chetsford (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: All comments have been sufficiently addressed. I support this nomination. Pendright (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2019 (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/September_2019&oldid=918930375"