Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2020

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [1].

1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man, Harrias talk 20:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final was a rather dull pair of football matches which promoted Middlesbrough to the top tier of English football, then known as the First Division. What livened things up somewhat was the hooliganism after the second leg: a few hundred Chelsea fans invaded the pitch and attacked the Middlesbrough fans, who were still penned in. The police were criticised for being slow to react, but mopped everything up. There were 45 injuries and over 100 arrests. English football, which was suffering from a poor reputation for this sort of thing, took another hit. It was the final nail in the coffin for English clubs chances of being readmitted to European club competition early, and they had to wait another two seasons. A joint nomination with the playoff wizard himself, TRM. As always, all thoughts, criticisms and comments will be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 20:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski any thoughts yet? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski done all bar one I wasn't quite sure about. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski how are we looking? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski anything more? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, apologies, I thought I had already closed this. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

edit

A handful of very minor points, but this is a polished effort and I have little to complain about. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks for you comments, all addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Thank you for your kind words, anything more for us? Harrias talk 18:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another run through but can't see anything further to complain about. With the additional comments from other users, I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC

edit

Great work, TRM and Harrias. As Kosack indicated, there is little to complain about, although I've got a few minor comments:

  • Link "the Football Association"
  • Volley is not wikilinked correctly yet
  • Richard Piers Rayner has a wikipage
  • Maybe wikilink corner?
  • "to discuss whether to readmit English club to European competitions" English club > English clubs. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the kind words WA8MTWAYC. All your points have been resolved. Harrias talk 18:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I'll support this nomination. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dweller

edit

Will appear here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may be a FAQ but the capitalisation of the title of the article just looks weird. Is it something that's long since been settled as WP:FOOTY consensus? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this could be brought up at the football project, this is a case of "it's always been like this" but you're not the first to ask, I believe Amakuru shared your concern but I'm not sure if he got round to asking the project about it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat odd that neither manager is mentioned in the prose. At least talk about their future fortunes... Rioch had a startling collapse in position from a zenith about six months later. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rioch didn't leave Boro until March 1990, the club's relegation is mentioned in the "Aftermath" section. And I wouldn't call getting back-to-back promotions a startling collapse in position from a zenith about six months later, I'd call it pretty damn remarkable (although I can think of one club who won the league after being promoted to the First Division the previous season... can you guess who it is yet????) The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I understand this reply. It's odd not to have any prose about the managers. Half way through the 1988-89 season, Rioch would have seemed impregnable, having got the side promoted and into a strong position in the table. The ensuing collapse of the club's position and his own, is remarkable. No idea what Ipswich's feats that are even more ancient than this have to do with this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my fault for trying to do this while tired and emotional. I'm talking shit. I'll take another look. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, here's the thing. This article is about the play-off final. We add a little bit of context around the season of the final (route to final/background etc) and a little bit of context to what happened the following season (in the Aftermath section). I am happy to add another sentence in there about this alleged "remarkable" collapse, but much more is undue and belongs in the History of Middlesbrough F.C. article, not this one. Rioch was still employed by the club post-relegation for almost the whole of the following season, so bringing him into it is ... odd? What do you suggest? What precisely are you looking for? Judging by this it appears that Boro performed just as a promoted team would be expected to perform, i.e. badly from the get-go. This doesn't seem or feel remarkable in any sense. Promoted clubs often get relegated, in fact I believe they were only relegated on the final day of the season so were almost unlucky. As for manager mentions, do you just want me to say who was the manager of each club or are you looking for something more specific? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<-I'd be happy with any kind of prose about the managers, tbh. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there, as of this morning. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller cheers me old fruit. I've responded to and/or addressed all but the "provocative" point, if you could feedback on how we're doing so far that'd be great and hopefully Harrias will find time to look at that last issue. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller think we're done? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Coord note

edit

Adding this to the source reviews for one. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, already there. Oops? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Been there quite some time I think! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

I'll take a look at this later. Might claim WikiCup points. Hog Farm Bacon 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot, but a spot check on some of the Chelsea 1–0 Middlesbrough details from the match report aren't showing up: The timing of the substitutions, the team captains, the exact start time. The managers aren't in the report, but they're cited elsewhere, so that's not a big issue. Also not seeing the time or captains in the match report for the other one.

Sub timings are in the sources given in the second half match report. Captains wouldn't have changed, they were "club captains", and 3pm kick off is like citing the sky is blue, but I guess there's a chance we could find a TV listing for it or a preview Harrias? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 3pm kickoff isn't obvious to someone who doesn't follow English association football, which I would say is a rather high percentage of our readers, including myself. Hog Farm Bacon 19:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3pm sourced from a fixture list published in The Guardian the day before. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a location given for Rayner, but not the other sources in the bibliography section. Not expected for King as a journal, but can the location be added for the others?

Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

That's it. A couple of formatting issues and some minor stuff on the spot checks. Shouldn't be too much to fix. Sources all look reliable, and all seem to work. Hog Farm Bacon 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm really appreciate the source review, cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to pass this source review. Looks to me like this one can probably be promoted now. Congrats. Hog Farm Bacon 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm. Harrias talk 20:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2020 [2].

Operation Boomerang

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a very ambitious, but only partially successful, Allied air raid of World War II. The operation involved an attack on oil facilities in the Japanese-occupied city of Palembang during August 1944. It was conducted by American B-29 bombers which were usually based in India and formed part of a series of heavy bomber attacks on Japanese-occupied cities in South East Asia. Despite a heavy investment of resources, including an airbase custom-built for the operation, the primary target of the bombers was barely damaged. The use of naval mines proved more successful, and marked the start of what proved to be a highly successful USAAF tactic.

The article passed a GAN in August 2018. After being further developed, it also passed a military history Wikiproject A-class review in July. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria may now be met. Please note that while the article is shorter than most of the other articles on air raids I've taken to FAC, this reflects the relatively modest range of sources which cover this attack - I'm confident that all the significant sources have been drawn on. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed at GAN and there isn't a massive amount I can see that needs tweaking. A few comments:

Lead
Body
  • suggest consistency with Dutch or Netherlands East Indies
  • link Bangkok
  • suggest "Arnold accepted this argument, and his 27 June targeting directive specified that the attack take place either at dawn or dusk and involve at least 50 aircraft"→"Arnold's 27 June targeting directive accepted this argument and further specified that the attack take place either at dawn or dusk." as we've already established it was for 50 aircraft
  • what fighter aircraft did the Japanese 9th Air Division have available?
    • I've looked everywhere for this since you raised in the GAN, but with no luck whatsoever. This has included checking the ANU Library and National Library of Australia. The best I could find is a brief mention in Hobbs of the Japanese aircraft in the area in January 1945, but these could have been totally different to what was there in August 1944. Sources seem to be OKish for Imperial Japanese Navy air units, but not for the IJAAF which was responsible for this area. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Japanese Ggeneral"

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

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

I had a look at this at ACR and could find very little to pick at. I shall try harder.

  • "but one was forced to ditch". Maybe link the slightly specialist "ditch" to Water landing?
  • "Unusually, the head of the USAAF, General Henry H. Arnold, directly commanded the Twentieth Air Force." This is the first mention of the Twentieth Air Force. It needs introducing properly, especially where it fits into the command structure.
  • "XX Bomber Command conducted its first combat mission against Bangkok on 5 June 1944." Suggest commas around "against Bangkok", so it means what you want it to mean.
  • "two B-29s ran out of fuel during the return flight to India over the Bay of Bengal and were forced to ditch." 1) link "ditch", as above 2) Suggest 'two B-29s ran out of fuel over the Bay of Bengal during the return flight to India and were forced to ditch.'
  • "An airfield capable of accommodating B-29s was prepared to support the planned raids on Palembang. In March 1944, work began to modify four airfields on Ceylon to the standards needed for B-29s". 1) Chronologically that reads badly with "was prepared" in the first sentence and "work began" in the second 2) "An airfield capable of accommodating B-29s was prepared"; "to modify four airfields on Ceylon to the standards needed for B-29s"'
  • "but in April it was decided to concentrate on China Bay when it became apparent that both could not be completed in time." Maybe 'but in April, when it became apparent that both could not be completed in time, it was decided toconcentrate on China Bay'?
  • "Wolfe noted that it would not be possible to do so until the airfield at China Bay was ready on 15 July." Are there words missing? Maybe something like ', which it was expected to be by 15 July' on the end?
  • "By mid-July China Bay was capable of accommodating 56 B-29s but required some further work." I am not sure that a reader (eg this one) will appreciate whatever the difference is between "was capable of accommodating 56 B-29s" and "but required some further work". Could it be unpacked a little?
  • "In January 1944 the 9th Air Division was established as part of efforts to strengthen Sumatra's air defenses." I am unclear where this formation fits into the Palembang Air Defense Headquarters the Palembang Defense Unit; or whether it doesn't.
  • "While one of the aircraft returned to base 40 minutes into its flight". Picky point: is it known whether it turned back after 40 minutes or arrived back after 40 minutes?
  • Is it known what height the aircraft attacking the refinery bombed from?

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those all look good. I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. Supporting


Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:B-29_targets_from_India.png: there's a date on the map itself which doesn't seem to match up with what's on the image description page?
  • File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Gezicht_op_Pladjoe_B.P.M_TMnr_10006848.jpg: licensing doesn't match up with what's at the source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting development! This was one of the images donated by the Tropenmuseum as part of its donation to Commons (from memory, this was one of the first large-scale donations to Commons a major cultural institution). While it looks like the Tropenmuseum's policies for images in its own database have moved on, I'm reluctant to change the terms on Commons from that in place at the time this donation was made. Thanks as always for your careful review. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I'll take a look at this later. Might claim points for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 18:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Infrastructure works were undertaken Ceylon to support the planned raids on Palembang" - You seem to be missing a word in here, probably between undertaken and Ceylon
  • "They may have also each included a machine cannon battery and a searchlight battery" - My knowledge of cannon is largely limited to those used in the War Between the States/ACW (whatever you want to call it), so I may be off base here. I'd recommend linking machine cannon
  • You use both South East Asia and South-East Asia in various parts of the article; be consistent with this
  • I think the source " Japanese Monograph No. 45 : History of Imperial General Headquarters Army Section" has an OCLC that can be added. This worldcat entry seems to be referring to the same thing, but I'd say you're more familiar with the source and can puzzle out if it's the right thing.
  • In the infobox, you refer to the hit building as damaged, but the prose says destroyed. Since damaged and destroyed have slightly different connotations, it's probably best to only use one for clearness' sake.

Good work. That's about all I can find. Hog Farm Bacon 21:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit
  • The article heavily relies on official US sources, but it seems that's all that is available on the subject.
  • Sources meet the minimum standard for reliability.
  • No source checks done (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this. Craven and Cate's The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki is a volume in an official history series. Per the norms for official history works, the USAF wouldn't have had any influence over their conclusions. I'm not aware of any concerns over the book among historians, who tend to rely on it in other works on the B-29 campaigns. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Nick, here is a non-Milhist-member review...

That's about all the questions / suggestions I could find. JennyOz (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, glad I read this and am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2020 [3].

Bernard A. Maguire

edit
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 18:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jesuit who headed Georgetown University before and after the American Civil War, and opened Georgetown Law School. Ergo Sum 18:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

CommentsSupport from Coffeeandcrumbs

edit

Early life

Thank you, Coffeeandcrumbs. I've caught up on your comments so far. Ergo Sum 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University

  • you could add an h4 section heading titled "Tenure" after "... assumed the office on January 25, 1853."
  • "liked" seems a bit informal. Try: "well liked"
  • Consider this, to break the long sentence in half: "However, some students were displeased with the prefect's imposition of discipline and Maguire's declination to overrule him. They staged another uprising during Maguire's presidency, throwing stones and inkwells to break windows at the university."
  • "at breakfast the following morning" — consider moving this to the beginning of the sentence
  • delete "to the students" and change "a lecture by Maguire" to "a lecture from Maguire" and add "in which he appealed to their sense of honor" from Shea 1891, p. 179
    • I've rephrased the sentence to add your suggestion.
  • "during the night," — remove comma
  • "to an end and was he succeeded" → "to an end, and he was succeeded"
  • "later becoming" seems strange – do you mean "which later became
  • hmm, when did the school become a "university"? I forget
    • There was no fixed date. Technically it received university status in 1815, but it was never referred to as one until many decades later. My rule when editing historical Georgetown articles has basically been to refer to it as a university when thee preponderance of sources do at that period of time. So, it is a gradual phase in over time. Ergo Sum 15:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later was renamed" → "was later renamed"

I am concerned by the phrase "another uprising". I understand it is the second uprising mentioned in the article but something feels off. I have no suggestion for solving the dilemma so I might have to live with. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thanks for your comments. Do you have any additional ones? Ergo Sum 15:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. A. M. mentions this was his first time engaging in pastoral work. Might be worth noting
  • Wouldn't the link at "pastor" be more useful to define what pastoral work means. Actually, I would rewrite the first 2 sentences in the § Pastoral work as "After his first presidency at Georgetown, Maguire was sent to be the pastor at St. Joseph's Church in Baltimore in 1858. This was the first time he engaged in pastoral work, garnering a reputation as a skilled orator."
  • If you do the above, delete "as the pastor".

That is it for me. I'm happy to support, assuming the above comments will at least be considered.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, C&C. Ergo Sum 00:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit

Placeholder, mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Among Maguire's professors was Virgil Horace Barber.

Studies ... studied ... vary wording? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • He then began his studies at Georgetown University, where he studied rhetoric from 1839 to 1840 and philosophy from 1840 to 1841.
There are four uses of the word in that paragraph, Same thing in next paragraph. Find ways to vary the wording, and in that section, try to think of “less is more” on some of the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I've gone through the whole article and cut down on excess verbiage. It should be much more streamlined now. I appreciate your feedback. Ergo Sum 16:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is bouncing around a bit in terms of what tense used:

  • His tenure was regarded as successful, with new buildings being erected, the number of students increased, and the preparatory division being partially separated from Georgetown College.
What do you think about:
  • His tenure was regarded as successful; new buildings were erected, the number of students increased, and the preparatory division partially separated from Georgetown College.

I feel like this sentence has it backwards:

  • Maguire again became president of Georgetown in 1866, in the aftermath of the American Civil War, which had devastated the university.
What do you think about:
  • After the American Civil War devastated Georgetown University, Maguire again became president in 1866.
  • WP:OVERLINK? (Your discretion.) Priesthood is already linked in the lead, not a complex term, repeat link not needed, ditto for Society of Jesus. Tailor and shoemaker need linking, common words? Rome? Canada? Re-examine links per overlinking of common words that readers will never click on from here.
    • Removed links to tailor and shoemaker; Canada too. I generally think linking cities is helpful, no matter how large. I've kept priesthood because it doesn't appear elsewhere in the main body. Ergo Sum 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among Maguire's professors there was Virgil Horace Barber.
  • One of Maguire's professors there was Virgil Horace Barber. But Barber is never referenced again in the article, so we don't know why he is mentioned or why he is significant.

These are pretty much all nitpicks, and I anticipate supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia. Ergo Sum 20:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Do you have any additional input? Ergo Sum 15:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies ... I have been so swamped and struggling to catch up, that I was slacking off and hoping C&C would finish first ... looks like C&C is still working. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once C&C's issues are addressed and they are satisfied, I can also be considered a Support, with my sincere apologies for a very busy week (the mouse invasion at the cabin was the best part of that week ... so sorry for my delay!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SandyGeorgia. Not to worry. Hope you've got the mice under control. Ergo Sum 00:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

I will do the source review, as well, some time this week. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum, sourcing and referencing is great, as always. I will focus on making sure we squeeze out all we can from the sources:

  • J. A. M. 1887, p. 5 – says he also taught mathematics while serving as prefect and overseer of the library and museum at St. John's College
  • Easby-Smith, p. 107–114 – may offer more details for his second term as president
  • This source offers more detail on what "declined precipitously during the war" means; I also found the 4/5th of the alumni fought on the confederacy side bit interesting
  • Do you have access to this source? According to this source, page 33 of the former source seems to indicate that Maguire was responsible for choosing the school colors of blue and gray, long before the Boat Club made that choice.
    • I don't, but I think the Summerfield source sufficiently describes that the adoption of the colors occurred during Maguire's presidency, so I've added it with that ref. Ergo Sum 05:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, you will find a photograph of the campus as of c. 1864.[4]

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not positive I can verify the copyright status on that photograph. If you're able find any info on when it was published, that would help determine it. Otherwise, I don't know if it can be used. Ergo Sum 05:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Coffeeandcrumbs. Ergo Sum 05:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for another great article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I'm adding this to the urgents list and source review list, but I'm leaning towards archiving it soon if it doesn't garner some support shortly. It's been on the FAC list since 21 July with no support yet. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Perhaps this FAC might be ripe for closing, since there hasn't been much activity after the source review? Ergo Sum 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could help? I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski for your helpful comments. Ergo Sum 01:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Do you have any additional feedback? Ergo Sum 00:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one more comment, but other than that - great work. Happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I'll take a look at this soon. Might be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 21:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "McElroy enrolled Maguire at Saint John's College in Frederick, a Jesuit school of which McElroy was president. " - When?
  • "while he taught mathematics was the prefect at Saint John's College - Something is off here. Missing a word?
  • "During his time as prefect, there was an uprising among the students, which resulted in the dismissal of seventy from the university." - Can the cause be briefly stated?
  • The end of early life is a bit confusing to me. So in the 1845-46 academic year, he's prefect. He's then a student until 1849-50, when he does catchecism. It's then mentioned that while he was prefect, there was a vague rebellion. At an unspecified date, there's a rebellion; Maguire was prefect during the issue. So he was still a prefect by 1849-1850? The chronology here is just really unclear to me.
  • "Following the end of the rebellion, Maguire replaced Burchard Villiger as first prefect" - So is first prefect a higher rank of prefect than the level of prefect Maguire was before the rebellion?
  • "Soon thereafter, the Jesuit Superior General confirmed the board of director's election." - It's unclear which exact event "board of director's election" refers to. Also, is director's the correct punctuation? With the current punctuation, it would put the whole phrase in the singular as "board of director", which seems very odd to me.
  • "Some students were displeased with the prefect's imposition of discipline and Maguire's declination to overrule him; they staged another uprising, throwing stones and inkwells to break the windows" - When? Chronologically, this would only make sense to be between January and April 1853.
  • " Overall, Maguire was regarded as a successful president" - By whom?
  • "On October 5, 1858, his term came to an end and, he was succeeded by John Early" - The comma after the and looks like it shouldn't be there to me.
  • Maybe this is a personal preference, but it seems like this would make more sense in chronological order. The article goes first presidency, second presidency, and then pastoral work; the chronological order is first presidency, pastoral work, second presidency, and then more pastoral work.
  • "As a result, the decreased enrollment, the university was left in a precarious financial state" - This use of an appositive is weird to me. Maybe "As a result of the decreased enrollment, ..."
  • Put the refs in alphabetical order. Hollister should go before Shea.

I think that's it from me. Any of these are open to discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 01:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for your comments. Ergo Sum 02:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2020 [5].

Edward Thomas Daniell

edit
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a young watercolorist and etcher from Norfolk, Edward Daniell, whose career as an amateur artist was cut short when he succumbed to malaria in Turkey in 1842. The article was a FAC In July 2020, but failed to be promoted. It was then peer reviewed in August. I'm hoping that the article is now nearer the point where it can be promoted to FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Thomas Daniell/archive1. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

Per previous FAC (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported at the previous FAC, and it has noticeably improved since then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also supported the first nomination, and don't see a reason to change my stance. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my read through and comments at PR. The article was in decent shape at the previous FAC and the PR led to some immense prose improvements, fulfilling the only FAC criteria it may have been lacking. Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I engaged at the peer review, and am satisfied! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This looks great. I read this article in the previous FAC, which I was happy with, but it now appears significant improvements have been made to the prose. Let's give the star it rightly deserves! L150 17:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Having participated in both the first FAC and subsequent PR. This can be held up as one of our best. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:To note this comment is neither actionable or likely to be. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still missing spotchecks for first-time nominator looking at source-to-text integrity and absence of close paraphrasing or copyvio? Elsewise, this presents a fine example of how peer review should be used, so FACs do not have to languish on the page for months. (As does Squirm, to get us back to good practices.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I have a featured article and a featured list (listed here) to my credit. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted (not a typo, template added). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added. Beecheno writes (link to Google Books here) that his painting of Daniell was started in January 1935. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the subjects' date of birth cited? this source is given in the body as far as I can tell, but only gives years of life, not specific dates (unless it's on a different page - I couldn't get the search to work). Even though this isn't a BLP, I'd want the dates of life to be verifiable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation at the end of the sentence ending ...of Rudham Grange, Norfolk.—Dickes p 543—provides gives Daniell's date of birth. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide specifics for what needs to be improved? I can edit the article quite easily without AWB if you give me some idea of what you mean. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I have used this website with caution. All the links contain both secondary and primary information (both the transcripts and the facsimiles of the relevant pages can be viewed). The Snettisham records (references 19 & 26) provide information about specific facts, and can I believe be used as such as citations (WP:WPNOTRS). The information on Anne Daniell's marriage can be found in print (Phillimore, vol. 2, pp. 105–120 (1936)), so I'll include a reference to that. The inclusion in the External links section shouldn't be of concern as it provides access to a useful and reliable primary source, but is outside the text of the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth I believe it was done in last months' archived FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was the spot check that was suggested done in the PR? --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

edit

Beginning spot checks based on this version of the article

  • Do you have a access to a copy of Beecheno (1889), published as a limited edition of 50 copies
This is a snippet view version, which I didn't use. The book I consulted is in the archive collection at Norwich's main library, now totally off limits for me because of Covid-19 restrictions. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grand, I take this in good faith, but would remove the GB link in the sources section, which unhelpfully, and perhaps unfairly points to a queried snippet view. Ceoil (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked:
  • Ref 44 OK (as in backs claims, no close paraphrasing etc)
  • Refs 53abc OK
  • Ref 64a: p214 does not mention malaria
Reference added. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil, I can scan and email the offline citations—except Beecheno— if needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 68 OK
  • Ref 71 OK
  • Ref 241 OK
  • To note, a lot of the sources are very old, and skew towards the late 19th century. Has there not been more recent scholarship, even if they are confirming some of these basic facts/timelines.
Moore, Searle, Smail and Walpole are the only recent sources (1985 to 2015), I'll take a look at replacing any older refs using these authors if it's possible. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My research is backing this that there is very little recent scholarship. I would however, replace older refs where possible. Ceoil (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now weeded out several pre-1960s citations. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, these spot checks indicate that sources back claims, and there is no close paraphrasing or copy-vio. Ceoil (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot checks seem good, promoting. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2020 [6].

First Punic War

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a finale to my series of articles on the First Punic War, I offer you the article on the War itself. 23 years of war boiled down to less than 6,000 words – so there is a discussion point right there. The article has been through GA and ACR and I hope that you will enjoy both reading and reviewing it; if not, here is the place to so note. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

edit

I'll give this a look. Apparently I was the GA reviewer back in March, although I don't entirely remember that review much. Standard disclaimers apply: I'll probably claim this for the WikiCup, I don't know a whole lot about this subject matter, and I'm willing to discuss everything. This is also liable to be done in several chunks, rather than all at once. Hog Farm Bacon 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources
  • Open question, I don't quite know the answer myself. In "His works include a now lost manual on military tactics," should it be now-lost, since it's an adjective?
I have no idea. I usually leave a saucer of milk out for the hyphen brownies to tidy such things up for me. Done.
Armies
  • "Adult male Roman citizens were eligible for military service, most would serve as infantry with the wealthier minority providing a cavalry component" - Semicolon, not comma, right?
Done.
  • " with a similarly sized and" - Should similarly sized be similarly-sized, or is this an engvar thing? I'm still learing BE conventions; I speak a rural form of AE, so there's some big differences in grammar/phrasing
Google gives 1.7 mn examples, so it can't be that uncommon. Eg see the title of this scientific paper.
PS I have brooded on this and decided that you are correct, and changed it.
Lead
  • "A Carthaginian base on Corsica was seized, but an attack on Sardinia was repulsed; the base on Corsica was then lost" - Maybe I'm just missing it, but I'm not finding where the loss of the base on Corsica is mentioned in the body.
Nicely spotted - thank you. I had managed to write straight past that. Now added.

Ready for Rome builds a fleet, gonna take a break at that point. Hog Farm Bacon 23:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Africa
  • "a brief siege" - Like with the Treaty of Lutatius article, expand the piped link to all three word to avoid a minor MOS:EGG.
But I didn't change it in Treaty of Lutatius. As I said then

I'm not seeing this. You would expect "hard fought battle" to send you to a battle, which it does; so why is it EGGy? It is not normal practice to include definite or indefinite articles within pipes. Eg The Battle of the Aegates and not the Battle of the Aegates. It is so universal that I would guess that there is a policy on it somewhere.

Okay, I guess we just have a minor stylistic disagreement there.
  • "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors and in the Battle of Cape Hermaeum off Africa, the Carthaginians were heavily defeated, losing 114 ships captured" - This doesn't make a whole lot of sense without a statement indicating how the Carthaginian fleet made contact
Fair point. I have changed it to "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors. It was intercepted by a Carthaginian fleet off Africa and in the Battle of Cape Hermaeum the Carthaginians were heavily defeated, losing 114 ships captured." How's that read?
That works much better. The statement about the interception makes it much clearer.
References
  • Ref 153 we need a page number for Miles, I do believe
Nice spot. I had P instead of p. Fixed.
  • I guess Pulcher and the chicken incident is out of scope; I get why, but I personally thought that whole saga was hilarious in a sad way.
Sadly I can't think of a legitimate way of working it in.

That's all from me. Hog Farm Bacon 01:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Hog Farm. You are very busy with reviews and seem to have a keen eye, I appreciate both of them. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely helps that I have way too much freetime on my hands as a bored university student. Supporting, your usual nice work. Hog Farm Bacon 16:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
Several scaled up.
  • I see the "Continued Roman advance" map has a legend showing what the colours mean, but the symbols should also be explained
Done.
  • File:Stele_des_Polybios.jpg should include a copyright tag for the original work
D'oh! Done.
  • File:Carthage-1958-PortsPuniques.jpg: when/where was this first published?
While researching this I came across a better image - File:Carthage view.jpg - and swapped it in, it also has a simpler USGov-Military PD rationale.
I'm assuming that licensing is derived from a credit in the source? Is there any further detail with regards to attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Romanadvance_(cropped).JPG is tagged as lacking description.
Added.

Ditto File:Attacksrenewed_(cropped).JPG,

Added.

File:Attacksrenewed2_(cropped).JPG,

Added.

File:RomeWins_(cropped).jpg.

No longer in the article.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, all of your issues have now been addressed. Thanks for looking this over and picking those up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! Of course it should. Sorry Nikkimaria, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by No Great Shaker

edit

I'm interested in the subject and will read this over the next few days. I might add comments on a section by section basis but will see how it goes. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks No Great Shaker, looking forward to it. And good to see that this has tempted you into your second FAC review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
edit

Thanks for the kind words, Gog the Mild. I've focused on the lead for the moment but I'd like to add that an RPS of 35 kB (5,796 words) is excellent for such a broad subject. The lead is a good summary of the war and adequately fills the scope. I've just two small points which are:

  • In the opening sentence, suggest unpiping Roman Republic to make clear that it was the republic and not the empire involved in the Punic Wars.
I would much rather not. It seems to me that readers are either unaware of the distinction, in which case no harm done; or aware of it, in which case they are unlikely to think that the Empire had already come into existance in the 3rd C BC. It seems to me that those falling into neither grou[p are likely to be very few indeed.
  • Specify Akragas (modern Agrigento) after the first mention, as done later for Panormus (modern Palermo).
Good spot. Done.

That's it for now and I'll be back again soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources
edit
  • Polybius dates were incorrect – amended.
Oops. Thank you.
  • "his The Histories" is distracting – no need for "his" in this context so removed.
True. I have done that elsewhere, so I don't know how it sneaked through. I have probably read that section too many times.
  • the details of the battle in modern sources – should "battle" be "war" or "battles"? If a specific battle, which one?
D'oh! 'War'. Fixed.
Done.
  • Good coverage of the naval artefact discoveries and the resultant analysis in comparison with Polybius.
Thank you. (Was tricky not to OR there. There is probably an article on the artifacts to be created one day.)
Thanks No Great Shaker. Your points to date addressed above. Your next installment eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
edit

Just a few questions on this section which are mainly concerned with the motives of all concerned. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Mamertines appealed to both Rome and Carthage for assistance. Is it known if the Mamertines wanted both to assist or if they were playing them off against each other?
  • Carthage had already garrisoned Messana when Caudex began his expedition. Did the Romans make any attempt to form an alliance with Carthage in support of the Mamertines or was the expedition a direct attack on the Carthaginian garrison?
  • The point of the above two questions is that it isn't really clear why Rome and Carthage went to war against each other when, on the face of it, they were both seeking to assist the Mamertines against Syracuse.
  • Two legions commanded by Claudius marched to Messana. Is this Caudex again or another Claudian?
  • Is there any known reason for the expulsion of the Carthaginian garrison by the Mamertines? Had the Mamertines allied themselves with Rome?
  • Did the Carthaginians form an alliance with Syracuse prior to or during the siege of Messana?
  • Their experience over the previous two centuries of warfare on Sicily was that decisive action was impossible. Just a thought only but would it be worth mentioning the 415 BC Athenian expedition against Syracuse in this context?
  • The "Armies" sub-section is fine – it's a mine of useful information.
Sicily 264–256 BC
edit
  • Slight confusion between hatnote and text as one uses Battle of Agrigentum and the other Battle of Akragas.
Oops. Fixed.
  • only two full-scale pitched battles. Worth a brief mention of where – Akragas and Panormus?
Done.
Rome builds a fleet
edit
  • Use of "interfere" as last word in first sentence. Would "intervene" be more appropriate in a military context?
I have gone with "interdict" and linked it.
  • In the piece about the corvus, perhaps add that it was only in use for a few years till its constraints were fully realised.
I mention this in chronological order - "Importantly, the corvus was abandoned, which improved the ships' speed and handling but forced a change in tactics on the Romans ..." - which seems more natural to me. Do you not like this approach?
  • The Romans then raided both the Liparis and Malta. Did the Romans make any serious attempt to occupy Malta at this time?
Not that the sources mention. (Malta was still in Carthaginian hands at the start of the Second Punic War.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Invasion of Africa
edit
  • Second paragraph. I think it would read better if you move the name of the battle from the third sentence into the second sentence where it currently says "the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history".
Done.
  • Then begin the third sentence with: "At first, the Carthaginians took the initiative..."
Gone with a variant of this.
  • It was intercepted by a Carthaginian fleet off Africa. Might be better to name a specific location which was modern Cape Bon in northern Tunisia.
Very true. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining sections
edit

I've read the other sections – Sicily 255–248 BC, Conclusion, Aftermath and the references, etc. – three times now and I've no comment other than all being interesting and highly readable. I like the way you have concluded the aftermath by guiding the reader towards the second conflict.

Summary
edit

Hello again, Gog. Although you're still looking at some of the comments I've made above, I don't feel there is anything which prevents me from supporting the nomination. It is a really good, informative, interesting historical summary that is entirely fit for purpose as the introduction to a conflict that shaped world history. Which is true, if you think in terms of what might have been, had the Carthaginians won this war, and there had been no Caesar, no Roman Empire. Sadly, it's true that the war is largely forgotten, but it has real historical importance that cannot be understated. Well done, Gog. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by T8612

edit
  • Infobox: what is the logic behind the list of commanders for Rome? it's neither alphabetical, nor chronological. Then, why picking Megellus & Vitulus and not Lutatius Catulus? I would also mention Valerius Messalla. In fact, you could theoretically list all the consuls as they all fought. The 1PW did not have military leaders that dominate the others, like Scipio Africanus or Claudius Marcellus for the 2PW.
Secondly, did Hiero II really fought on the Roman side? As far as I remember, his only fight in the war was against Rome, which he lost and remained an ally until his death. Should he be mentioned on each side (with a mention "after 263" and "until 263")?
I have tried all sorts of rationales on this, but cannot find a satisfactory solution. As you say "The 1PW did not have military leaders that dominate the others". The most reader-friendly solution would seem to be to mention none of the leaders at all - so I haven't. (The template documentation says that including commanders is "optional".)
What about Syracuse? They fought for both sides. T8612 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So did numerous other Sicilian city states. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are not in the infobox. Given the anecdotal role of Syracuse in the military operations, I think it could be removed, or at least add (from 263) next to it. T8612 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am being slow. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "background", you shortened the name of Appius Claudius Caudex to "Caudex" and "Claudius", pick only one for consistency.
Done.
Thanks. Inserted.

T8612 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the sources, I would still mention Livy, even though his books are lost for the period, their content have partially survived through later authors, notably Orosius and Cassius Dio you mention, and their epitome (called the Periochae) is still used by modern scholars.
Umm. How would you feel about

Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; the later Roman historians Livy (who relied heavily on Polybius), Plutarch, Appian and Dio Cassius.

Commants welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Livy was an annalist too, so I would say

Modern historians usually take into account the fragmentary writings of various Roman annalists, especially Livy (who relied on Polybius); the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; and the later Greek writers Appian and Dio Cassius.

No Roman annalist has survived for the 1PW, hence "fragmentary"; Plutarch is useful for the 2 and 3PW, but none of his biographies deal with the 1PW, so I think he can be removed here. I also removed "Heavily" from "relied heavily on Polybius", because Livy relied principally on the previous Roman annalists, he used Polybius for military operations. T8612 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: That works for me. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
T8612 Good points, thanks. Addressed and actioned. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Personally I feel that the Sources section is the best place for the information on the etymology - whether in a note or in line. And while I am not sure if there is a guideline recommending against using notes in the lead in the same way that cites there are discouraged - there may well be - I prefer if at all possible to keep the lead "uncluttered". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit
Support just a few things.
  • "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, adding 220 new ships, and captured Panormus (modern Palermo) in 254 BC. The next year they lost another 150 ships to a storm.' I might cut 'another'. I don't think the reader will necessarily assume these were of the 220.
Done.
  • You might want to move the mention that Roman marines were legionnaires to the first mention of their marines.
Done.
  • is it 'north east' or 'north-east' (both as adjectives). You might want to check the other points of the compass, so to speak.
It's "south east" when used eg as "they moved to the south east"; and "south-east" when used eg in "south-east Sicily".
An interesting read. Good to hear about the whole thing in context.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt and thanks for the virtually preemptive support. Your points addressed anyway. (Obviously.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query Support by WereSpielChequers

edit

According to the article "in 237 BC Rome took advantage of the chaos to seize Corsica and Sardinia, in defiance of the terms of their treaty" but according to the map, Corsica and Sardinia are in the pink "ceded by the treaty" area along with most of Sicily. ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers: I (quite literally) can hardly believe I did that. Treaty of Lutatius was my last FAC! Amended to cover this crucial point. Going directly to your query is "the additional payment and the renunciation of Sardinia and Corsica were added to the treaty as a codicil". See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. But you might want to expand on the bit about Sicily becoming the first Roman province to add the fate of Sardinia and Corsica. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers: Good point. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support as a well written important topic. If you have control of the maps File:Carthaginianempire.PNG shows Carthage as having the coast of Corsica and not all of Sardinia, which I think may be more accurate than the map which shows the dispositions of Rome and Carthage at the outbreak of the war. You might also want to expand the aftermath to clarify that the Sicilian losses included territory that had been Carthaginian for a very long time whilst much of Sardinia and Corsica was a more peripheral, even ephemeral part of Carthage's empire. ϢereSpielChequers 14:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WereSpielChequers: thank you for the support; a rather embarrassing omission picked up there. While one suspects that outside the town walls (and on in a bad year within them) what could be called "controlled" varied, a lot, from year to year, I would prefer the more nuanced approach you suggest. The only editor I know who may be able to sort it has just gone on holiday. I will see how willing they are when they return.
The sources I have (eg Miles) lists five "new" Phoenician settlements in the 7th C BC, stating that they were established to control the export of resources to Carthage. Not what you would call "recent". They also argue that the original, and for some sources the continuing main, purpose of the settlements on Sicily was as way stations to link Carthage to Sardinia. The driving force being foodstuffs and precious metals from Sardinia. Which sources are telling you different? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah "much of" not "all of". I don't dispute that parts of Sardinia were core, and in terms of metals more important. I don't see why anyone going north from Carthage to Sardinia would start by going east to Sicily (other than some very strange winds), though I can see that holding western Sicily would make the sea route to Sardinia safer. Very happy with your solution of asking the mapmaker to tweak things on their return. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers: I confess it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but that's what Miles says. And, from memory, other sources make Sicily subsidiary to Sardinia and suggest that that was why the major Carthaginian strongholds were in the west of Sicily. But what do I know of the winds, currents, tides, trade routes, resources and accessible harbours of the area 2,300 years ago? Anyway, you can see why I wasn't (aren't) keen to go with your compare Sicily and Sardinia suggestion.
I assume "my" mapmaker will be able to sort it. They put the pink in the map in Aftermath at my request so I assume they will be able to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers: Map tweaked as discussed, with grateful thanks to the multi-talented Harrias. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. marked that as resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit

Pending. In about five weeks be OK? :p ——Serial 12:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

——: well, it's been open 11 days, so if you waited another 73 ... Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7: well spotted. Thanks. The date is correct; I forgot to add the source when I added a cite. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi guys. A query. Serial Number 54129 has signed on to do the source review for this, but has not edited for nine days. (And is not responding to emails.) Would I be in order to strike their 'staking a claim' and to put it in the reviews requested box? Or is there any other advice you have? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. SN is definitely MIA. (I am a little concerned.) If you could pick up the SR I would most grateful. I suspect that you could identify most of the flaws in my sourcing of a First Punic War article from memory by now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source checks
  • Which source supports the figures in the sentence "Since 2010, eleven bronze warship rams have been found by archaeologists in the sea off the west coast of Sicily, along with ten bronze helmets and hundreds of amphorae."? Tusa & Royal speak of "4 bronze warship rams (Egadi 3-6), at least 8 bronze helmets" that they recovered in their survey. The other sources mention ten rams.
I absolutely remember counting eleven when I wrote Battle of the Aegates, but on holiday without all my sources I can't reproduce it. So I am amending to the ten supported by two of the sources. I may revisit this when I am back, but if so I shall consult you. Done.
    • Might be a good idea to specify that the artifacts were from both sides of the battle
Ah, but we don't know that they were. The Carthaginians captured a lot of Roman warships, including 93 at the Battle of Drepana which they reused. So it is possible that they were all "Carthaginian" ships. Thinking this through though, it may be worth mentioning that there were some built by each side, and I shall. Done.
  • Tusa & Royal p. 46 (in the official pagination based on the doi-identified version) does not mention Polybius. I think you might be referring to the previous page, where it states, "The finds from the Egadi Islands provide archaeological evidence for the key naval battle described by Polybius that ended the First Punic War in 241 B.C., a crushing defeat for the Carthaginians which launched Rome on its path of expansion and empire." The sentence in the article is "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account." But the source doesn't discuss amphorae, at least not on that page, and the sentence in the article, if kept, needs to clarify what the account is of (the battle, the war)?
My pagination is for the first edition. I am not sure who added the doi. The second edition has the same content, but a new forward by Tusa's widow, which alters the pagination.
Url to 1st edition removed. Note that the page given states "The amphora finds attest to the particular mission of the warships in this conflict". This, IMO, supports "they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account". Note that this paragraph begins "The finds from the Egadi Islands provide archaeological evidence for the key naval battle described by Polybius that ended the First Punic War in 241 B.C., a crushing defeat for the Carthaginians which launched Rome on its path of expansion and empire. It is the sought-after convergence of the archaeological and historical records". (Emphasis added.)
    • As far as I can tell, Tusa & Royal mostly support the location of the battle being where Polybius said. But you already state that earlier in the paragraph, "The archaeologists involved stated that the location of artefacts so far discovered supports Polybius's account of where the Battle of the Aegates took place." Therefore, I wonder if the last sentence in the paragraph is redundant, or if not, whether it can be made more specific.
The last sentence "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account." refers to Polybius stating that the Carthaginian ships were weighed down with food supplies which they planned to unload in Sicily before getting into battle trim. I didn't want to get into a lot of detail at this stage, so summarised. This is confirmation of a different aspect of Polybius's account than the location.
  • The one citation to Sabin checks out.
  • On page 121, Morgan states that the majority view puts the battle in 250, but she argues that it was actually 251. Either both dates need to be given as alternatives, or else another source would need to be cited to show that Morgan's view has been adopted as the majority one. If, on the other hand, Rankov, Lazenby and Bagnall state it was 251, then I don't see the need to cite Morgan. Also, I am not sure why you also cite page 129, since it does not include any relevant information as far as I can tell. Also, I am not sure where you get "late summer" from.
I was relying on the quote from Polybius "when the harvest was at its height" and the vindication of Polybius's account on page 129. I could switch this to Goldsworthy who says in his own voice "while they harvested their crops", which I believe is a reasonable paraphrase to "late summer". In fact, if you are unhappy with Morgan for the year I could switch that to Goldsworthy and make things simpler all round.
I think that using Goldsworthy would be a better solution (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 08:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. Thanks a lot. (I haven't read it yet, I reserve the right to withdraw my thanks. ;-) ) I am currently packing to go on holiday. I shall take most of my sources, so there will be a response, but please bear with me if it is delayed and/or arrives bitily. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I should have read it first. I am now on holiday and haven't got my pdfs of most of the sources you refer to. I should be able to access on line versions. Tusa and Royal: I used the pre-publication, old version of this. After Tusa died this was withdrawn; my understanding was that no changes were made to the text, but I am guessing that the preface or similar may have been rewritten and this may explain the page number discrepancies. It is not impossible that the text has changed in the new version and I shall obviously check for this. (Note that a helpful drive by editor has changed all of the identifiers to the new version - I didn't notice - so you have been looking at a different version from the one I intended you to.) I shall crack on now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, I am going to be out of commission for the next two to three days. Apologies. I hope to wrap up my responses to your review over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Review of sources used
  • There is some inconsistency in whether locations are provided, e.g. see Collins, Walbank, Sidwell
Beginners mistake. The book by Walbank already has a location, the journal doesn't. Locations added to the other two. Thanks. (And for "Untied States of America"; *rolly eyes*)
Hi again Buidhe. Apologies if my responses are (increasingly) incoherent. (I miss my library.) I have responded to, I think, all of your queries. Possibly over-hurriedly before I go off line. Any hoo, see what you make of it, and I will come back on your follow up comments in a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

I know very little about this subject, but reviewing is as good a way to learn as any. As always, feel free to query/revert any copyedits I make as I go.

  • "greatest naval war of antiquity" "antiquity" is a potentially fuzzy term; can you link it?
Done.
  • "A Carthaginian base on Corsica was seized, but an attack on Sardinia was repulsed" at this point the reader only knows Sardinia is Carthaginian if they've looked at the map; I'd suggest clarifying in the prose, too.
Good point. Done - "on Carthaginian-held Sardinia".
  • "attacked and recaptured Akragas" Akragas hasn't been introduced yet, and doesn't have a link
D'oh! Good spot. Thank you. I have mixed the Latin and the Greek names - and even thrown in one bare modern name! Now standardised. Akragas (Latin: Agrigentum; modern Agrigento).
  • Note 1 is significant enough in its content that I'd include it in the main text, but that's a matter of preference only
Done.
  • The sentence beginning "other sources include" would flow better attached to paragraph 2 of that section, IMO
Done.

Hi Vanamonde93, good to see you again and thanks for the comments - a couple of them I am annoyed to have missed. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: "empire": I slightly prefer Carthage had come to dominate X,Y and Z in a military and commercial empire, meaning (it seems to me) that X, Y and Z were in the empire and that Carthage dominated them; to "building". But if the former is impenetrably unclear, then best to change it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde93: I was wondering if you had any further queries or comments, or any follow ups to my responses above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Vanamonde93, I wouldn't have bothered you except I am going to be off line for a day or two and I thought that I would give you a nudge as part of my "housekeeping". Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Apologies, I meant to read through the rest of the article and hadn't gotten around to it. If this is otherwise ready to promote I will not stand in the way, but if not I'll get to finishing my prose review soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In retrospect, the "empire" wording was just a matter of preference, I think, so self-reverted.
Cheers.
  • "Carthage was unperturbed" strikes me as rather heavy use of editorial voice...
Fair point. Rephrased to avoid this.
  • "Adult male Roman citizens" is it possible to mention somewhere that this definition of "citizen" is rather different from the present-day understanding of it, in that most (?) of the inhabitants of the empire were not citizens?
This has come up before (hence the IMO redundant "Adult male") and I would like to add a footnote. Bizarrely, I can't source it! All of my sources take this factoid as a given.
Huh. well, the sources are what they are.
  • "Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army" are these foreigners to the city or the empire?
Ah now. Carthage was an empire rather like the old British Empire - components from outside the city and a few colonies settled directly from it were viewed as "foreign". Rome was not so different: hence the references to Latin, Italic and Greek allies - the components of the growing Roman "republic". So, to answer the question, some of both in your terms; or non-citizens in mine.
  • "close-order" and "shock cavalry" strike me as terms that could use links or explanation
A bit like citizen: widely used, but not oft defined. But you are correct; they do need defining. Let me hunt around. It may need to wait until after my current holiday so I can access my more general military sources.
Yeah, it's not a make-or-break thing, but would be worth fixing; technical terms without definitions or links aren't ideal, in my view.
  • " several other small Carthaginian dependencies switched to the Romans" The prose to this point hasn't suggested Syracuse was a dependency; or perhaps it wasn't, and the "other" needs to be omitted?
Oops. Well spotted. "other" removed.
  • "Carthaginian naval supremacy prevented them from shipping supplies by sea" More for my curiosity than anything else; Sicily is an island; getting any supplies there requires shipping by sea; why was it specifically hard for Akragas?
Omitted for summary style is that sneaking supplies by night across the 3 km Strait of Messina was achievable with acceptably low losses. Sailing them 400 km and landing them on the open beach probably wasn't technically doable. Even if you had naval superiority. Hence much of the war being over the major Sicilian ports.
Thanks for the explanation, the summary seems fine.
  • "which assembled in Africa" Africa's rather large...do we know where exactly? If not, can we at least say "African coast"?
Well now, I "know" that they were assembled in Carthage, and to a lesser extent (possibly) Utica. But Polybius says "Africanus" and every modern source I have read blindly copies him. I would be entirely happy to give a fairly precise location, but you would shoot me down for inadequate sourcing.
Fair. it annoys me no end, especially because Polybius's phrasing sounds a heck of a lot like modern geographic ignorance that does the same thing; but if the sources aren't specific, then you can't be, either.
Ah; it is even worse. Africanus is Latin for Tunisia, as in the Roman province. Do you too sometimes want you to shake the modern scholars who fail to think things through? When I am home I shall have a proper root around. Some one must have thought this through!
  • "ultimately fruitless campaign against Corsica and Sardinia" sounds like an event of the same scale as that which has just been treated over several paragraphs; was it much less important, or do we just not have any information?
A bit of both. It was a secondary campaign - at least one modern source lambasts the Romans' strategic judgement for diverting resources to it. Whoever won the campaign, it was not going to significantly effect the outcome of the war. And so neither the primary nor the secondary sources spend much time on it.
Seems fine.
  • The first sentence of "Rome builds a fleet" seems to me to belong in the previous section both chronologically and thematically
It's there deliberately as an explanation as to why Rome felt a need to build a fleet. It seems to me that if I moved it I would need to say much the same thing again to introduce this section.
Even so, I think all you need in "Rome builds a fleet" is "As the war in Sicily reached a stalemate..." and the rest could be moved up
  • I wonder if the material about ship types, etc, would be well-served by a subsection, and also perhaps whether that belongs along with "armies" above
Similar to what I have done in Punic Wars? Hmm. That may well work better. I have tried it. See what you think.
Looks good, thanks.
  • A more general comment; a lot of the material here strikes me as patchy, in the sense that the amount of detail used for events of seemingly similar significance varies considerably. Based on the "primary sources" section I rather suspect that this is the result of patchiness in the source material; would you say that's accurate? if so, is that something that could be discussed in the first section of the article?
Please don't get me started! Before I dropped by 1PW there was no article on an event which combined Carthage's greatest naval defeat and Rome's greatest (by far) loss of live. Because both were barely covered in the primary sources and hence likewise in the secondary. I have never had a more difficult time getting an article through FAC. This is where Wikipedia being a tertiary source comes back to bite us.
So yes, the ancients judged events by different criteria, and modern RSs inevitably have similar weighting (mostly), and I would love to explicitly point this out under sources, But the RSs - curse them - seem blind to this "selection bias" and I would not be able to source it. It makes me want to chew my keyboard.
Ah well. The sources are what they are. Perhaps you'd need to write a paper about it, and then someone can come and at least address the patchiness directly in this article...
Don’t encourage me. I just possibly could. And I know a head of a university history department who would probably help me get it published. But it sounds a bit like actual work to me!
  • Another likely ignorant question; the prose refers to Carthaginian Sardinia and Corsica; but the map only shows them partially under Carthaginian control; why?
Another oft asked question. The map was custom tweaked at the request of WereSpielChequers above at their third struck comment. I commented later "One suspects that outside the town walls (and on in a bad year within them) what could be called "controlled" varied, a lot, from year to year." I could elaborate quite a lot on this, but hopefully you get the idea. If the Carthaginians controlled, say, a silver mine, who cared who controlled the barren hills around it. And define "control". Which by any definition may have varied by time of day - the locals coming out to raid and extort at night for example. It's a lot of nuance over an extended period to pack into a shading on a map.
  • "was possibly the largest naval battle in history" I think you mean the largest naval battle to that date; or is it really saying it was the largest ever?
No, it means just what it says, including the "by total number of combatants" qualifier. Staggering eh?
Huh, yeah, indeed. I'd have thought Jutland or Midway would have been hard to top...
)t is all the oarsmen in each ship. 680 x 690 = c. 290,000, Leytte Gulf was probably the largest WW2 naval battle and “only” made 200,000 combatants!
  • "losing 30 ships sunk" strikes me as ungrammatical, but maybe I'm just unused to military history writing conventions; I would write "having 30 ships sunk"
It seems normal - non-military - English to me. A Google search on "losing * ships sunk" gives well over 2 mn hits.
Hmmm. A matter of preference, then, so you can ignore it.
  • Who is Bostar? He hasn't been introduced, and isn't mentioned later
Sorry, he appears this once in the sources, then disappears again. I am never sure how to introduce him. (And whatever I do seems to get criticised.) "Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and a third general called Bostar" is the best I can think of, but is so clumsy. Do you have any ideas?
"a third general, Bostar," would seem fine to me
Done.
  • "the presence of the corvus" is the singular form correct here? There was one on each ship, presumably?
Wiktionary says that it is an English word with a plural of "corvi". I do not consider this helpful to a reader and am, frankly, IARing.
  • There's some inconsistancy with serial commas; I was unsure which way you wanted to go, so I didn't make any changes
I don't do Oxford commas, but sometimes a comma after and is nevertheless grammatically required. If you see others, feel free to delete them. I have been referred to as a "comma-minimalist".
Agreed, I'll do a sweep.
  • "the Carthaginian hold-out cities" what makes them hold-out cities? Didn't Carthage still have a lot of territory on Sicily?
Hold-out refers to bypassed cities surrounded by Roman-held territory and fortifications. It was the most accurate succinct phrase I could think of, but I am not wedded to it. (Maybe "the isolated cities holding out behind the Roman lines"? Longer, but clearer.)
Hi Vanamonde93: Apologies for keeping you waiting for this. I think that I have addressed all of your comments, if sometimes not very satisfactorily. I shall try to revisit this in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "picked": it may be a specialist usage - I hadn't thought so - but "picked" in this context is not synonymous with selected, see [7]. Or to quote from some sources - Goldsworthy: “The pick of the Roman infantry were taken on board.” Tipps: “an additional 80 picked men from the legions .... were embarked on each warship”. Polybius (Paton translation): “Selecting the best men from their land forces”. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
    @Gog the Mild: Thanks; a couple of brief responses above for you to consider; the only one I feel strongly about is the technical terms. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93: all addressed. I agree re the technical terms (I should have defined them when I first wrote them, but I have grown too used to the specialist terminology and it is not always obvious to me that it is specialist), but they are going to have to wait until I am home and can consult my The Art of War in the Western World, which I know covers these (well). Hopefully I am in good enough standing with the coordinators that they will bear with me.
Many thanks for this comprehensive trawl through my sometimes shakey prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure; thanks for a detailed article about an important topic. No objections to waiting on the technical terms. Happy to support. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Pendright

edit

Like many others, I know little about this period of world history. Nonetheless, I offer the following comments and questons. Pendright (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The Romans then built a navy to challenge Carthage's, and using novel tactics inflicted several defeats.
Carthage's > would "the Carthaginians" be more apt?
It would, it would. Done.

Primary sources:

  • His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics,[4] but he is known today for The Histories,
Is "today" clear enough for readers?
It seems entirely clear to me. In what way do you think it may not be? Or what do you feel might be clearer?
A clear situation of diminishing return.
  • Carthaginian written records were destroyed along with their capital, Carthage, in 146 BC and so Polybius's account of the First Punic War is based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources.
  • Independent clauses: This sentence has two independent clauses separated by a coordinating conuction but unjoined by a comma?
Indeed. It is how I was taught and my usual Wikipedian habit.
We are in agreement, fantastic!
",now lost," seems essential to the meaning of the sentence?
I fear you have the advantage of me. It may be simpler if you copy edited the article to your satisfaction and I commented if I were to be unhappy?
Advantage here is still in question, but I fear I may have struck a nerve. Anyway, the ball is still in your court.

Background

  • The Romans had not previously displayed any interest in Sicily and did not wish to come to the aid of soldiers who had unjustly stolen a city from its rightful possessors.
Independent clauses - same as in the

lead?

And a similar response. You will find a lot of these.
Ditto!
  • Two legions commanded by Claudius marched to Messana, where the Mamertines had expelled the Carthaginian garrison commanded by Hanno (no relation to Hanno the Great) and were besieged by both the Carthaginians and the Syracusans.
How about a comma after (no relation to Hanno the Great)?
A definite theme is developing.
Yet, the nominee continues to play games.

Rome builds a fleet

  • In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own.
Independent clauses - same as in the lead?
...
Ditto!
  • As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels, and so slower and less manoeuvrable.
Consdier replacing "and so" with "but"?
Would this not deny the reader the reason why they were slower? Ie, because they were heavier. I am not adverse to a rewording which continues to communicate this.
Call this one a draw!

Africa

  • Their naval victories at Mylae and Sulci, and their frustration at the stalemate in Sicily, led the Romans to adopt a sea-based strategy and to develop a plan to invade the Carthaginian heartland in North Africa and threaten Carthage (close to Tunis).
How about a comma after strategy?
Ah, well, I think that you will have identified by now that the missing commas are not unintentional.
Gamesmanship at play!

Sicily

  • Their entire fleet, under both consuls, attacked Panormus early in the year.
Consider "in the same year", or in "that year", referring to 254 BC about two sentences back?
Both of those seem a little clumsy to me. I could repeat the year: "attacked Panormus early in 254 BC"?
You seem to have this well in hand.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Pendright, I see you too rarely. Thank you for your comments, which I have addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we do this again sometime, perhaps in the next life? In the meantime, the article is worthy of my support. Pendright (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Ian Rose @FAC coordinators: Hi guys, given the above could I fire up my next one? Thanks? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fire away... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2020 [8].

Arthur Blackburn

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Blackburn was a soldier, lawyer, politician, and World War I Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for valour in battle that could be awarded to a member of the Australian armed forces at the time. As a private he, along with another soldier, made it farthest inland on the day of the Gallipoli landing, 25 April 1915. He went on to be commissioned and served on the Western Front. He was awarded the VC for gallantry during the Battle of Pozières, when, commanding 50 men, he led four separate sorties to drive the Germans from a strong point using hand grenades, capturing 370 yards (340 m) of trench. He became the first South Australian to receive the award. Discharged suffering from illness, he had a successful career as a part-time soldier, lawyer and coroner between the wars, and briefly as a politician. He commanded a machine gun battalion in World War II in the Syria-Lebanon campaign. His unit was captured by the Japanese on Java in early 1942 by which time he was a brigadier, and he spent the rest of the war in captivity in various places. After the war he served on the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Blackburn is the second last in my project to get all the South Australian VC and George Cross recipients to FA. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

Quick comment I'd suggest replacing the map in the 'Java' section with either of the maps on page 498 and 500 of the Australian Army official history, which is now PD [9]. I suspect that the volume of the official history on the fighting in Syria and Lebanon might also have more useful maps. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. Will check them out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped out the existing maps and replaced with OH ones. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a proper review, I was impressed by this article when it passed A-class, so am interested to read it now - not least as it covers an outstanding Australian I know little about. I'd like to offer the following comments and suggestions:

  • "pursued a part-time military career" - not sure about 'part-time' here, not least as this was the dominant way people served in the Army at the time.
Good point, dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also briefly served as a member of the South Australian parliament" - I'd suggest giving the years of service
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a detachment of 50 men from 16 Platoon, D Company, 10th Battalion" - wouldn't 50 men have been the entire platoon? (likely with augmentation?)
changed to "based on". I think the reality is that he might have started with his own platoon, but they just kept feeding troops into his task, approaching half of the company by the end. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the men of this organisation, armed with government-issued rifles and bayonets, were deployed by the South Australia Police to help quell violence between union and non-union labour on the docks" - but it's previously noted that they were formed to protect the un-unionised labour? The deployment of what seems to have been a well armed and led paramilitary to tilt the balance in an industrial dispute seems pretty extraordinary, even for the times.
dropped "between union and non-union labour", yes there was a bit of a "red scare" at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sceptical about whether this force really quelled violence given it was aligned with one side of the dispute (e.g., it likely intimidated the union members into submission), but I presume that this is what the source says? Stuff like this helps to explain the provisions in the modern Defence Act which prohibit reservists being used in industrial disputes. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Nick-D, it may be overstating it. There had been violence, but given they didn't actually bayonet anyone, would you be happy with "deter"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
how about something like "the men of this organisation, armed with government-issued rifles and bayonets, were deployed by the South Australia Police to intervene in the dispute between union and non-union labour on the docks"? Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackburn was promoted to substantive colonel on 1 September 1942, but retained his temporary rank of brigadier whilst in captivity" - did he know that he'd been promoted at the time?
He was temporarily promoted to brigadier on 21 February 1942 (already in the article), but it isn't clear if he knew about the substantive promotion to colonel at the time, because he barely got any letters from home until early 1944. Faulkner doesn't provide any more info. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the locations of the other POW camps in Formosa Blackburn was held in be added to the map?
I did look at that, but the problem is these were the Japanese names, and they were changed to Chinese ones after 1945, and fair play to the Taiwanese, they haven't spent any effort on recording the Japanese names of localities by the look of entries on the subject here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and yes it is difficult to track wartime locations in Taiwan given the number of different names which have been used and the surprisingly modest amount of attention historians have directed towards Formosa in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was appointed as one of the fifteen inaugural conciliation commissioners of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, a position he held until 1955" - did this attract any controversy given his role in strike breaking? (presumably not given the amount of time which had passed and his status as a war hero several times over)
Good point. Faulkner doesn't mention any, but I found an Advertiser article from 1947 in which the ALP state conference expressed "grave alarm", added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you'd be able to find any commentary here - Trove certainly is a fantastic resource. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do this. I couldn't find an alternative, but found a Blackburn Street in Moorooka Qld and added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Nick-D. I reckon I've got all these, what do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The ACT Government used to have a very functional website where you could look up who streets are named after (a high proportion of streets in Canberra are named after notable Australians, and I think that all VC recipients have a Canberran street named after them), and it's a shame that it's been decommissioned. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to support this article's nomination. The standard of the articles on South Australian VC recipients has been high, but I think that this is the pick of the litter given that it provides a very well rounded account of this person's life. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, that means a lot. I am rather pleased with this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

All images appear to be free and are appropriately documented. (t · c) buidhe 06:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit
Comments (not comprehensive)
  • "His time in Parliament showed Blackburn to be a man of few words," this is an opinion—"few words" compared to whom? Should probably be attributed to the author.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Geneva Convention 1929 was signed but not ratified by Japan, so it was not legally bound to the letter of the treaty.
I'm don't want to get into the universal applicability of customary international humanitarian law here, have just revised it to read "and because Japan was not a party to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and did not follow its stipulations". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "willing", meaning that he willingly participated, despite misgivings that only physical perpetrators were being tried. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Hog Farm

edit

May wind up being claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 02:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The O. G. (Old German) trench system consisted of two lines of German trenches that were objectives of the Australian assault." - Is it just me, or does there appear to be an extraneous space between G. and (?
Yes, well spotted. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was admitted to the Bar on " - I've previously seen bar lowercase most of the time, although that may be an American English thing
I've had reviewers say both, decapped for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before embarking on the SS Ascanius" - I've had it stated in reviews of articles I've worked on that "the" shouldn't be in front of ship names unless the ship class is given. I think it's explained decently at Talk:Battle of Grand Gulf/GA1
Yes, dropped definite article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " initially in a quiet sector of the front line" - Which specific region?
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed on the seconded list" - What's the seconded list? Is there an applicable link?
Linked Secondment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackburn returned to legal practice in early 1917," - Is there more specific time frame available? Surely he wouldn't start this before his honorable discharge, right?
The sources don't say, but he was probably on leave once he got back to Adelaide, and there were probably no rules that said he couldn't just go back to his old job prior to discharge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he became Freemason with the St Peter's Collegiate Lodge. - Shouldn't this be "a Freemason"?
Quite. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established to assist the dependents of deceased ex-servicemen, he later became its second president" - My gut instinct says this should be a semicolon, not a comma
Mine too. Changed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 1933, Blackburn became the coroner of the city of Adelaide, a position he held for fourteen years." - So he was coroner until 1947? Even during his POW term and military service? It seems like he would have been replaced so somebody could have actively held that office
Tweaked this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where it embarked on the SS Ile de France" - Another ship comment, see above
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Hog Farm Bacon 02:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Also from the 15th, D Company" - Also on the 15th?
yep, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Vichy French did not fire on them" - Is why known?
Probably didn't want to give away their positions, but the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the SS Orcades. - The ship again. Also in the next paragraph. You did drop the the in "they embarked on SS Ionian " which is much earlier in the article
Most remiss of me, all fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackburn was to lead "Boostforce", the objective of which he labelled a "suicide mission", " - I'm assuming Boostforce is the force at Oosthaven defending the airfield, but this should be clearer if so.
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Against it was arrayed a Dutch force of the same strength, but with a ratio of one Dutch to 40 locally recruited troops, and many of the local troops viewed the Japanese as liberators from Dutch colonialism rather than an enemy to be resisted." - The ratio clause doesn't jibe well with the use of "and"
Modified and split sentence, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6 stone 4 pounds" - What's this in pounds? Stones aren't a particularly common measurement in the United States. There's another instance of this earlier
14 pounds in a stone. Added the pounds conversions in parentheses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a dag from a previous version of the article. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that the Battle of Pozières was part of the Battle of the Somme.
Added to the lead and body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, I believe. Willing to discuss any of these. Hog Farm Bacon 02:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Hog Farm. All done I reckon. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. Supporting. Hog Farm Bacon 13:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59

edit

A few comments about the source formatting:

  • Books: Anderson (1995): Washington DC -> Washington, DC for consistency with comma in Australian locations
Fixed, also some others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers: "APPOINTMENT CRITICISED" is shouting at me; capitalise each word for consistency
Done, very remiss of me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Papers: why is Rose Park wikilinked in Jaensch when no other place name is?
Great question. Delinked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Websites: what is AustLit? Should the University of Queensland be the publisher in this instance?
It is a teaching resource website published by UQ. Made UQ the publisher. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Websites: for the two Blackburn references in the ADB, the titles (i.e. Black, Arthur Seaford (1892-1960) and Blackburn, Sir Charles Bickerton (1874-1972)) should be formatted in double quotes because they are articles/web pages.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Websites: replace brisbane.qld.gov.au with the website name for constistency (i.e. Brisbane City Council), then drop the publisher.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: I am confused by your styling of acronyms. Do you use full stops between letters? Do you use spaces between them? In the references alone we have Washington DC, Bean, C.E.W., Arthur Blackburn, VC, 10th Battalion, A.I.F., "Oxford Wedding for S.A. Couple", C. R. B. Blackburn, R. A. Blackburn. A cursory glance over the rest of the article reveals VC and AIF, but O. G. and R. A. Blackburn. You should decide on a rule and apply it consistently. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I believe VC and AIF don't have periods, as they are acronyms. O.G. and R. A. Blackburn are initialisms, so they have the periods. PM67 may have other input on this, too. Hog Farm Bacon 13:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Bean, but with the titles of books and newspaper articles I have followed the formatting of the title, which I consider to be the correct approach. In the body of the article I have been consistent with not using full stops except for initials of names, ie AIF and VC, but C. B. Hardy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Points addressed I think, Noswall59. Thanks for having a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the formatting changes all look good to me. I've made corrections to the ANB (swapping out title attribute for chapter). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Coord note

edit

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully get a review or two from outside the subject area. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Ensuring you saw the below comments. --Laser brain (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "he and another scout were credited with advancing the furthest inland". This is so qualified in the main text (probably the furthest of any Australian whose movements are known) that I would delete.
  • "Blackburn returned to legal practice". This implies that you have already mentioned legal practice. I would mention above.
  • "also pursued a military career during the interwar period. He also served as a member of the South Australian parliament" also...also
  • You refer to him being admitted to the bar and then becoming a solicitor. This is confusing in a British context as barrister and solicitor are separate branches of the legal profession. The link to Bar (legal) is not helpful as it only covers the system in the US and the UK. I suggest linking to Call to the bar, which explains that in South Australia the two branches are fused.
  • "The position which Blackburn and Robin reached was beyond the crest of a feature later known as "Scrubby Knoll", part of "Third (or Gun) Ridge", which was the ultimate objective of the 3rd Brigade covering force, of which it fell well short." This is confusing. Are you saying that the brigade did not get near its objective, but Blackburn and Robin got beyond it? Also, as Robin was of senior rank, would Blackburn not have been acting under his command?
    • Yes, that is what I am saying. Can you suggest a better way of getting the meaning across? The 10th Battalion scout platoon was made up of soldiers with high levels of initiative, so while Robin was theoretically one rank higher than Blackburn, I doubt there was much in the way of orders being given by Robin to Blackburn in this situation, they were just told to go hell for leather for Gun Ridge and tried to follow their orders. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "The 3rd Brigade covering force fell well short of its ultimate objective, the crest of a feature later known as "Scrubby Knoll", part of "Third (or Gun) Ridge", but Blackburn and Robin, who were sent ahead as scouts, got beyond it." And delete the reference to Blackburn being a scout above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G’day @FAC coordinators: this one now looks good to go. Can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi PM, sorry to duck in at the end of this review. Just a couple of very minor suggested tweaks / questions...

Thanks for telling his story. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Jenny. It is always nice to have a non-military specialist look over one of my FACs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy reading them and learning more each time! I am happy to support. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2020 [11].

Dali (goddess)

edit
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right! This was my first GA, way back in early 2018. It's come a long way since the GA version, and I think at this point I have to stop being a coward and just do the FA nom. I've scoured the internet for every available source, and I'm pretty sure this is as comprehensive as I can make it without actually learning Georgian (and even then, the most important Georgian source, Elene Virsaladze's Georgian hunting myths and poetry, is available online in a high-quality English translation published by the Georgian National Academy). For sources which are not freely/immediately available online, I have access to PDFs of most and can email copies to anyone who wants to do a source check.

The evolution of Dali is an incredible testimony to the plasticity and transformation of myth. To some authors, she represents evidence that classical Georgia borrowed mythemes from classical Greece. To others, she is an example of the mistress of the hunt, an archetype found in stories across Europe. After Christianity came to Georgia, she was sometimes regarded as a demoness. No matter the interpretation, she remains uniquely herself: haughty, demanding, and seductive. To quote John Mulaney: Dali is a bitch, and I like her so much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Copyright issues
  • The statue of Prometheus is protected by copyright as there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia.
Display issues
  • Image captioned "Horns of the Bezoar ibex" would look better moved up, as it currently breaks the next heading
  • I think the Ishtar and Circe statues would look better side-to-side, which would allow easier direct comparison and avoid the sandwiching/breaking of the "Western European" heading that I am seeing in the current setup. This can be done with {{multiple images}} (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the horns picture thing, I'm not getting any sandwiching issues, and Ishtar doesn't break the Western European figures header for me. I can take screenshots to show you what I see if you want? As for using the multiple images template, I'm not sure it makes sense to put the two together since they're from different sections (but I'm open to suggestions). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, I'm working from a totally different PC today and wound up seeing the issues you'd mentioned above; no idea why I never saw it on my other ones but oh well. I've moved the horns up to avoid the header breaking and have tweaked the Ishtar caption enough that it no longer breaks the following header. I mucked about with galleries and multiple images but couldn't get one that looked nice (the Circe image is quite a bit taller than the Ishtar one so they look a bit silly when placed side by side). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on sources (not a source review)
  • I'm not sure, there's next to no commentary on the proposed sculpture's appearance so I'm not sure "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the description a little. IMO it adds to the understanding that the fountain is literally based around Dali as a central figure, and they just...took her out and put a rock with goats on it in their city square. Not a hill I'll die on if it kills the pass though. Hm. The news articles I cited also carry a photo of the final ibex-only fountain; would it make more sense to include both, therefore demonstrating the significant difference in appearance to the reader? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with that is that the other image would also be fair use, but it's hard to say what understanding of Dali it would be communicating. I am still not sure about the statue/fountain image so I will ask Nikkimaria, who knows more than I do. Would you mind saying if this fountain image (the last one in the article) meets WP:NFCC? Thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 06:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the current rationale is sufficient to support its inclusion. I'm not super-happy with the other fair-use image either - the current tagging is intended for cases where some aspect of the work itself is the subject of commentary, not the subject. (Plus the rationale states it's the only fair-use image in the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've pulled the fountain image based on this feedback. Would using {{Non-free character}} work better for the Dali image? She's not from a cartoon or comic, but the image serves to provide a visual to go with the physical description of her as a character, which does form a significant part of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Just to make sure, that'd be {{Non-free fair use}}? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit

This is very interesting, and well written. I'm not through yet with reading. For now I have some first questions:

  • I don't quite understand the part on epithets in "Etymology and epithets": "Dali and her equivalents were also known by various epithets reflecting their numerous mythological roles." However, no mythological roles are mentioned in the list of epithets that follows, and the roles of these epithets do not become clear. Furthermore, the "Dali of New Year's Eve" is not listed here at all, but only later in the "Primary motives" section. Which makes sense, since the epithet is only the name, and the role is discussed in the motives section. Not sure, but maybe remove the word "epithets" from the section title, so that the reader will not search at the wrong place, and mention the "Dali of New Year's Eve" for completeness?
  • Basically that paragraph is just meant to be a list of her different names. There aren't really any significantly distinct mythologies associated with each name. I reworded it a bit anyway and added the New Year's thing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a bit confused about the use of past tense. In contrast, the article states that the cults are still existing?
  • No, I don't think it says that at all. Remember that post-Christianization her mythological role is reduced more to that of a spirit or a demoness rather than a goddess actively being worshipped. Some elderly hunters still believe in Dali, and for most other modern people she's a cultural/mythological figure they're aware of. For comparison, picture a salty old sailor earnestly talking about mermaids - he might legitimately believe in them and even be superstitious about angering them, but he's not part of a mermaid cult per se. Same deal with Dali. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. I think it would be very helpful to somehow include this information at the beginning of the article, or in the lead. Just for readers lacking the context, like me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already the final part of the lead: Her story remains an important part of Georgian culture. Though most younger people treat her as a mythological figure, some older hunters still consider her to be a real figure that one might encounter deep in the forest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is not enough to get the right picture (at least it was not for me). It does not become clear that Dali is not worshipped by these older hunters who still believe in her. Maybe add to the lead that christianisation had transformed Dali from her original goddess-like nature into a malicious spirit? Knowing this from the start would help much with understanding the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead already mentioned that as well, but I expanded on it a little more. Hopefully that helps? I'm not sure how much more clear the other part can be. It reflects the sources exactly: some old men still think she's a real thing you might encounter if you go deep into the untamed wilderness. No indication of continued worship or "cult" activity is mentioned in the source, so none is mentioned in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be great, if possible, to have something about the sources. How do we know about this mythology? One Georgian ethnologist is briefly mentioned. Are there also older texts or something similar?
  • Mostly it's a lot of oral history and analysis of text fragments. I could put in a paragraph about that. Unfortunately any further detail, if there is any, is likely to be found in Georgian sources I don't know of and couldn't read if I did. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence that states that most is known from oral traditions (maybe aso mention that ethnologist here?) and text fragments would already help a lot I think. Just imagine a reader without any prior knowledge on this topic … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, managed to get a couple of paragraphs; the article now begins with an "Origins" section and I moved the etymology & epithets into a subheader of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • praying that God would cut Dali's hair in return – which god, the Christian god?
  • That was recorded in 1971, so likely the Christian god (the source doesn't say for sure). I'll reword it a bit to make the post-Christianization date clear to the reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not known if there are any surviving artistic depictions of Dali contemporaneous to her period of prominence. – what is her period of prominence? Anything known about the history of this goddess? What is the earliest known date when this goddess was worshipped?
  • That phrase is basically just a cheat to say I couldn't find a single non-modern image that depicts Dali. No idea if the Georgians just didn't make any permanent ones or what. When I was writing the article a few years back, I emailed Prof. Tuite asking for any images he knew of. The magazine scan from the top of the article was the best he could offer me, and he does this for a living, so I have to assume there just isn't anything known, for whatever reason.
    As to the rest, I unfortunately don't have that information, at least in the English-language sources that were accessible to me. I'll double-check Tuite and Virsaladze, but I don't recall either mentioning any solid details about the deep history of her worship. The closest thing was Tuite's speculation that she may have evolved from the Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess Hausōs. The impression I got from all the sources is that there's no solid archaeological evidence, so everything is linguistic and sociological speculation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I don't have a source that specifically says that. It's simply a complete and utter absence of any historical images of her, or even the mention of any such images, in any source at all. It's a lack that seems to be characteristic of Georgian mythology; I've never found any historical images for Q'ursha, Amirani, Samdzimari, Apsat, or Lamaria. I could reword to "it is not clear from available sources whether there are any images...", which is a little more hedgy? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note, in the process of double checking for sources that might discuss images, I came across a few more legitimate-looking sources that I didn't find on my initial scouring, so I've put those aside for a closer look on night shift. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm well, there could be a Georgian source that specifically says there are no such images? If so, then "it is not clear from available sources" is incorrect; also, "source" is ambiguous (the image itself would also be a source). I feel we are on thin ice here, and would opt for removing the sentence completely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, it's possible there's an older Georgian source that mentions images that somehow neither Virsaladze or Tuite ever noticed or mentioned in any of their comprehensively researched works on Dali, but I doubt it. Tuite writes in English but he speaks and reads Georgian, so he has that capability even if I don't. I sent him an email asking if such a thing existed to his knowledge. Last time we talked he was a very quick correspondent, so hopefully I'll have an answer soon. I do think removing the sentence makes the following bit about the chalice a bit abrupt - right now it goes like, "We don't know if there are any images of Dali. This dude thinks this thing shows her, but this other guy isn't so sure." The reader learns that there's an uncertainty, so the second guy being unsure makes sense. Removing the first sentence just leaves "This guy thinks this cup is Dali, but this other guy isn't so sure," which leaves the reader thinking 'okay, and?' ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered the Trialeti Chalice, a Georgian artifact from approximately the 2nd millennium BCE – so the 2nd millennium BCE was a period of prominence? Is there any evidence for this, or is this just speculation by a single researcher?
  • It's just the one guy who thinks it could be Dali. I mentioned the other guy who thinks it's a generic "mistress of beasts" archetype to make a point that it's speculation. It's not meant to imply anything else about Dali. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tkashi-mapa is a redirect to this article. Does that mean that this article is supposed to cover not only the Svan Dali, but also her equivalents of other ethnic groups?
  • Yes, in the same way that Inanna covers both Inanna and Ishtar. Virsaladze treats all of the northern forest/mountain hunting patrons - Dali, the "forest woman", Tkashi-mapa, etc - as one figure interchangeably, so I followed her lead. The only one I singled out for her own article was Samdzimari, who's kind of Dali-adjacent, but with enough significant differences that she's clearly her own thing. (And who Virsalazde doesn't treat as interchangeable with Dali). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then, isn't the article quite biased against the Svan variant? The equivalents are only introduced in the "Caucasian equivalents" section late in the article. This article seems to be about the Svan variant only, and merely compares with the other variants. If you say the other variants should be part of this article, shouldn't they get properly introduced right in the "Etymology" section, and also mentioned by name, in bold, in the lead (and should the whole "Caucasian equivalents" section/its content come much earlier)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this bit in the lead makes the scope fairly clear: She is prominently attested in the stories of the Svan ethnic subgroup in northwestern Georgia, but other groups in western Georgia, such as the Mingrelians, had similar figures considered equivalent to Dali. It's written spotlighting Dali, but...mythologically speaking, the other ones are just local palette swaps of Dali - same description, personality, habitat, stories, just with a different name and occasionally other small touches. Only Samdzimari distibguishes herself as a fully distinct goddess, with her explicitly demonic origin, weird post-sex transformations, and oracular powers. The Inanna article handles the issue the same way, noting the Inanna/Ishtar equivalence in the lead and using Inanna throughout except where highlighting an Ishtar-specific chunk of myth. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the Inanna article has both variants introduced and explained in the etymology section at the very beginning of the article. Why not do the same here? Why not include an etymology of Tkashi-Mapa as well? Why not mention Tkashi-Mapa in the lead, bolded, as is done for Ishtar in the Inanna article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put TM in the lead, bolded. There's no etymology section for her because I never found any sources discussing the etymology of her name. It seems to be a literal translation of "queen of the woods" or "sovereign of the forest", but no one ever seems to get into the origins of it. As for the organization, I still think it fits better under "mythological parallels", because then it flows from "similar Georgian figures" outward to other cultures. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this story, the name of the child's father and the fate of the child are never given. – Why "in this story", are there other stories where they are mentioned? Or can "in this story" be removed?
  • Yeah, in the Amirani story that follows, we know the dad was a married mortal hunter and the baby grew up to be the culture hero Amirani. Both the dad and the baby are relevant characters. In contrast, in this story, Dali's just randomly giving birth, negligently drops her baby for some reason and some guy passing by saves it from a wolf, then annoys Dali by not sleeping with her. We have no context for who dad is, and the baby isn't mentioned again; its existence is basically setup for the actual plotline, which revolves around the hunter. She might as well have dropped her hankie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, Virsaladze found the change from singular goddess to coven of spirits to be a confirmation that Dali had been relegated to a secondary role in Svan hunting mythology; and As Christianity became more prominent in Georgia, many pagan beliefs were altered or appropriated to fit Christian ideology. – is there any hint when this did happen? A very rough estimate (e.g., the century) would be very helpful.
  • I'll review the sources and see if there's anything that gives dates relative to Dali, although as usual I don't think there are. I know Georgia was first preached to in the 1st CE, then officially converted in the 3rd, and between the 5th-10th CE Christianity really became fixed in the country with the development of the Georgian Church. I'll see about integrating that. ♠PMC♠
  • Evidence indicates that Christianity arrived in Georgia in the third century, and I've inserted & cited that. After that, the mythology gradually gets adapted to fit in with Christianity. Unfortunately, because of the lack of written evidence, it's nigh-impossible to assign any kind of chronology to the alterations, even at the level of centuries. Fortunately, I found a source that speaks to that, which is included in the "Origins" section at the top. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been suggested that the Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess Ausos is a possible ancestor of Dali, thereby relating her to several similar goddesses descended from Hausos – Ausos or Hausos?

Comments Support by Kaiser matias

edit

I reviewed this back when it was at Peer Review, and remember then encouraging it to come to FAC. I'm really glad it's here now, and will be happy to give it another review. I'll post some comments shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but wanted to have a chance to properly go through it. As noted I had previously reviewed it at PR, so only have a few minor comments here relating to language use:
  • It may be worth including the Georgian-language (and Mingrelian; they are the same spelling) version of "Tkashi-Mapa": ტყაში-მაფა. Note that the Georgian article uses the spelling "ტყაშმაფა" (Tkashmapa, or Tqashmapa). If you include it in the note there that should be enough.
Done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Racha and Kakheti regions..." Racha is linked but Kakheti isn't. I would link both.
Oops, I think an earlier version may have linked Kakheti earlier in the article. I've fixed it so both are now linked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like noted above, I would also include Georgian-language versions of words like "Dalis panjara" (დალის პანჯარა) in a note or in parenthesis or something. I'll also be honest and say I'm not sure of the MOS standard for something like this, so if I'm way off-base here please let me know. I just feel that for foreign-script words and phrases the original should be included for names like that, especially for languages like Georgian which can have multiple transliterations and original spellings are important for pronunciation and so on.
For Dalis panjara and dalelukdune the original Georgian isn't in either source, so would it still be kosher to include it? Neither is Dæl Ešxwamiš, but I think that's Svan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think including original language names should be an issue, but like I said I'm not familiar with how MOS handles it, and couldn't find anything in my quick look. But unless someone does note it to be an issue, I think it should be fine. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I want to check I got the transliterations right before I stick them in the article, so I emailed Prof. Tuite so make sure. I should hear back from him by tomorrow and then I'll make the changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked with Prof. Tuite. He confirmed the spelling for Dalis panjara since it's Georgian, and says the Georgian script spelling for the Svan phrase dalelukdune is probably right but can't be 100% sure without knowing which Svan dialect it is. I threw both in. He also said the correct spelling for Dæl Ešxwmiš is probably not worth adding, because it uses some Svan letters in a characterset that most people won't have, so it wouldn't add much to the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dælil k'ojas khelghwazhale". I believe this is the transliteration of the Ossetian language title, is it not? It would be good to clarify that.
Tuite mentions it's Svan, but you're right, I'll mention that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great you got in touch with Tuite, who is definitely an authority on the language issue. And I'll trust what he said to be accurate, so my concerns are all addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be Svan, my apologies. Not familiar with their language, so just thought it was Ossetian (they have the letter "æ"). Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely Svan, the Ossetians didn't much care for Dali. They had only a generic "forest woman" - their loss :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I think it would be good to go. Impressive work. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, both here and at the PR so long ago :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I'll give it one more read through to ensure I haven't missed anything, but am leaning towards supporting. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For what it's worth in terms of article quality/accuracy, Prof. Tuite was kind enough to look over the article last week, so I made some adjustments then based on his feedback as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, that's great you got in touch with him. He would definitely be someone who knows what I was asking about, so if he gave his approval then I'm happy, and will support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Spicy

edit

This is a fascinating and impeccably written article, one of the best I have read in a long time. I am fully willing to support based on the quality of the prose (with the caveat that I don't know anything about Georgian mythology - but I see above that it's been reviewed by an academic who specializes in the subject area, so I assume that it's comprehensive and accurate). I have two minor quibbles:

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spicy, thank you for your kind words :) I was quite anxious about the FA process at first but everyone has been so lovely, it's actually been a really fun experience. I've fixed the tur issue - I could have sworn I'd already done it to the point I was getting the weirdest deja vu when inserting the fix, but in any case it's done now. As for Konstantine Bregadze, I'm comfortable calling him a subject-matter expert. He's an associate professor and is on the faculty board for humanities at Tbilisi State University and has published a reasonable amount on modern Georgian literature ([[12],[13]). The translator, Irma Ratiani, is a TSU professor - it's possible that Cambridge Scholars was simply an easy way to get an English translation published? I can't imagine many English-language publishers would be otherwise eager to publish the translated proceedings of a Georgian conference on a somewhat-narrow field of study. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the authors' credentials check out so I'm satisfied. Excellent work. Spicy (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG Support

edit

I usually start at the bottom and look at technical stuff before reading.

I have some gadget or script or something that detects HarvRef errors, and it is returning errors at:

  • Virsaladze 1976 ... Harv error: link from CITEREFVirsaladze1976 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Camuri 1993 ... Harv error: link from CITEREFCamuri1993 doesn't point to any citation.
And these errors are triggering multiple hidden error categories, which will result in the article being listed on FAs needing maintenance-- not what we want :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style; sporadic hyphens used instead of WP:ENDASHes on page ranges, and inconsistent use of pp. v p., for example:

  • Khardziani 2006, pp. 206–207. has an endash on the page range, and uses pp for multiple pages, but
  • Virsaladze 2017, p. 13-14.
  • Virsaladze 2017, p. 23-24.
  • Rapp 2007, p. 137-138. all use hyphens instead of endash and use p. for page range instead of pp. Consistency needed. These are samples only, review throughout needed. I used to be able to fix these for you with a script: I don't know why it won't respond now, sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I would assume it's the sfn system causing the script headaches? In any case, I've gone through and (hopefully) have fixed it all now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". Since FAs should be comprehensive already, we need some explanation for why these links are given in See also rather than within the article. Are they all necessary? Would a brief annotation on each, as described at WP:SEEALSO be helpful? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that WP:SEEALSO is phrased that way. It seems to almost define the sections out of existence the better the article is, which is odd - as though a comprehensive article shouldn't have a see also at all. But it isn't always the case where a complete article on a specialized topic will discuss all possible relevant links - sometimes you want to refer the reader to similar concepts that would either be UNDUE if you got into them in the main text, or they aren't discussed in the sources. Anyway, I'm rambling.
The links in the section are other thematically similar goddesses I've come across. None were discussed in any of the sources, since they're not from related mythologies, so they aren't discussed in-text. I would prefer to annotate the section than to remove it, if that's okay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed one that wasn't super-relevant on review, and annotated the rest. Thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK Georgian language is linked twice in the first paragraph. And then repeatedly throughout the article. I think that's an artifact of the language template, but there may be a way to override that? Duplinks pulls up nothing else of concern, so this small issue may not be worthy worrying about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a parameter on {{lang}} that lets you turn the linkage off. I guess I could yank the templates after the first one, since it's kind of obvious they're Georgian? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth worrying about! Just popped up on duplinks, which I know Coord Ian Rose will check. It is most likely caused by the template, so let the template creators fix it :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I did wind up asking about it at Template talk:Lang just in case :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, I see you got a workable answer there ... and an explanation for why this one doesn’t work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot to go back and check for another reply. I've replaced all but the first instance (and the one in the lead image caption) with the non-linking version. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the usual MOS-y stuff I check, and I will settle in next for a complete read. None of the typical problematic overuse on Wikipedia of However, subsequently, in total, and the like, and no other MOS-y things I noticed. Very glad to see you here, PMC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to begin reading yet ... talk page disruption. If you are able to remember, please leave spaces between posts for my old eyes :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, didn't realize. Happy to see you taking a look at this! Hopefully it's up to snuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy? How does now-lost differ from lost? ... had her origins in a now-lost common religion of the Kartvelian peoples. How does fully clear differ from clear? The etymology of Dali's name is not fully clear.
  • I don’t know what a round dance song is, and the article at round dance describes ballroom dancing. dance songs; same thing?
  • He connected the motif of the animals on the lower portion of the chalice to the hoofed animals which Dali served as the protector of. —> hoofed animals which Dali protected?
  • Taboo is used in the lead but first linked in etymology ... link on first occurrence.
  • One ... them? One Svan story describes the consequences for three brothers who follow one of Dali's mountain goats up into the crags and attempt to shoot them.
  • Not sure what the critique is here to be honest. One story, so that's singular. Multiple goats are being followed and shot at, so plural them referring to the goats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this article has a remarkable clarity of prose and organization, which (like good theatre) looks simple once accomplished, but must have been quite difficult to achieve. My points above are nitpicks, and don't prevent me from supporting. I do have some additional queries about the lead:
  • goddess who appears in the mythology --> goddess in the mythology?
  • "Similar" redundant? Other groups had similar figures considered equivalent ... Also, can this sentence be moved to the end of that para?
  • Can "associated with hoofed beasts" be worked in to the first paragraph? It is first mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the lead.

All of these may be stylistic, personal choice, or reflect my ignorance of the topic :) Congratulations on a mighty fine FA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tweaked the "appears" thing. I think "similar figures" sets up the equivalency, so I left it in, but I wouldn't die on a hill protecting it if you strongly object. I moved the sentences about her theme to before the location ones. The first paragraph of the lead already said "patron of wild mountain animals such as ibex and deer" but I threw "hoofed" in there. Thank you for taking the time to have a look at this, I'm glad you enjoyed it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check that short cites to multiple pages consistently use "pp." and single pages use "p." - some are the wrong way round
  • Okay, that should all be fixed now. I also changed the citations to Hunt 2012 to have the "loc" parameter instead of "p" since there are no page numbers in the e-book, only chapters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rapp has a stray ref tag
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Charachidzé 1993: what were the original publication details?
  • Charachidzé, G. 1981. "Georgia. The religion and myths of the Georgians of the mountains." Dictionary of mythologies and religions of traditional societies and the ancient world . (ed. Yves Bonnefoy). Vol 1, pp 451–459. Paris: Flammarion.
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date and how these are formatted
  • What makes Jordania & Kane a high-quality reliable source?
  • With regards to both location for books and publisher for periodical, I included as much information as I could find about the sources. In some cases, I was not able to find location or publisher, so they have been omitted. I'll double check the sources to be sure, but I was pretty thorough the first time around. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use questions by Haukur (image removed, issue resolved)

edit
  • Congratulations on a cool article! I am somewhat concerned about the fair use image. It seems unfortunate to me that we don't know who the artist is or even really when the drawing was made. Is it even necessarily clear that it was first published in 2013? Could we write to the magazine editors and ask them if they could provide more information? Haukur (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double checked the email from Prof Tuite where he sent me the image back in 2017, and at that time he did mention that the magazine didn't give the author or any other details. The magazine doesn't appear to currently have a web presence, and I can't speak a lick of Georgian, so writing to the editors doesn't seem realistic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe someone in Category:Wikipedians from Georgia (country) could help figure this out. But let me elaborate a bit on my concerns here. Someone did this nice little drawing of Dali that we are using without their permission and without even crediting them. I think that's a shame but the lack of credit also weakens the fair use case. We are, furthermore, using the entire drawing (naturally) and our use is not really transformative. We have no critical commentary on the artwork, nor can we add any since that would be original research. So it's quite different from a case like The Persistence of Memory where the article is about a particular image. I just don't think the fair use case here is strong. Haukur (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you're coming from; I just don't think your expectation is realistic. If the magazine (which may or may not be defunct) didn't include the credit for the original image, it's hard to imagine that seven years later they would have that information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find that hard to imagine or unrealistic at all. If they commissioned it from some artist specifically for that article then the editors probably would remember. And if it was an image they got from an old book or some such they might well remember that too. It's been seven years, not seventy, and it's Georgia, not Alpha Centauri. Maybe, say, User:Anry.kiknavelidze, User:Beneto9 or User:BRUTE could help us track down contact information for the editors of Nadiroba (ნადირობა). Is it this magazine? [14] Haukur (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point remains that if they don't have a web presence or other available method of internet-based contact, it's not realistic to expect an English-speaking editor from Canada to attempt to contact them. I don't speak the language. I am not going to pay for a translator for a long-distance phone call. I don't have an address for them, and even if I did, I am not going to write them a machine-translated snail mail letter and wait god knows how long for a reply that may or may not come.
    Having typed the title of the cover you posted into Google translate, it appears to be a publication entitled ნადირობა თევზაობა/Hunting Fishing. I have no way to know if it's the same magazine, or simply one with a similar title. Google searching the phrase was not illuminating.
    Since none of the editors you randomly pinged have edited since August (and only BRUTE seems to have been really active ever), I've asked Emperor of Emperors, who speaks Georgian and has read over Georgian content for me before, to have a look and see if he can help. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be patronizing. I'm well aware that Georgia has the internet, but you're consistently failing to acknowledge that the magazine has zero evident web presence, complicated by the fact that its name is a common word. If the company you want me to reach has zero web presence, all the internet penetration in the world isn't going to help anyone actually get through to them through the internet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors of a magazine will be very likely to have e-mail addresses and appropriate contact information is likely listed in the magazines themselves. We routinely hunt down sources and information more obscure than this. Haukur (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*I heard back from Professor Tuite, who confirmed he doesn't know the precise authorial details of the image or the contact details of the editing staff, but has kindly offered to ask around on social media for me since he speaks Georgian and Svan. If he doesn't find anything, I hope that is sufficient indication that the information is not reasonably publicly accessible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings User:Haukurth. I'll search about the magazine to find out the credits for the img. User:Premeditated Chaos will post here and will let you know. Regards. An emperor /// Ave 03:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Haukur (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's been clearly established that the image in question is Georgian or originally intended to portray Dali. I suspect this is originally meant to be Devana, who is frequently depicted wearing a bear hide.[15] And, indeed, we can find online usage of our image where it is said to depict Devana.[16][17] Haukur (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomorrow, I will start trying to track down the editors, writers or whoever I can find from the journal, but I sincerely doubt that anyone will be able to indicate the author. Given the nature of the journal, I honestly think it was just a scan from another source when it was used in it in the first place, it might not be the picture of Dali at all. Anyway, I'll engage other Georgian Wikipedians and try finding something out. — Anry.kiknavelidze (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) With all due respect, Haukurth, you are making a staggering assumption of bad faith. Back in 2017, Professor Tuite, who speaks Georgian and writes about the Caucasus for a living, provided me with a scan of the entire magazine page, which is in Georgian. I cropped it to upload just the image. He specifically mentioned the image was accompanied in the Georgian magazine by a Svan story called "Dali's Revenge". So...you're saying that a literal professor is incorrect about the origin of an image he scanned and provided to me, based on a Google image search that turned up an upload to some sketchy Russian sites, one of which is clearly dated in 2018 (one year after I uploaded the image to Wikipedia)? It's genuinely beginning to feel like you have some kind of weird axe to grind here, which I can't understand, as I don't think we've ever even interacted before.
    I've forwarded the magazine page scan to Emperor of Emperors so he can have a look and confirm that it's indeed Georgian and accompanied by a Svan story entitled "Dali's Revenge." Holy shit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We interacted cordially last month and I don't remember ever being in any conflict with you. I have nothing against you and no agenda here except the quality of the encyclopedia (and, I guess, my personal curiosity and long-standing interest in mythological imagery). And, for what it's worth, I am "a literal professor" too, though not in matters Georgian. I have no doubt at all that the magazine article was published exactly as you say and do not in the least suspect you of any deception. Here's what I think happened: The magazine editors had an article on Dali. They wanted to illustrate it. They found, like you, that there aren't many illustrations of Dali going around. So, to have something there, they used an image of another hunting goddess which seemed to fit closely enough. The image looks a lot like other images of Devana while it fits the descriptions of Dali rather poorly. By your own account the magazine has no information on the provenance of the image. Multiple online sources describe it as showing Devana. I think it is more likely to be Devana than Dali. Let's see if we can find confirmation. Haukur (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • <eatingcrow>I really wish I'd slept through till the afternoon like I normally do after my night shifts. I just got an email about ten minutes ago from Prof Tuite that I really wish I'd gotten before writing the above reply (and I would've, if I'd slept to my usual time). The long and short of it is that he agrees with your conclusion that it depicts Devana, not Dali, and was probably, as you suggest, swiped from somewhere unknown as filler.</eatingcrow> I apologize for losing my temper. I was frustrated, but shouldn't have snapped at you because of it. I'll pull the image. (As a side note, I totally forgot about the Fish & Karate sock thing, and that it was you). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm done. I think you did the right thing by pulling the image but it really is a pity that we don't have a depiction like that of this interesting figure. Congratulations again on this detailed and informative article. Haukur (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Premeditated Chaos. I've received the magazine page scan and I confirm it is image of Dali. I am also still searching the web try to get any contact for the magazine. Will keep you updated. Regards. An emperor /// Ave 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emperor of Emperors, hey man, don't worry about it, it's probably not Dali after all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ohh its a pity :( Is there any way we can get image of Dali painted by modern painters? An emperor /// Ave 21:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought about that, but I'm not sure it's entirely kosher with regards to being original research. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would WP:NFURG apply for this image? Author is credited. Image #4. An emperor /// Ave 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An illustration by an established Georgian artist (say, one of these) would be appropriate and, in principle, we could try to commission a work like that. I'd be happy to chip in, say, $100 for a freely licensed artwork. Getting a less-known Georgian artist to do it might be more financially doable but also less clearly appropriate. I don't know. Our illustration at the Devana article is apparently by a contemporary artist about whom we don't have an article. Haukur (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be a well-known Georgian artist (or even a Georgian artist)? There's plenty of people on social media available for commissions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I guess it would feel a bit more authentic coming from a Georgian artist? Then again it's not like the illustrations in Skaði are all by Icelandic artists, indeed, none of them are. Haukur (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone, a new image has been located

edit
  • Okay, stop the presses, hold the phones, cancel any checks we've been cutting, etc etc. There's a Svan Facebook group and they sent over a culturally-accurate image of Dali created by a Svan artist, published in a Svan book from 1969. And we even know his name. I can die happy now. Pinging Haukurth, Buidhe, and Nikkimaria to confirm I haven't made a dog's breakfast of the non-free rationale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vast improvement - white clothes, golden hair, ibex, clear provenance. Also, I rather like the style. I think crediting the artist by name in the text accompanying the image in the article would be appropriate, like so for instance: "Dali by Georgian artist Vakhtang Oniani, published in 1969". A version of the image posted to Facebook has somewhat darker colors.[18] Maybe Dr. Tuite's copy is a little faded? Or maybe the other version has been artificially modified, I don't know. The artist seems to be born in 1932 and is apparently still alive. I still think claiming fair use for something like this is really pushing it legally but I'm not going to pick a fight over it. Haukur (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah not sure what's up with the color difference. I like the current version better than the darker one; I think the darker one is a digital tweak. I've updated the caption per your suggestion :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, that's great you were able to locate that image :) An emperor /// Ave 02:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, all credit goes to the Svan people on Facebook who provided it to Prof. Tuite, who sent it to me. I am merely the fortunate uploader :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Svans truely love Dali! :) An emperor /// Ave 03:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

Hi Premeditated Chaos, am I correct in saying that this would be your first Featured article? This looks to be ready, but it's customary as such to get some source spot-checks on your nomination. Hopefully someone who's looked at your sources can provide a few. I've added the request to our list. --Laser brain (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laser brain, it is indeed my first FA. Thanks for adding that for me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Spicy

edit

Looks like this is just waiting on the spotchecks so I will go ahead and do it. As I said before, this subject is pretty far out of my usual editing area so forgive me if some of my comments are stupid.

  • 4: (Tuite 2006 p. 3). [a][b][c][d][f] all check out. On [e], the article's phrasing is a little close to the source: "She gives him a token of their love — a bead, ring or charm [twæl]— and requires him to avoid all contact with human females, including his own wife" vs. " She gives him a token of her favor (Tuite translates it as "a bead, ring, or charm") and demands that he abstain from the touch of mortal females, including his own wife". Probably not close enough to be problematic though.
  • 11 (Rapp 2007 pp. 137-138): [a] I assume this is used to support "the arrival of Christianity in Georgia, which began in approximately the 3rd century." The source says "Several lines of archaeological evidence ... have shown beyond any doubt that a small Christian presence already existed in eastern Georgia in the third century". Is this strong enough to claim that it began then? The wording implies it is possible that it began earlier but no evidence from those periods has yet been found. [b] checks out.
  • Turns out the arrival of Christianity in Georgia is one of those annoying topics where there are so many search hits that it's difficult to find a citation for specific facts. So, there's a tradition in the Georgian Orthodox Church that Andrew the Apostle preached to Georgia in the 1st century after Jesus's death, but there's no concrete historical evidence for this and it doesn't seem to have developed until a few centuries later (see Rapp 138). There's some archaeological evidence for upper-class conversions as early as the 3rd century (Christianization of Iberia cites Haas, C. (2008) Mountain Constantines: The Christianization of Aksum and Iberia, p 114 for that although I don't have access and haven't read it). The official conversion of Georgia didn't occur till Saint Nino preached to the king in the 4th century and he officially adopts Christianity in 326.([19], although that the source uncritically accepts the Andrew the Apostle story so I wouldn't cite it in the article).
  • I could reword to something like, "the adoption of Christianity in Georgia, which archaeological evidence indicates began as early as the 3rd century." Does that work? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 (Hunt 2003 p. 82) - checks out. But isn't "female mistress" redundant?
  • 25 (Camuri, Fossati & Mathpal 1993, p. 123.) [a][b][c] - from what I can tell from the google snippet, looks okay. I imagine "unlike Dali she was known for prudishness rather than promiscuity" is supported by the other sources or elsewhere in the text?
  • I could insert a citation for it if you want, but Artemis being the goddess of chastity is in the lead of her article, so I figured it didn't need an individual citation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, the fact that Artemis is the goddess of chastity might not need a citation, but I think the comparison between Dali's promiscuity and Artemis's chastity does; by comparing the two of them you're producing a novel analysis that isn't in the sources (even if it's a very basic analysis). And the way the sentence is phrased implies that the sources explicitly say this: "Some sources have noted a similarity to the Greek goddess Artemis ... although unlike Dali she was known for prudishness rather than promiscuity."
  • BTW, is there a typo in the page number for ref 130? Page 152 doesn't say anything about Dali, while page 15 (which is what the google books URL links to) does. Spicy (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, yeah, that was a typo and I've fixed it. As for the comparison, I don't think it's an analysis, it's simply a presentation of two facts: Dali is consistently portrayed as sexually aggressive, and Artemis was a total prude. It doesn't draw any original conclusion from those facts, which I agree would be problematic. I could cut it into two sentences if that makes it more palatable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few refs are out of order: " "Angel of the Crags".[21][19] " " or at the summit of the mountain.[25][21]" "Her skin was so white it was literally radiant.[25][15]"
  • 37 (Kveselava 1958, p. 224.) - checks out
  • 41 (Mikaberidze 2015, p. 121.) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 46 (Tuite 2006, p. 18) - [a] checks out; [b] the part about punishing the greedy is not really explicitly stated, but it's supported elsewhere in the text e.g. p. 2., so okay; [c] checks out
  • 52 (Davidson & Chaudhri 1993, p. 157) - checks out
  • 55 (Salia 1983, p. 32.) - can't see this page on google books, would you mind posting a quote?
  • I have a PDF of this if you want it emailed. Here's the relevant paragraph: "In the Svan tribe hunting, especially hunting the ibex, is a ceremonial act of sacrifice. When the hunters set out they are provided with sacrificial bread, called lamsir, a small jug of wine, wax candles and a piece of smoked ibex.

The hunters halt when they come to a turning in the path. They bathe their faces in spring water, light the candles, take three rolls of bread, turn to the East and pray to the goddess of hunting, Dali. After they have eaten they continue on their way." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 64 (Virsaladze 2017, p. 206) - Getting a 404 error on the PDF
  • Yeah, it's permafucked now unfortunately, not sure why. I have a copy I can email you, and there is also a full copy on docplayer. Not sure if it's kosher to link to it, although the Georgian Academy doesn't seem to object to it being there - I emailed them asking to buy a physical copy of the book and they told me to read it on docplayer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 72 (Chaudhri 2002, p. 171.) - can't access this page on google books either
  • 82 (Tuite 1997, p. 11.) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 87 (Khardziani 2006, p. 206) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 91 ( Monaghan 2014, p. 297. ) - checks out
  • 112 (Hunt 2003, p. 89.) - [a] had to read a few more pages to understand this but seems ok since this is essentially summarizing the overall point of the paper; [b] checks out
  • 121 (Chirikba 2015, pp. 162–163) - mentions the Kumyk forest goddess but does not contrast it with Dali or the hunting goddess archetype, I assume the other sources do so?
  • It's a bit contextual with the rest of the paragraph. Virsaladze gets into it on pages 36 & 85 a little more, but essentially in regions of the Caucasus that have a "forest woman" (who is a spirit rather than a worshipped goddess), there's no hunting goddess. In those areas, the hunting goddess has either been replaced culturally by a male figure like Ochopintre, or she was never a thing in the first place. So the Kumyks having a forest woman in that vein means they don't have a hunting goddess. (Unfortunately I couldn't find a source that got farther into the Kumyks specifically so I don't know what they had instead.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 128 (Bakker 2013, p. 84) - [a] and [b] check out
  • 150 & 151 (Astronomical Union Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature) - checks out
  • 153 ( Bukhsianidze & Vekua 2006, p. 159.) - checks out
  • 154 (Kir 2014, p. 2) - content checks out but I am deeply skeptical of the journal it is published in. Their website is full of typos and is distinctly unprofessional looking, they are using a fake impact factor, and they proudly state that they are indexed by Google... why is an Indian journal publishing articles on Georgian literature (and dozens of other unrelated subjects according to their website?) The article itself has numerous major grammatical errors, suggesting an insufficient review process, and the "How to cite this article" section gives the citation for a completely different article! In short this is very sketchy and shows every sign of being a predatory journal. Granted, the author is apparently a humanities professor at a Georgian university, and "a novelist wrote about Dali" is not exactly an exceptional claim - but is it possible to find a better source for this? Maybe a Georgian speaking editor could help?
  • Yeahhhhhhhhhh I knew this one was marginal when I threw it in. I did try to search in Georgian for something better (I know I don't read it, but a brute-force Google search sometimes works) and unfortunately Gamsakhurdia's son, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, married a woman named Dali Lolua, so the search hits are all noise from her name. Keeping it in isn't a hill I'll die on by any stretch, but I do think it helps bolster the overall theme of her being relevant in modern literature. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty uncomfortable with using a possibly predatory journal... I tried out my google skills as well and did not find much. There seems to be an article for Capturing the Moon at ka:მთვარის_მოტაცება, which has a decent number of sources; maybe some of these might mention Dali? I also found this on Google Books; according to Google Translate, it contains the text "What can I do, I unhappy, who believes neither Dali nor Satan? "Capturing the Moon" is a detailed description of hunting ..." (მე რა ვქნა , მე უბედურმა , ვისაც არც დალი სწამს და არც სატანა ? ... მთვარის მოტაცებაში “ ზედმიწევნით არის აღწერილი ნადირობასთან ...) Emperor of Emperors, are you able to comment on the Georgian sources? Many thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, for what it's worth I replaced the citation to Kir with one to the above-quoted book. On page 4 it lists a bunch of Georgian deities and page 29 mentions the novel specifically (god bless Google snippets and Google translate), so I've cited that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I don't have any concerns about copyvio or close paraphrasing; there is a single sentence that could perhaps be rephrased slightly but that is not a major issue. Nothing concerning on the Earwig report. Spicy (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in for the source check, Spicy, I really appreciate it. I've responded to several of your comments and made some changes. I have to head out now but should be able to get to the rest tomorrow evening. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads up, I threw in another source - [21] - and expanded the last paragraph of the Origins section, after I turned it up last night while searching Dali/Artemis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [22].

Yusuf I of Granada

edit
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the seventh Sultan of the Nasrid Emirate of Granada, the last Muslim state on the Iberian peninsula (five of the previous Sultans have passed featured article reviews). From the military and geopolitical point of view, during his rule Muslims in the Iberian peninsula suffered various setbacks, including the major defeat at the Battle of Río Salado and the loss of the strategic port of Algeciras. Nevertheless, his rule is seen as the cultural peak of this small emirate: numerous men of learning and culture served at his court and he embarked on construction projects, including new structures in the Alhambra, and a madrasa (educational institution) in the capital. I believe it is ready to be considered for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Constantine

edit

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 13:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • After gaining more power is *more* power correct here? WOuld it not be better to say that he gained "effective control of the government" or similar?
    Done
  • in Castilian territories -> into Castilian territory
    Done
  • You still want the singular. "into Castilian territory" = "into Castilian lands", where as "into Castilian territories" implies various distinct territories under Castilian control. Here you just want to convey the former.
  • Done
  • but the city fell in March 1344, followed by a ten-year peace treaty with Castile. would recommend ending the sentence after 1344, and then beginning a new one "A ten-year peace treaty with Castile followed".
    Done
  • I don't see that (?).
Done. Huh, I thought I did it. HaEr48 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso XI broke the treaty and invaded again in 1349 would recommend to put the year first ("In 1349, ...")
    Done
Early life
  • after the victory at the siege of Gibraltar. since there will be another siege of Gibraltar mentioned in the article, I would recommend something like "after repulsing a Castilian siege of Gibraltar", and, to foreshadow events even more, perhaps adding "with help from the Marinid Sultanate of Morocco" or similar.
    Done
  • there was no mention of why perhaps "the sources are silent as to why"
    Done
  • Hmmm, looking at Vidal Castro's article, he writes that it was the Banu Abi'l-Ula who proclaimed him emir, and that "Although the Christian sources affirm, on the other hand, that it was the vizier Ridwan who, from the camp of Guadiaro, went in haste to Granada (more than 200 km distant) to proclaim the new sultan, what appears certain is that the act of proclamation (the oath of allegiance) took place in the Muslim camp in the vicinity of Gibraltar". Is there a reason for this omission?
    I missed reading this version from Vidal Castro. Now added. It resulted in some reorganization of the background content, because now I need to explain the relevant actors and their motives. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • following the report of the Christian chronicles, -> "who follow the reports of the Christian chronicles"
Geopolitical history
  • Is "Geopolitical history" really the best name? It sounds more like a university course. Why not simply "Reign" or "Foreign policy"?
  • Fine by me, and better at any rate.
Background
  • The emirate was the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula, founded by Muhammad I in the 1230s -> Founded by Muhammad I in the 1230s, the Emirate of Granada....
    Done.
  • I don't see that (?).
  • the Muslim Marinid Sultanate in Morocco -> the Muslim Marinid Sultanate across the sea in Morocco
    Done.
  • I don't see that (?).
  • relationship as such, and Muhammad I, for instance end the sentence at "as such" and begin a new one
    Done.
  • the powerful commander Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula -> the powerful Granadan commander Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula, or something to make clear that Uthman was actually his own subject
    Done: "Granada's powerful commander Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula" HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, this wording might be confusing: was he "commander of Granada"? If so, what exactly was that? I'd suggest removing the ambiguity and either simply mention that he was a "Granadan commander" without further details, or give the detail: "Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula, the powerful commander of Granada's Volunteers of the Faith,..."
  • He had to yield Ronda, Marbella, and Algeciras in exchange for a military alliance -> In exchange for the Marinid alliance, he had to...}}
    Done.
  • politically motivated plot by Abu Thabit ibn Uthman and Ibrahim ibn Uthman, prominent members of the Banu Abi al-Ula family -> "politically motivated plot by Uthman's sons Abu Thabit and Ibrahim", and possibly drop the rest, since obviously the sons of Uthman would be prominent members in their own family.
    My worry is readers don't follow from simply the "ibn Uthman" that they were sons of the Uthman mentioned earlier. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean keeping the "ibn Uthman" bit, then no problem. But now I also suggest Abu Thabit ibn Uthman and Ibrahim ibn Uthman, sons of Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula who died in 1330 and the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith -> "Abu Thabit ibn Uthman and Ibrahim ibn Uthman. They were the sons of Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula, who died in 1330, and his successors as the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith"
  • leaders of the North African Volunteers of the Faith, the corps of North Africans strike the first "North African" to avoid redundancy
    Done.
Early peace
  • a four year duration -> "a four-year duration"
    Done.
  • into the peninsula -> "into the [Iberian] Peninsula" for clarity
    Probably redundant because the preceding sentence already says "Iberian Peninsula". HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, OK.
  • link Alfonso IV of Aragon and Peter IV and add regnal dates
    Done.
Marinid-Granadan war against Castile
  • to fight against Muslims perhaps link here to Reconquista?
    Done.
  • Granadan-Aragonese, like Marinid-Granadan etc needs endash per MOS:ENDASH
    Done.
  • add regnal years to Afonso IV of Portugal
    Done.
  • five miles from Tarifa as with all distances, I recommend using the convert template and adding km as well
    Done.
  • when Christian reinforcements arrived where these additional to the troop strength mentioned before?
    The source only says "reinforcements". But to me, the obvious reading is that other parts of the army simply reinforced Afonso's formation, so it was not an addition to the strength mentioned before. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • were routed in the main battle what is the reason for emphasizing the 'main' part? Were there secondary engagements?
    It's to emphasize that Granada and Portugal only formed the smaller part of their respective armies, and whatever happened to the Marinids and the Castilians were the most important part. Thoughts? HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then "in the main battle against the Castilians"
  • per Vidal Castro, add that the Granadans conquered Carcabuey in 1339
    Done.
  • Vidal Castro also emphasizes the enormous human cost of the defeat to Granada, as many "wise men, intellectuals and politicians [who] died in the battle, to which they had participated as volunteers".
    Done.
  • Add that they had joined as volunteers/fought in the battle (e.g., Among the fallen were many intellectuals and officials" or similar), as otherwise it is unclear how intellectuals and officials were lost. The phrasing leaves it open that they died as a consequence of the battle , not during it.
After Salado
  • Would recommend 'After Río Salado' for the section name, since in English, if "Río" is left untranslated, the whole must be treated as the name of the battle.
    Done.
  • bulk of the Marinids "bulk of the Marinid forces/army"
    Done.
Administration
  • replacing his father who died at Salado as above, "who died at Río Salado"
    Done.
Death and legacy
  • A maniac stabbed him given that attributing royal murders to 'madmen' has been a *very* convenient excuse throughout history, I'd refrain from adopting this, or at least phrasing it like this. Say that he was stabbed, that the motive is unknown, and that the murderer was unintelligible, which has led historians to consider him a madman. Whether he truly was, we cannot really know. Vidal Castro even reports a different story, that he was a bastard son of Muhammad IV, and that he had been incited to the act by others.
    Rephrased that the attribution to a madman was done by Arab historians, and included the alternative motive proposed by Vidal Castro. HaEr48 (talk)
  • the flourishing of the study of medicine is there some work or name of a scholar that can be given as an example?
    Ibn al-Khatib himself was a physician (in addition to his many disciplines/occupations), and his theory on epidemics has been of interest to historians of medicine. Fernández-Puertas mentioned three other notable doctors during Yusuf's reign along with their deeds. Should I mention them somewhere? They're not directly related to Yusuf's own life, and at this point, I'm a bit worried about adding too much details. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reasonable concern, but at least an example is never amiss, as it helps the interested reader. You can add precisely this ("...flourishing of the study of medicine, of which Ibn al-Khatib's theory on epidemics is a good example, continuing to be studied even by modern scholars" or similar), or simply write a brief section with all the names and add it in a footnote if you think they overwhelm the main text.
  • After looking more specifically, Ibn al-Khatib's medical works were produced during the reign of Muhammad V so I'll hold it off for now. Added details on the 3 said scholars npw. HaEr48 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, the section on the medical scholars disrupts the flow a bit, especially with the "describes the reigns of these two sultans" that follows. Recommend moving them to a footnote.
General
  • Vidal Castro's account has some things that are missing. Just a handful from glancing at it:
    • The treatment of his two brothers, Faraj and Ismail
    • Yusuf's appreciation for al-Ghazali and mysticist leanings
      • Done.
    • That all subsequent sultans of the name Yusuf adopted his kunya
      • I saw this but I'm not sure about whether this is special. Looking at the family tree, all rulers of the same given name have the same kunya (e.g. Muhammad = Abu Abdallah, Yusuf = Abu al-Hajjaj, Ismail = Abu al-Walid).
  • Fine by me.

That's it for now. A very well-written article, apart from minor prose issues. The main issue I see and that worries me, just from glancing at Vidal Castro sporadically during my read-through, is that several details are omitted, sometimes rather important ones (e.g. his proclamation, or the alternative version on the origin and motives of his assassin, for example). I strongly recommend re-reading and utilizing him to the fullest as a source, unless there exists a good reason for not doing so (e.g. scholarly consensus against him, but then this is a topic of contention and should be mentioned in the article); otherwise in my view criterion 1b, comprehensiveness, is not satisfied. In view of this, I will wait until all my points are addressed and then do another read-through, checking particularly for comprehensive coverage in Vidal Castro and other sources used in this article. Constantine ✍ 20:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for taking a look and for your review. I'll respond to the comprehensiveness issue first - I admit after gathering information from mainly Fernández-Puertas, Harvey, and Arié, I didn't look at Vidal Castro's entry as closely as I should. Since you've found information there that can materially improve the article, I'll go read it again and more closely, add new information as necessary, respond to the other feedback and then ping you again when I'm done. Thank you for bringing this up, and glad to have a reviewer who read Spanish (In one past review I got into trouble for relying too much on non-English sources!). HaEr48 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. As I said, the article is a fine piece of work as it stands, and I enjoyed reading it. It was therefore surprising to notice this omission, but I know it can happen that a source can be neglected when writing an article amidst juggling a dozen other sources; that's what these reviews are for, to detect and flag such issues. So take your time, and ping me when you're ready. Constantine ✍ 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, re 'In one past review I got into trouble for relying too much on non-English sources!' that should not happen, there is absolutely no such requirement. Per WP:NONENG, English sources should be preferred when available and of equal quality and relevance, which of course will not be the case in a great many cases. Constantine ✍ 06:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Responded to all of your comments above, and I've milked Vidal Castro for more information, as you suggested. In addition to the specific information you've pointed out above, I've added additional background information, edifices attributed to Yusuf, and other events during his reign. I think it is ready for another review, let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the changes, and it looks good, apart from a couple of minor points. Haven't yet had the chance to do a thorough read-through comparison with the references, but will try to do so ASAP. Constantine ✍ 20:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: responded to your remaining points. HaEr48 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Looks good, apart from one final, minor, remark. I did a quick read-through and a spotcheck on the sources, can't find anything to complain about. So I am happy to support now. Well done! Constantine ✍ 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for looking at the article, your very constructive feedback, and your support! HaEr48 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.

Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

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

I looked at this for GoCE and assessed it at GAN and it looked pretty good. Let's see how it stacks up for FAC.

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

Those seem correct, and thank you very much. 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
True, but you need to use the lang template for other foreign words, eg "umm walad", "laqab" etc.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon his accession he took the laqab (honorific or regnal name) al-Mu'ayyad billah ("He who is aided by God"). The founder of the dynasty, Muhammad I, had taken a laqab (al-Ghalib billah, "Victor by the grace of God")" The first laqab is in italics (no template), the second isn't. Is a laqab a proper name or not?
It is a proper name. Removed italics to be consistent. HaEr48 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Master of the Order of Alcántara". Perhaps a note of what the Order of Alcántara was - in addition to the Wikilink? Likewise the Order of Santiago?
    I tried and can't come up with a clean way to explain inline without distracting the prose too much, so I added a footnote. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine.
"in" means actually within the city; "at" means somewhere near but not necessarily within the city. I don't know which but suspect the latter.
Yes, I read the source again and confirmed it is the latter. 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
That's my new thing for today then.

Nice additions and improvements since I last looked at it. Just the few picky points above from me for you to consider. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: As always, thank you for looking and for your review and copyedit. I have responded above. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. A couple of actionable responses above, and a further thought below.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quality addition to your series. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your support, and sorry my last round of responses took so long. I was trying to fill the gap pointed out by Constantine above before continuing with the prose changes. HaEr48 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. I suspected that was the case; no worries - Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad this image is so small[23], I couldn't find a larger version, though...
Indeed, me neither. HaEr48 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another cool image[24][25] (the two versions could be spliced together so there would be no watermarks), but since no artist or source is listed, it's difficult to demonstrate if it's in the public domain... FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need more information on authorship or date. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his mother, Bahar, an umm walad (freed concubine)" Do we know anything about her background, ethnicity?
Not in my current sources. I sent this RX request which I hope will help [26], but no promises. I will reply again when I have access to that source. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added that she was from the Christian lands, which is as specific as the source says. Also, found other tidbits about the mother and other women in his life, I added them here, hopefully it helps adding more color to the biography. HaEr48 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More names and terms could maybe be linke din captions?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to "Castilian chronicles" and "Christian chronicles", are these the same?
    Yes, changed all to Castilian to avoid confusion. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strait to Ceuta the same night. [31]" Unnecessary space before citation.
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yusuf presided over court activities from a wooden folding armchair that is currently preserved in the Museum of the Alhambra and bears the Nasrid coat of arms across its back" Sounds like something that would be fun to show, but I can't find any photos form that museum...
    If you're curious, this appears to be a duplicate/modeled after the one in the museum, but the picture is copyrighted (not to mention rather ugly). HaEr48 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the bags are a, err, nice touch... FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: thank you for reading and the review. I have responded to all your points above. Let me know if you have other feedback. 02:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Just a few things.
  • "Abu Nu'aym Ridwan, who was present at Muhammad IV's assassination, rode quickly to the capital," This would be Granada, I assume?
  • "They signed a new treaty at Fez, in Morocco," Was this within the Marinid Sultanate?
  • " Among the fallen were many of Granadan intellectuals and officials.[2]" Possibly "Granadan" should be "Granada's".
  • Ceuta is not linked. Neither is Murcia. Or Seville. Or Guadix.
  • "Still in the Alhambra, he built the small prayer hall (oratorio) of the Partal Palace, and what is now the Gate of the Seven Floors.[2]" Maybe "Also" instead of "Still". Or cut the introductory phrase and add "in the Alhambra" after "Palace".
  • "he was freed a year later but then refused Yusuf's offer to reappoint him, as vizier.[63]" I might cut the comma
Interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: thank you for taking a look and for your review :) I have responded above, I hope I addressed them properly. Let me know if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Looks like we need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, we still need a formal source review. If I understand correctly Cplakidas might have done references checking and comparison, but nobody has done a full check on formatting, quality of sources, etc. HaEr48 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

@Nikkimaria: I think the assertion there is that Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (EI3) is different from EI2 = "The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition" = The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition", which is true. But the Second Edition and the New Edition are the same (=EI2). I guess they considered EI2 "New" when it first came out but just "Second Edition" now that EI3 exists. This was confusing to me too, so don't blame me! HaEr48 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [27].

Tropical Storm Vicente (2018)

edit
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 12:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Willa's "little brother" which caused some significant damage in the area south of where Willa made landfall. I am nominating this since Dorian's Met has finished and Willa is a co-nom. Hopefully, this can proceed now that my family health emergency is resolved. NoahTalk 12:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by Nikkimaria

edit

Comment - I'm noticing a lot of the same source formatting inconsistencies that were present in the Willa FAC; could you take a run through and fix things before a full source review? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I fixed everything that immediately stood out. NoahTalk 13:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The infobox gives a damage figure of $7.05 million for this storm. The text gives that figure as "agricultural losses in the state of Colima from Vicente and Willa" - that's not the same thing.
  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that Colima had torrential rainfall
  • Some of the content in the See also section warrants citing
  • Be consistent in whether reports include publishers
  • FN12: work title doesn't match formatting at source
  • Fn13: work title need not be included
  • Fn15: date is listed as publisher
  • Fn17: given publisher is a work. Ditto FN19, check for others
  • What makes Regeneracion a high-quality reliable source? Sinembargo?
  • The same source also discusses how they want to make sure information is accessable to all... They state that they are committed to honest and uncensored news, and seek to reform Mexico by reporting on corruption and allowing citizens to formulate their own opinions on topics. NoahTalk 15:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Im just going to remove the source as everyone says the government of mexico cant be trusted. I will switch it out for another La Silla Rota article if that is okay with you. NoahTalk 22:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jarodalien

edit
Comment: English is not my native language, but I think shorter by the same meaning is better than longer, so how about change "Vicente peaked late on October 20 with winds of 50 mph (85 km/h) and a minimum pressure of 1,002 mbar (29.59 inHg). At its peak, Vicente displayed a sporadic eye feature in its central dense overcast...Vicente weakened into a tropical depression early on October 23 and made landfall near Playa Azul at 13:30 UTC. After moving ashore, Vicente quickly lost organization and dissipated a few hours later." to "Late on October 20, Vicente displayed a sporadic eye feature in its central dense overcast and peaked with winds of 50 mph (85 km/h) also a minimum pressure of 1,002 mbar (29.59 inHg)...Vicente weakened into a tropical depression early on October 23 and made landfall near Playa Azul at 13:30 UTC, then quickly lost organization and dissipated a few hours later."?--Jarodalien (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would simply be too much for two sentences. Combining that material would create runon sentences. NoahTalk 10:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about just the second part?--Jarodalien (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is looked down upon to talk about weakening twice in the same sentence. NoahTalk 11:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
support.--Jarodalien (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JavaHurricane

edit
  • "Soon after, outflow from the nearby Hurricane Willa caused further weakening. Vicente weakened into a tropical depression early on October 23 and made landfall near Playa Azul at 13:30 UTC. After moving ashore, Vicente quickly lost organization and dissipated a few hours later." I am uncomfortable with this part of the lead. I'd suggest rephrasing to "However, outflow from the nearby Hurricane Willa caused Vicente to weaken into a tropical depression on October 23. After making landfall as a depression near Playa Azul at 13:30 UTC that day, Vicente quickly lost organization and dissipated a few hours later."
  • No need to mention "Tropical Storm Vicente" at the start of the second paragraph. Just "Vicente" would do.
  • I would say that Vicente's precursor vortex was "associated", not "affiliated", with the monsoon trough.
  • The NHC first mentioned that the system had potential for development (missing 'that' in the first line of the second para of the MH).
  • "proximity of a larger disturbance to the west; this disturbance would eventually become Hurricane Willa." Can be simplified to "proximity of a larger disturbance to the west (which later became Hurricane Willa)."
  • Lots of MOS:OVERLINK issues that should be sorted out.
  • "Schools along the coast of Michoacán were canceled to safeguard everyone from the effects of Vicente and Willa." You can't cancel schools, but you can cancel classes or shut schools.

And that is it. JavaHurricane 15:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lede
edit
Is this not something that could be incorporated into the body though? If it's important to state in the lede, surely it's suitable for the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just relating the storm to the season to introduce the topic. NoahTalk 17:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General
edit
@Lee Vilenski: I have replied to the comments you left. Let me know if there is anything else. NoahTalk 17:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll do a second pass as soon as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Should be fixed now. NoahTalk 21:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I've added this to the image review list for one. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi, as the creator of the image I see a possible problem with the license on this image. SSEC contains an archive of some public domain raw satellite data. I constructed the image myself using the archive data and out of courtesy cite when I use the service. However, the same raw data can be accessed through NOAA and is in the public domain. If I were to use the NOAA source and produce the exact same image would this eliminate any issues? Supportstorm (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: What do you think about this? NoahTalk 21:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would expect so. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Is that better? NoahTalk 03:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:Vicente_2018-10-23_1345Z.png? Source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Should be working now.. likely the original link simply expired or timedout. NoahTalk 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [28].

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story

edit
Nominator(s): Damien Linnane (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the biopic of Bruce Lee. Commercially successfully and critically acclaimed, Dragon was, however, somewhat dramatized, with the director openly saying he wanted the film to have "humor and spectacle" of one of Bruce Lee's actual films, where there was a "larger sense of fun and danger" and "reality is not exactly adhered to". This article has received a peer review and copy-edit from GOCE (sans the Themes section, which I had not yet written when the copyedit was done). Damien Linnane (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aoba47

edit

I will put up a review by the end of the week, and I am leaving this as a place-holder. The following book (linked here) has a chapter that has analysis on the film, and I was wondering if it would be helpful for the article? It may also be helpful to add some type of descriptive phrase in front of Meaghan Morris and Zheng Zhu to give the reader a better understanding of them. Please ping me if I have not put up further comments by Sunday. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoba47. Looking at that source: it starts talking about Dragon towards the bottom of page 293. Page 294 is omitted from the preview and by page 295 they've clearly stopped talking about the film. The eBook price of $30 makes me very hesitant to buy it for less than one page of information that only might be helpful. Also the fact the book gets the year Dragon was released wrong on page 293 (1995 instead of 1993) also doesn't fill me with confidence, but I really appreciate the suggestion.
  • Just for the record I did end up getting the source through resource request. But only talked about the film for another sentence or two on the next page, and what it did say didn't look particularly useful. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified who Meaghan Morris is. At the time he wrote that article, Zheng Zhu was a PhD student at Washington State University, though he is now an Assistant professor of communication at New York City College of Technology. I've described him as a 'then Washington State University PhD student', though if you'd rather me introduce him as a current Assistant professor just let me know. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I think "then Washington State University PhD student" is too wordy, and I am uncertain of the value of including the person's school affiliation or student status at the time of the publication. It may be better to instead opt for a more generic/general "academic" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by the repetition in this sentence, (Dragon is dedicated to Brandon Lee, who died while filming The Crow several weeks before the release of Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story.), particularly how Dragon and Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story are represented in two different ways.
  • Yeah I think that changed was made during the copy-edit actually. I've reworded it.
  • I would revise this part, (haunting a young Bruce), to something like (haunting his son) to avoid repeating "Bruce" and I think it is already clear from the context of the paragraph that Bruce is young at the time.
  • Changed.
  • For this part, (as is allows Linda), I think you mean "it allows" instead of "is allows".
  • Fixed.
  • The Green Hornet is linked in the "Plot" and the "Casting" sections. The same for Tao of Jeet Kune Do for the "Plot" and the "Pre-production" sections, and Kung Fu is also linked twice. I would have them only linked once.
  • Fixed.
  • I think the prose in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" section could use more work, because I find a lot of the sentence structures to be very similar. I would add more sentence variety to make it a more cohesive narrative. I am also not sure of using such a long quote at the end of the Rainer sentence.
  • I've trimmed the Rainer quote. I've also done some reorganising and completely changed one of the reviewers comments. Have a look and let me know if you think it needs more tweaking.
  • I think the paragraph could still use some more tweaking. The paragraph has a lot of great information, but a lot of the sentences have a similar construction of (X critic says Y opinion), and it would read better to vary the sentences more. I am sure you have seen this before, but this essay has great advice on this. Also, I do not think it is necessary to include this part "gave the film 2.5 out of 4". It is the only part where the reviewer's rating is given so it is a little odd, and I am not sure how helpful it is to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included the rating because that's the only review that actually gives a specific rating, but if you think that looks out of place I'm happy to remove it. I'll have another look at trying to restructure the paragraph shortly.
  • @Aoba47: I've struggled with this, but I've given it another go. Tell me what you think and feel free to make any tweaks yourself if you see room for improvement. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part (The Los Angeles Times reported the word). For the rest of the article, you have included the writer's name, but in this instance, you only include the publication name. I would include the writer's name here for consistency's sake. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article. I will support this for promotion once everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review Aoba47. I've tried to address all the concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Pseud14

edit

Following up my comments at PR, and from what I gathered this received a copy-edit. Just had another read through and I'm happy to support now but consider the following:

  • This causes a rift between Linda, who wishes to return to the US, and Bruce - perhaps you can revise for better flow, i.e. rift bet Bruce and Linda, who wishes...
  • The film ends during a shot of the final scene of Enter the Dragon - for this part, maybe it's clearer to say the film ends 'with' a shot instead of 'during'
  • Cohen, who wanted the audience to understand from the beginning the film would not be a traditional biopic - "that" the film would not be...

Nothing to frighten the horses there, but worth checking I think. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments Pseud 14. I've reworded all three points. For the second one I've clarified it is a reconstructed shot, rather than footage from the original film, as I believed that was important to mention. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: Looks good and great piece of work, nothing hindering me from providing my support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

edit

I made a couple of copy-edits on my way through the article. Feel free to undo them if you don't think they were of any use.

Lead

  • "Rather than making a traditional biopic, Cohen decided to approach the script by including mystical elements and dramatizing fights scenes to give it the same tone as the films in which Bruce starred."

^ I'd rephrase this to something like: Rather than making a traditional biopic, Cohen decided to include in the script elements of mysticism from Bruce's life, and dramatizing fights scenes to give it the same tone as the films in which Bruce starred.

Plot

  • "Linda suggests Bruce opens a martial arts school but his Chinese peers demand he must only train Chinese people and challenge him to settle the matter in combat."

^ How about: Linda suggests Bruce establishes a martial arts school, but his Chinese peers demand he only train Chinese people. When Bruce refuses to obey the demand, they challenge him to settle the matter in combat.

  • "the couple reconcile with Linda's mother."

^ her mother. It's obvious who we're talking about at this point in the paragraph.

Themes

  • I'd consider linking pedagogy. Otherwise, I thought I'd point out now how wonderfully written I think this section is. I love the whole Ouroboros aspect, how one thing ends up feeding into another. Brilliantly done. ;)

Pre-production

  • "It was decided to avoid making a standard biographic film and instead incorporate "mystical and legendary aspects" from Bruce's life, telling his story "as if it were, in fact, a Bruce Lee movie"."

^ It was decided by who? Cohen? The producers? I'd quantify this, if possible to do so.

  • "Cohen learnt for the first two years of Bruce's life, his parents had dressed and passed him off as a girl to protect him from a superstitious Chinese belief that demons target first-born sons."

^ Cohen learnt that for the first two years of Bruce's life, ...

Casting

  • "While Brandon Lee was the right age and had appropriate training"

^ I'd specify that that he had the appropriate martial arts training here

  • "Cohen cast Jason because [he] believed trying to teach a martial artist to act would not work and decided to train an actor in martial arts."

^ How about: Cohen cast Jason because he believed trying to teach a martial artist to act would be more difficult than training an actor in martial arts.

Post-production

  • "None of the custom-made sound effects in the fight scenes was used twice."

^ were used twice?

  • "Cohen decided to expand the theme of Bruce's father's belief a demon was stalking his son"

^ Cohen decided to expand the theme of Bruce's father's belief that a demon was stalking his son

Historical accuracy

  • I'm not sure the use of ; is appropriate in some of these instances. Like "Metaphors are used to represent real events; for example, a cheering crowd carries Bruce away from Linda after the premier of The Big Boss; Cohen used the scene to illustrate Bruce's fame creating a distance between the couple.", which I think could be rephrased as "Metaphors are used to represent real events. An example of this can be found in a scene where a cheering crowd carries Bruce away from Linda after the premier of The Big Boss. Cohen said he used this scene to illustrate Bruce's fame creating a distance between the couple."

Otherwise, I think this is a brilliantly written article, and would be happy to support once these quibbles have been responded to one way or the other. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07. Thanks for your review. I've addressed everything you brought up, either rewording it to what you suggested or something similar. Let me know if you have any further concerns. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes you've made, so can support. Good luck with the nomination! ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from NTox

edit

I enjoyed reading this article. I have not seen the movie, and I am not very familiar with Bruce Lee, so it was a learning experience. I particularly enjoyed reading the content about the director's efforts to represent Lee's life faithfully but also employ narrative freedoms to tell an interesting story. The fact that I liked reading the article and learned from it seems a good sign for what Wikipedia is trying to do. Since I am not an expert on this film, I should emphasize that I am not the best to speak to whether or not the page is comprehensive of the literature, but I think the perspective of a non-expert can be useful for gauging how another such person would understand the article. I made a few tweaks and copyedits before writing these comments; feel free to revert any of them that you disagree with. I don't pretend to be an expert on all of Wikipedia's guidelines or on writing itself. I have some initial questions and comments; it is possible I might have more thoughts later.

  • Is the page written in American or British English? It seems it might be intended to be American ('dramatized', etc.), but I have seen some British usage ('behaviour', 'theatre', 'honour', 'learnt')
  • It's actually supposed to be British. The copy-editor asked me the same thing before he started; I guess 'dramatize' fell through the cracks. I've fixed that, and I've added the British English template to the article to clear up any confusion in the future.
Thanks for clarifying. I think this is all looking good now. NTox · talk
  • I have spotted some duplicate links, particularly in the Casting section. As you know, MOS:DL does list some exceptions where this is okay, but it might be worth checking the page with something like the duplinks tool
  • I checked using the tool. It found three duplicate links. I've removed them all.
  • The Themes section was interesting. I wonder if this section can be expanded a bit? I did a brief Internet search, and it seems that academic discussion about this film is slim, but I still wonder if anything can be added. I get the impression that race is a dominant theme of the movie. Was there any exploration of this or other themes by critics? Or by more academics? Right now, we are limited to analysis from two commentators.
  • I haven't been able to find any other sources unfortunately. One of my other reviewers even suggested a source to use though upon getting a copy it didn't actually contain any usable information.
  • Another note about Themes - the section mentions that one commentator explored a theme of pedagogy. Did the author describe pedagogy as an actual theme of Dragon? Or was she just stating that the Breakfast at Tiffany's scene was a teaching moment for the Linda character?
  • Meaghan Morris is the author of one chapter of the book cited. The chapter is entitled "Pedagogy and Political Correctness in Martial Arts Cinema", so obviously that's the overall topic at hand. It's a 19 page chapter (excluding references), of which 6 pages is dedicated to Dragon; I think it's therefore fair to say she's considering the film to be a major factor in the themes. She doesn't use the term pedagogy directly to describe Dragon, though she makes very clear the scene is a teaching moment.
I suppose since the sentence is written as Writing about themes of pedagogy and political correctness in film, I get the sense that Morris is saying pedagogy is a theme of Dragon. Rather, it sounds like pedagogy was was a topic of her writing. I wonder if there is a way to clarify this. NTox · talk
I'm at a bit of a loss of how to clarify it further at this stage. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, removing "themes of" would probably be sufficient. When I read it, I just get the impression that the claim is being made that pedagogy is specifically described by the author as a theme of this film. NTox · talk
Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also about Themes - I note that WP:INTEXT generally recommends not to mention publishing information in text, such as journal names and dates, etc., unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
  • I think clarifying what Zheng was writing in is a compelling reason, as otherwise it's unclear why we should be listening to his opinion.
  • It seems that the lead may be missing a brief summary of the themes. I think this would be useful to add particularly if any expansion is able to be done to the Themes section
  • Hmmm. I like that idea in theory. Since there's limited sources on themes though I don't really think we can say there's a consensus about them. We'd be making a comment based on one source only, and I'm not sure if that's undue weight for the lead.
It is a shame that there seems to be a limited number of sources discussing the film's themes. If that is the case, I can see your argument that discussing this in the lead may imply too much of a consensus. NTox · talk
  • I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be used, but it might be worth thinking about the value in citing Rotten Tomatoes in the Critical response section--or, perhaps, thinking about how prominently it is described in the section. Per MOS:FILM (which also links to WP:ROTTEN), Rotten Tomatoes is less reliable for pre-Internet films, as many reviews for those films are not online and therefore may not be included in the aggregation.
  • Hmmm, that's a good point and something I didn't consider. Thanks for bringing it up. That being said, the Rotten Tomatoes summary and score is consistent with the literature I've found. At this stage I'm inclined to leave it in unless there's further comments about the matter.
I see the reference to Rotten Tomatoes is now removed. I think this is probably best. Good to cite the sources directly in this case. NTox · talk
Yep, another reviewer also complained about it so I removed it entirely. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • where he meets Linda. Bruce marries Linda in defiance of her racist mother I think we should mention here that Linda is a white woman (or whatever term the MOS recommends; I am not sure). This clarifies the next statement about racism attributed to Linda's mother
  • Hey yeah, that's also a good point. Done.
  • I am unclear about what an 'honour match' is
  • Good point. I left that in from before I overhauled the article. It doesn't really serve any purpose so I've removed the term.
  • I think 'climactic' is probably clear enough to most readers that the wikilink can be removed
  • Good point. Removed.
  • The film ends with a reconstructed shot of the final scene I am unclear about what this means
  • So the final shot is a recreation of a scene in Enter The Dragon. Jason is on a bridge practicing martial arts with the sun setting in the background, in an identical manner to how Bruce lee did in that film. Is there a way you think this could be clarified better to someone who hasn't seen either film?
I wonder if something like this would work: Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story ends with a shot of Bruce practicing martial arts in front of the sunset, an homage to a scene in the real Enter The Dragon. Or something like that. NTox · talk
Actually it just occurred to me my only source for this was the director's commentary. The recreation part was seconds before that, when Jason surveys martial arts students. I believe the actual practicing martial arts in front of the sunset is new footage. I've simplified the wording her accordingly. Let me know if you think it needs further clarification. I'm actually 100% happy to just remove the reference the recreated scenes. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, I think it is likely best to remove. It may be questionable to include in the Plot summary anyway if the film itself does not reference the fact that it is a recreation, or if it does not make a substantive point of the recreation. NTox · talk
Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He cast Michael Learned as Vivian Emery Is Vivian Emery Linda's mother? I may have missed it, but I don't know if this is stated previously in the article. It may be worth clarifying
  • Hey good catch. I never actually clarified her name in the plot. Fixed now .
Thanks for clarifying. NTox · talk
  • an extortion attempt by triads Is this meant to be plural, as in there was an extortion attempt by multiple triads, or just one triad?
  • Good catch. Clarified.
  • were shot in Macao I think it would be valuable to clarify that Macao is in China
  • Done.
  • When referencing the demon character directly, it seems that the word is sometimes capitalized and other times not
  • I found one instance of when it should have been capitilised. I use capitals when referring to the character, and don't when referring to the concept of a demon in general.
Good catch. NTox · talk
  • a further $1 million on Dolby Digital fight-scene sound effects It may be confusing to refer to these as 'Dolby Digital' sound effects, as it implies that the $1 million was largely paid to Dolby for the production of the sound effects, which does not seem to be the case. I know Dolby is mentioned in the source, but I think it is more simply referring to the fact that the film was exhibited with Dolby Digital technology
  • Hmmm. Good point. I'll just remove Dolby Digital entirely. The key message is that extra money was spent on sound effects.
  • It may be helpful to note that the Grauman's Chinese Theatre is in Hollywood
  • Done.
  • The Historical accuracy section discusses the accuracy of whether or not the Kung Fu idea was stolen. Was the idea that this was stolen discussed in the Plot section? My initial impression was merely that the show was produced differently than how Bruce wanted
  • Oh the issue is that Bruce helped create the idea on the grounds he would feature as the show's lead character, and instead it was given to another (white) actor. I've reworded the plot to make this clear.
  • the fight's ritual setting I am unclear about what this means
  • In the film the fight is very formal. It's set in a underground chamber with 'kung fu masters' dressed in oriental clothes overseeing the fight. They depict it as a very formal fight set deep in tradition. In reality, it was basically just fought in an empty room with half a dozen people standing in the corners watching. I've done some rewording to make this clearer. Let me know if that's still not clear enough and if you'd like further details.
  • Johnny did not challenge Bruce to a rematch there as depicted in the film. Was/is Johnny Sun a real person? Bruce's real life opponent is described earlier as Wong Jack Man, which gave me the impression that Johnny is not real. But this sentence makes me think he is real and that he simply didn't challenge Bruce the way his character did in the film
  • There is no person named Johnny Sun who was involved with Bruce Lee. I would presume they changed the name of the character as they were portraying him in a fictional manner. As is indicated in the article, Bruce Lee's opponent did NOT kick him in the back, therefore calling the character who did kick him Wong Jack Man would have obviously opened them up to all kinds of lawsuits. I've clarified in the prose that Johnny is fictional. Let me know if you think it needs further rewording.
Thanks for the clarification. You might notice I made a minor edit that clarifies this a bit further. NTox · talk
Very happy with your changes. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, I enjoyed reading the article. Feel free to revert or comment about anything you disagree with or let me know if you think there's something I misunderstood. These are simply some initial thoughts I had as I read the article. NTox · talk 07:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments NTox, I really appreciate them. I've replied to each of your points. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: Just wanted to write a quick courtesy note that I appreciate you reviewing my comments; bear with me while I find an opportunity to look over your responses and the current state of the article. I will return here soon. NTox · talk 20:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: My apologies for the delay in getting back here. I have had some personal commitments that have made it difficult to find time to revisit the article. Nonetheless, I did another readthrough tonight and made a few edits to the page. Feel free to modify or inquire about any of those changes. Unfortunately I have run out of time today but I promise I will return here tomorrow to make completed comments to this page. I appreciate your patience and I continue to enjoy my read of this article. NTox · talk 07:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NTox: Thanks for keeping me posted. I'm really happy with the minor changes you've made so far. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane:: Thanks for bearing with me. I tried to keep any edits to the page minor. As already stated, feel free to modify or inquire about any edit I made. It is possible I may have missed something or you might have a different view on something. I think I am close to supporting the article for promotion. In the interest of getting the page up to the highest possible quality, I wanted to be as thorough as possible in my full comments. I enjoyed the page further on my second readthrough. Let me know what you think.

  • There are a couple references to the idea that Cohen did not want to make a traditional biographical film/biopic, so he dramatized things and added elements to the story. My understanding is that biographical films/biopics nearly always dramatize elements and take artistic liberties (otherwise it would be a docudrama-style film), so I am unsure this is an optimal characterization. It may be better to simply describe here that Cohen was not concerned with exact historical accuracy rather than referring to the biopic genre specifically
  • I don't think many biographical films incorporate supernatural and spiritual themes. I mean, a seven foot Demon keeps chasing Bruce around. That goes way beyond typical dramatisation. Those are also Cohens own words (paraphrased), so I'm inclined to keep them as is. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fair. NTox · talk
  • On this note, the film is described as a 'biopic drama' in the lead sentence. Since both 'biopic' and 'drama' are both nouns, would this be correct? It seems this would be similar to calling a film a 'romance comedy' rather than a 'romantic comedy'. How do sources describe the genre of the film? Just a 'biopic'? 'Drama'? 'Biographical drama'?
  • I'm not a copy-editor but I'll take your word on 'biopic drama' being a grammatical issue. I've just replaced every instance of 'biopic' with 'biographical'. There used to be a mixture of the two terms but another reviewer said to be consistent, so now I'll just be consistent using the other word. Sources most frequently described it as both a drama and a biographical film. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a good change, especially if sources largely use the term 'biographical'. NTox · talk
  • How significant are Edward Khmara and John Raffo as writers of the film? I noticed they are not mentioned in the lead
  • As far as I can tell, hardly significant at all. I didn't find any coverage of their input. The only reason they get mentioned in the prose is because another reviewer pointed out they got mentioned in the infobox. And the only reason they got mentioned in the infobox is because they're in the credits. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. NTox · talk
  • Is the Robert Clouse book Bruce Lee: The Biography or Bruce Lee: The Beginning? It seems the article body says the former and the infobox says the latter
  • an example of behaviour towards Asian people that was typical in the US at the time. I am not personally doubting this is true, but it seems like a statement we would have to be careful about. It seems to be making a broad claim about real-life United States culture during a specific time period; I am concerned this falls outside the scope of this article and otherwise would require strong sources to support. I think we might be better off removing this and simply describing that the film focuses on issues of racism in relation to Bruce in the United States
  • dramatise fights scenes Is 'fights' (plural) a British/Australian use of the word? In the U.S., we would say 'fight scenes'. Let me know.
  • helps him write a book Does the film indicate what this book is about? If so, it might be worth a brief description of what he is writing about, unless perhaps it is not described in the film itself
  • and subsequently enrolls him in a Chinese martial arts class led by instructor Yip Man Was Bruce enrolled in the class after awakening from the dream? The structure of the sentence might give the impression that he was enrolled in class within the dream itself
  • So the dream isn't Bruce's, it's his fathers. He enrolls Bruce in martial arts instruction after waking. I can see your point, though I think most people won't think the training is in the dream. If you can think of a way to word it differently though I'm open to suggestions. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I misspoke there. In all, I think it now looks okay. NTox · talk
  • Johnny's humiliating defeat and subsequent disability Was Johnny disabled as a result of Bruce defeating him at the tournament? It may be more effective to mention this happened in the section's initial description of the fight, and then remove the reference to the disability in this sentence
  • He was apparently disabled in the tournament fight, but we don't learn that until his brother later confronts him. I'm therefore unsure if it's appropriate to say he was disabled in the initial mention of the tournament fight since the viewer doesn't know that at this point. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think it is okay. WP:FILMPLOT advises that plot events do not have to be described in order, and sometimes it is preferable to rearrange events to make sense of things. NTox · talk
I've added a sentence about it. I think it's important for the viewer to know that Bruce doesn't know he crippled Johnny, so I mentioned that. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • resulting in him having to leave Hong Kong I wonder if there is a way to establish he is in Hong Kong earlier, so we have some context of where the fight takes place and why it involves British sailors
  • I can see your point. I've been trying to think of a way to do this but it all comes across as a bit awkward. The best suggestion I have is "haunting his young son outside a temple in Hong Kong". Let me know if you have a better suggestion. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. Another quick idea is In Hong Kong, Bruce Lee's father awakens from a nightmare about a phantom, known as the Demon, haunting his young son.
Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bruce defeats Johnny Sun I have a similar concern that it may be better to introduce who Johnny is before we say he was defeated
  • I don't think this would be appropriate, because we don't find out who Bruce's opponent will be until he turns up to the match, and we never actually learn anything about Johnny anyway. No clarification is given as to why he has been chosen to be Bruce's opponent. Therefore I wouldn't actually know how to introduce him. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the way it's written now is a dealbreaker, but a quick description could be something like Bruce defeats a challenger named Johnny Sun in a secret, no-holds-barred match". NTox · talk
Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bruce Lee's father (and also the link to him in the Cast section) These may not be consistent with WP:EASTEREGG
One note on this: I am inclined to say that we should follow the sources in terms of using Bruce's father's name. I see, for example, that AFI, AllMovie, and IMDb all list Ric Young's role as "Bruce's father", rather than Lee Hoi-chuen. While it would be unlikely, perhaps someone might also argue that in the context of the film, the character of the father may not be necessarily meant to represent Lee Hoi-chuen specifically, similar to the character of Johnny Sun and the real man he's loosely based on. I would be inclined to describe him as Bruce's father and remove the wikilink in the Plot and Cast sections. NTox · talk
Oh it's a good observation that he is listed as 'Bruce's father'; I actually just checked the credits of the film itself and they refer to the character in that manner as well. However in Chapter 5 of the DVD, 'Bruce's father' takes Bruce into his study which is filled with posters and paraphenalia from his time as a film and stage actor circa 1930s. At least one of these posters features the name 'Lee Hoi-chuen' on it quite prominently. It also shows a close-up of Bruce's birth certificate, which according to Cohen, is an exact replica of the original. I wasn't able to zoom in on my small laptop, but I'm sure Lee Hoi-chuen's name appears in the fine print of that certificate. In the directors commentary Cohen also explicitly refers to Lee Hoi-chuen by name and states the character is based on him, whereas in the commentary he also mentions Johnny has been fictionalised from Wong Jack Man. I think it's definitely best to refer to the character as 'Bruce's father' in the cast section as that is how he officially appears, though I also think that considering what I've mentioned that that link is piped to Lee Hoi-chuen. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • continue his education Is this his college education? Or his martial arts education? I assume the money was so he could start college
  • Critiques, however, were made Who made these critiques? Is this Zhu?
I went ahead and changed one use of his name to 'he'. Let me know if you think that works. NTox · talk
Looks good, thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cadwell spoke highly of the film I noticed this is in the Pre-production section. Did she speak highly of the film while it was in pre-production? Does this mean she liked the screenplay?
  • The picture of the Lo Pan Temple mentions the ceramic figures at the top of the structure. Is there a picture of the temple that might have a more prominent view of the ceramics?
  • There doesn't appear to be. Close ups of the ceramics would be counter productive anyway. The ceramics are not immediately recognisable from the film, whereas the temple's entrance is. I can just remove the reference the the ceramics if you want. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you would not want a photograph that is too close on the ceramics. Ideally a picture from a higher angle might work better, but if it's not available, that's all we can do. I don't know that it's worth removing the sentence about the ceramics, but if another picture comes along to the Commons, it would be worth looking at. NTox · talk
  • One stuntman received a minor cut during the hall of mirrors scene I wonder if this is worth stating? I imagine minor cuts are relatively common during film shoots. Was it a particularly dangerous scene to shoot?
  • the word 'bittersweet' was mentioned many times In my view, I don't know that the word 'bittersweet' is the important aspect here. I know this is what the LA Times reporter stated in a literal sense, but I think he was merely trying to write an interesting lead. I would probably just describe simply that the people who attended the premiere felt that it was bittersweet due to Brandon's death
  • There is some evidence to support Bruce and Cadwell's assertion that his idea was stolen though according to Warner Bros., Kung Fu was a separate project To clarify, did Warner Bros. say Kung Fu was their own separate project and it was not stolen? What is the evidence referenced initially that it was in fact stolen? I think this needs to be clarified
  • I don't see how this could be confusing. I mean, Warner Bros. said it was a separate project. If it's separate (as they claim), how could it be stolen? So yes, I'm saying Waner Bros. are saying it wasn't stolen.
  • The evidence it was stolen is complicated. There's several paragraphs on it in a section specifically about the issue at the article for Kung Fu (1972 TV series). I'm thinking it would be much better to wikilink 'some evidence' to the sub-section at that article, rathern than trying to paraphrase a complicated issue into a couple sentences (or completely blow out the section of this article by going into far too much detail in order to cover all angles. And yes, I know the sub-section at that article isn't fantastically written or referenced, but that's neither here nor there in terms of the nomination for Dragon. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section is strengthened with these changes. NTox · talk
  • I noticed some references to critics that say "from the" and others "of the" when describing what publication they are associated with. I believe "of the" would be the one to use, but this may be worth checking
  • I was going to ask at GOCE what the appropriate term was, but I mean, this article already went through GOCE and they seemed fine with both terms. Can we not use both? I don't see how this could be a problem. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably okay. The original concern was mainly about consistency; in all, I don't know that either of them are particularly incorrect. NTox · talk
  • the fight's premise is otherwise genuine Was is meant by the premise of the fight is genuine? Simply that the fight happened?
  • Yes. When this article was first nominated the sentence read "Cohen said he dramatized the fight's ritual setting though states the event is otherwise genuine." I was asked to clarify which part was 'otherwise genuine', so I clarified that it was the fight's premise that is genuine, as the fight itself is also dramatised. According to the Fightlnad source used in the article, it was over quickly and was quite awkward to watch. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this looks okay. NTox · talk
  • is a replica Does this mean a replica of Bruce's real life gravestone?
  • Yes. It looks exactly the same, minus the photo obviously. I'm just going to remove this entirely. This sentence was already in the article before I overhauled it, though it was not referenced. I found a reference and added it in. But come to think of it I probably wouldn't have added the information myself as it isn't that interesting. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film debuted at number one at the US box office It would probably be best to give the date this happened, when the film debuted in public release
  • 45% of the film's audience were women Over what period? Was this during the opening weekend?
  • Earnings were considerably lower than those during busier times of the year This might be better rephrased. It could be seen as speculating that revenue would have been higher if it was released during a different time of the year. I would simply say something like that it opened in a slow period prior to the summer releases, but it did well
  • Is it a problem if it indirectly speculates that? I mean, that's not an unreasonable assumption by any means. Furthermore if I say something like Dragon did well during a slow period for movie releases, couldn't it be speculated that it only did well because it's a slow period for film release? I've been trying to come up with wording that addresses both these concerns and also acknowledges the fact it broke a record (which the source annoyingly doesn't clarify further), but I thought I'd run my points by you first. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it may not be unreasonable to presume it would do better in a season like summer, but the counterpoint might be that it might actually do worse if the film is up against blockbuster competition. I think my concern is mainly with the use of "Earnings were considerably lower". It may also be advisable to remove the reference to the apparent record as that does not seem to be clarified by the source. One option might be a more straightforward description: The Los Angeles Times described the earnings as "impressive" for a debut in the historically-slow period of early May. Or something similar. Let me know what you think. NTox · talk
Oh that's much better wording, changed. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your patience and for managing the thorough review. I hope it is helpful and I am glad you chose to expand this article. It makes me very interested to see the film. NTox · talk 09:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NTox. Thanks for your comments. I've replied to everything. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I am close to supporting. Your work is appreciated. I have just a few more things I noticed when I looked over the latest changes, and then I think I will be done.
  • The Critical response section mentions at the outset that reviewers enjoyed Jason's performance but there was criticism of the film's veneration of Bruce. If this is the reviewer consensus, should this be added to the lead? At the moment it states simply that critics liked Jason's performance
  • A minor point: in the Related media section, it states that the player can fight "the English sailor", but the Plot section suggests that the fight involved a group of sailors. Should this be "the English sailors" (plural) or perhaps "an English sailor"?
  • I just played the game via en emulator (it's surprisingly hard btw). Anyway in the first level you only fight one sailor, though from the proceeding cut-scene it is made very clear he is the ringleader of the group of sailors that Bruce fights in the film (the other sailors appear in the background of the game cheering on their friend, though do not join in like in the film). I've changed it to 'an English sailor'. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Props to you for playing the game to check! NTox · talk
  • was done to show the appalling conditions most Chinese people experienced when emigrating at the time. I have a similar concern as the sentence about racism that was previously in the lead. I fear it could be read as making a contentious claim about history based on the comments of the director, which would not be an ideal source to rely on in this context. Maybe a more straightforward description might work better, such as was done to show experiences of emigration by Chinese people. Or something like that. NTox · talk
  • Last thing: throughout the article, I noticed that occasionally folks like Bruce, Brandon, and Johnny are referred to by just their first name, just their last name, or their first and last name. I've just read the guideline for the first time now, but it seems that MOS:SURNAME and MOS:SAMESURNAME advise that the first mention of a person should use their first and last name, and subsequent references should use their last name only. The exception for subsequent mentions seems to be that when people have the same last name within an article (which clearly applies here), we should refer to them by first names. Despite this, the guideline also says we should always use a last name "when referring to the person who is the subject of the article", except in cases in which it is unclear to which person we are referring (then use the first name). I suppose it is arguable whether Bruce is the "subject" of the article in this case. The page indicates this guideline applies to straight biography articles and biographical content in other articles.
NTox · talk 03:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I had a big problem with last names, because not only do Jason and Bruce share the same name, obviously Brandon and Shannon share his name as well. Johnny and Luke also share a last name, which is why their first names are used. I've made the formatting consistent now though, removing references to their last names after the first mention. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Bruce Lee, are you settling on referring to him as "Bruce" after the first mention? I do still see different names used for him in the article (although I think we can exempt references to full names in the infobox, Cast list section, and side boxes). I would also check references to Vivian Emergy. Let me know what you think. NTox · talk
I went through and yeah, turns out I did miss a couple instances of using Bruce's last name. I did leave one intact though. "According to Bruce Lee biographer Matthew ..." as saying 'According to Bruce biographer' doesn't work. I tried rewording it to remove the need to mention his last name but everything sounded awkward so I think it's best to leave it as is in this case. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be bold and add one more suggestion. In my view, the final sentence of the lead might be stronger if we remove "while filming The Crow", so it reads Dragon is dedicated to Brandon, who died several weeks before its release. That keeps the focus on Brandon and the film, and avoids prompting the reader to start wondering what happened during a film shoot unrelated to Dragon. The information can then be kept in the article body for people that are interested. NTox · talk 17:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a reply to everything again NTox. Let me know what you think. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your review NTox. It was much more thorough than I anticipated, though I'm glad you did it as the article is much better now. As always let me know if there's anything else. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to support this article. Your work to expand and overhaul its content will be appreciated by readers who choose to visit the page throughout the future. NTox · talk 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I think we need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: @Laser brain: @Ealdgyth: I have four supports, a source review and an image review. Do you seen any outstanding issues? Sorry to seem impatient, I'm just very keen for this to pass in time for me to nominate it for TFA for the 80th anniversary of Bruce's birth. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What is the source for the cast list?
  • The credit list of the film itself, same as my other five film FAs, though I might add my GA reviewer asked me to add the cameo appearances. They don't appear in the same order in the credit list obviously. I'm happy to remove them.
  • RT is still there as FN32?
@Nikkimaria: I thought you were initially concerned about what I was using the source to back up in the infobox; that's what I changed initially. What's the issue with its usage in the reception section? If you're referring to the fact the film was released in 1993 whereas WP:ROTTEN has a sub-section on '2000s and beyond'; yes, I'm aware of this limitation. However, I don't think it is a concern at this article as from my study of the literature the consensus from the time it was released is consistent with the current consensus at RT. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, but it would be more appropriate to cite that literature directly rather than relying on that site's interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've removed the RT source and replaced it with a lead sentence that summarises the consensus. Let me know if you think I should just remove the sentence entirely and lead with the individual reviews. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2 is misformatted
  • Can you tell me what's wrong with it? If I've done something wrong I don't know what it is.
  • FN6 should include timecodes. Ditto FN8
  • Several of my successful film FACs use director's commentary but I've never been asked to give timestamps before. I've just gone through the first dozen odd film featured articles as listed in alphabetical order at WP:FA. Of the first five films I found that use DVD commentary as a reference, three don't give timestamps, including The Beautician and the Beast which was only promoted last month, and Boys Don't Cry (film) which features almost as many inline citations to the commentary as my nomination. Is there a reason you're holding my nomination to a higher standard than others? And is this helpful in any case? I mean, in the unfathomably unlikely event that someone is going to go to the trouble to verify the commentary does in fact back up what it claims I'm pretty sure they'd listen to the whole thing if they've already gone to the trouble to access it.
  • Sure, someone could listen to the whole commentary, just as someone could read a whole book. But just as we use page numbers to cite specific facts to a specific part of a book, it's appropriate to include timecodes to cite specific facts to a specific part of the commentary. The relevant guideline is WP:PAGENUM. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to borrow a DVD player off a friend to watch the director's commentary in the first place; few people seem to still own them. I'll try and borrow it off them again soon to do this. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria. Instead of using time-codes, would it be acceptable to just give the chapter the commentary appeared in, like they've done for the FA American Beauty (1999 film)? This will make the reference list more manageable, and will also clear up a problem I'm anticipating whereby the director comments on an issue repeatedly over a short period, rather than just once. Incidentally I'm just going to delete FN8 as it isn't needed; that sentence has alternate sourcing. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether newspaper citations include subtitles as part of the title
  • Done.
  • FN13: AllMusic is italicized here but in plain text in the article - why?
  • I guess I made a tiny mistake. Fixed.
  • Fn19 has a duplicated title
  • Fixed.
  • FN24: is this an authorized republication? Ditto FN27
  • I don't think so. I've changed them to offline citations.
  • They're a subject matter expert on martial arts (coverage of an actual martial arts fight is only thing they are cited for, rather than anything about film), and the author of the article is even a subject matter expert on Bruce Lee himself. He is the author of this notable book on Bruce, published by University of Nebraska Press.

Thanks for your review Nikkimaria. Couple questions about points as listed above. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [29].

Complete blood count

edit
Nominator(s): Spicy (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the complete blood count, one of the most commonly performed medical laboratory tests. Most people have had a CBC done at some point during their lives, but they probably have not learned about the vast amount of information that can be gleaned from examination of the blood, the technology that makes it possible, or the test's long and interesting history. This is my first FA nomination, and before being brought here it was reviewed by several WP:MED and FAC editors, including SandyGeorgia, Graham Beards, Casliber, Ceoil, RexxS and Nikkimaria. Working with these editors, I have done my best to ensure that the article is comprehensive, well-sourced, and easily understandable for a general audience. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Graham Beards

edit

It's great to see another medical article at FAC, there have been too few of late. This is a placeholder, my review will follow later. Graham Beards (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has done a superb job on this. I have made a few edits, but not so many as to warrant a recusal on my part. I first used a Coulter to complete a full blood count in September 1971 (and yes, I can remember the day of the week), so I feel qualified to offer an "expert" review. I will probably use British spellings, so please excuse me in advance. We have to remember that this article is about a set of laboratory tests and not an article on haematological diseases and disorders. Getting the right balance is important. Having said this, I think the article would benefit from more examples of counts and the interpretation. I have added one. Perhaps include one showing a white cells disorder with blast cells in the differential? And perhaps one indicating a recent haemorrhage?

Lead
edit
  • I am concerned about this sentence; " Anemia and thrombocytopenia can be diagnosed from abnormal results, which may indicate a need for urgent medical treatment, such as a blood transfusion." Particularly the part about needing a blood transfusion. We don't want to frighten our readers who might think this means that because a FBC has been requested, a blood transfusion is on the cards. Most, 99.9% I would guess, of FBCs are routine and non-urgent and many of these will be normal. Also, blood transfusions are rarely used to treat thrombocytopenia - platelets are given as a last resort.
    • Changed. I was uncomfortable with that sentence as well. It has been tweaked a lot over the past few months. I have changed it to a softer phrasing and removed the bit about transfusions, also added that results outside the reference range do not always require medical intervention. Spicy (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence "The hematocrit may be performed manually if the automated results are questionable." I don't think readers will understand what we mean when we say that a result is "questionable". A manual HCT can only really check the automated HCT and not the other results and by "questionable" we really mean that it doesn't make sense in the light of the other results. Perhaps we can say "manual tests can be used to independently confirm abnormal results"?
  • The Lead image is superb.

More to come. Graham Beards (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose
edit
  • This sentence concerns me: "When the prevalence of disease in a population is low, as in when the complete blood count is done as part of a routine medical examination, abnormal results may be more likely to be false positives than to represent a real medical issue." I think we have a problem here in that the CBC does not give binary (positive or negative) results. With the CBC we work with numbers. I don't think any component of the count is reported as positive or negative. This means, at least to me, that "false positive" and "false negative" reports are not applicable. The results that are outside the normal range in healthy people can be explained by the normal distribution that is used to define the normal ranges. Usually two standard deviations either side of the mean are used to define this range, which covers 95.4% of the population. But, and a statistician will kindly correct me if I'm wrong, most normal distributions incorporate six standard deviations – three either side of mean, so as to included 4.6% of the population. Is this not why we sometimes see results that are out of range (not "false positive") in healthy people? Graham Beards (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this sentence: "A 2011 study in the United States found that a CBC was performed on approximately 56% of adults presenting for an annual checkup, leading to an estimated loss of $33 million USD per year." Loss to whom? It's also best to avoid costs and prices in medical articles. Graham Beards (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cost" would be better than "loss". But I have just removed this sentence per your concerns about MEDPRICE and the fact that the study is old; I thought it would be useful to have some idea of the scope of CBC screening and these were the most recent statistics I could find, but it is probably not necessary. Spicy (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure
edit
  • I mentioned this problem in the Lead "The blood sample is typically tested on an automated analyzer, but manual techniques such as a blood smear examination or manual hematocrit test can be used to investigate abnormal or questionable results". We need to make it consistent now. Graham Beards (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "A reagent chemical is added to the sample to destroy (lyse) the red cells." We need to stress that this is needed to measure the Hb and that the red cells are counted ( simultaneously in another channel).Graham Beards (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I'll continue on Sunday)Graham Beards (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence "Impedance-based cell counting operates on the Coulter principle, which states that when cells are suspended in a fluid carrying an electric current and passed through an aperture, they cause decreases in current because of their poor electrical conductivity." It sounds like the Coulter principle is on a par with physical laws such as Ohm's law. The problem is caused by the use of "states that". Is there a way around this?
  • Is this true? "Basophils, which are difficult to distinguish from other white blood cells using conventional methods" I don't have a problem recognising them on a stained blood film.
  • This is not really true "White blood cells can be classified into three types (granulocytes, mononuclear cells and lymphocytes) based on measurements of cell volume by impedance or light scattering." This is not the basis of the classification, which is actually morphology and cell markers.
  • Here, "laboratories are often required to participate in these programs to maintain accreditation", do we needed to link or explain "accreditation"?
Red blood cells, hemoglobin, and hematocrit
edit
  • We have two occurrences of "anaemia" back-to-back here: "Evaluation of red blood cell indices is helpful in determining the cause of anemia. Anemia with a low MCV ...".
  • Here (and please forgive the pedantry) "People with warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia may exhibit red cell agglutination that does not resolve on warming." It is not the people who exhibit; it's their blood sample.
History
edit
Other issues
edit
  • There are many duplicated links.
    • I have removed some. A few are intentional - I have linked MCV, MCH and MCHC again in the "red blood cells" section because they are important concepts for that section and the previous link is quite far away; same for red blood cell agglutination in the "limitations" section; and I duplinked basophils because it would be the only cell not linked in the list of cell types if it weren't duplinked. Spicy (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the figure the count does not "match" the smear which shows a lot of blasts. (Not a major problem)
    • Ugh, yeah, I noticed that... agree it is not a major problem but I will see if I can find a different picture of CML or a different example diff. I figured changing the blast percentage myself would be original research. Spicy (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need a little more detail on manual WBC, RBC and platelet counts? We seem to focus on the Hb.
    • I was thinking about this; I was hesitant to include it because I was not sure if it would verge on WP:NOTMANUAL territory, but it would be helpful IMO to discuss the different diluents used, different squares used for counting... I will add some material on this. I am working today so may not be able to address all of this until later. Spicy (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know from experience that manual counts are the norm in many parts of India.
        • Added. I have chosen to leave out the specifics about dilution factors, number of squares counted, etc. as this seems to vary a lot, e.g. one text recommends a 20x dilution for platelets, another 100x; both recommend 20x for WBC but the Unopette systems, for example, use a 100x dilution. Hopefully this is satisfactory. I haven't had to do a manual blood count since I was in school... Spicy (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The nominator has done a stupendous job. I am happy for my review to be "capped" as all my issues have been resolved by edits or discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Placeholder for now. Am following this closely, with interest. As said on the talk, the nominator has done commendable work in producing an accessible page without compromising precision or technical accuracy. Am mostly c/eing as I go, comments here to follow. Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very accesable page for non specialists, and goes out of its way to be understandable for slow folks such as myself, without compromising integrity. as such, having watched for months, and been editing on and off since then; support [on prose]. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jfdwolff

edit

Many apologies for my delayed review of this important article. I am writing from the perspective of a clinician with a modest interest in diagnostic haematology. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. General comments: I see UpToDate used in two sources. I am very unclear whether UpToDate is a good source for medical articles. Happy to help find alternatives.
    • Replaced one, trimmed the other; leukostasis is interesting but maybe not something the average reader needs to know about Spicy (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uptodate is MEDRS reliable; it is less preferred only because we cannot point to archived versions as their pages change.
        Jacob, we can’t use done templates at FAC as they cause a transclusion limit problem in archives. I will go through when you are done and switch them to bolded done, before the page archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Intro: from my European perspective, the words "medical examination" are only used in reference to physical examination, and blood tests are supplementary rather than integral. The same is repeated in the "Purpose" section.
  • Purpose:
    • Done. Should this section actually be called "Indication"? I think both are reasonable.
      • I think "indication" might be a bit less clear than "purpose" to non-medical readers. MEDMOS recommends that this section be titled "Medical uses", which is a bit silly (what non-medical uses are there for a medical test?) Spicy (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph, the routine use of CBC in medical emergencies could be sourced to the latest version the Surviving Sepsis Campaign or an emergency medicine text such as Rosen
    • Would you mind clarifying what you mean here − I assume you mean screening for sepsis in the ED? The 2016 SSC guidelines don't seem to mention the CBC (although I know it is a part of the SIRS criteria)... and Rosen's is a rather long book which mentions the CBC very, very often, so it's hard to know where exactly to look. Spicy (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really tricky and I acknowledge this, but I think we need to emphasise the point that CBCs are obtained as a semi-routine test in almost every conceivable form of acute illness, both in primary and secondary care. The difficulty is that it is mentioned too often but mostly in specific context. That is because irritatingly medical textbooks are still organised by diagnosis/group rather than by process. At the time when the CBC is drawn, there is often substantial diagnostic uncertainty! Unfortunately I have no access to textbooks at the moment, but I do think this is a really important point to make. Next week looks better for me. JFW | T@lk 08:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree completely but this is hard to source for exactly the reasons you say! I will see what I can find in the emergency medicine literature but I'm sure you know the territory better than me. Spicy (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jfdwolff I've added a bit on this. I still haven't been able to find any sources that talk about the test's uses in general as opposed to in specific conditions, but I tried to phrase it in a way that gets the idea across that it's ordered for pretty much any reason someone might show up at the emergency department. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Procedure: it might be worthwhile mentioning that blood may be drawn from indwelling lines (e.g. PICC, Hickman) or from temporary lines (CVC, arterial) as well. Not sure what the best source would be for this!
    • Hrm. Blood Cells: A Practical Guide mentions it can be drawn from a line, but doesn't mention that it can be arterial blood. I will look for a source for this. Spicy (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have looked around and haven't been able to find a source that goes into more detail. The problem I face now is how to phrase this appropriately. "Line" is jargon and I'm not up to speed with the proper terminology for different types of lines; the specific phrasing in the source is "It may sometimes be necessary to obtain blood from [...] indwelling cannulae in various sites" but "indwelling cannulae" is a mouthful for a non-technical reader. Is there a better term for this? Spicy (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main point is that not all CBCs are obtained by venepuncture. The arterial source is pretty niche so agree it could be skipped. Perhaps the "indwelling cannulae" problem can be handled by linking to Central venous catheter which has a list of different types of venous lines. Sounds like your source covers this. JFW | T@lk 08:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Included tests: under "platelets", I would suggest that they play a role in blood clotting but they interact closely with the humoral coagulation system and with the vessel wall. Currently the text implies that they are solely responsible.
  • Done. Limitations: I don't think rouleaux are a "limitation" as such but they deserve mention as a non-specific marker of disease.
  • Done. History: very comprehensive, nothing to add there!

Colin

edit

I read through this and made a few tweaks and some suggestions on the talk page. Happy to support this for FA. My review is as a lay reader: I can't comment on the accuracy of the information and I didn't review the sources. I'll defer to Graham and Jfdwolff on those. -- Colin°Talk 16:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit

I would fully support this article for promotion, once Ceoil and Jfdwolff are satisfied, but leave it to the Coords to decide if I am too "involved". The article is written more than 90% by Spicy, who is to be commended for very fine medical work, but I figure as the second highest editor via edit count, because of my typical gazillion edits to fix the little MOS-y things-- I have added no significant content, and have followed the article since its GA pass. It was in great shape at the GA stage, but has vastly improved and expanded (for comprehensiveness) since then. Having Ceoil's layperson review— along with the master FA writers and specialists of WPMED (Colin, Cas, Graham, and Jfdwolff)— makes this a truly commendable accomplishment, in bringing back FA expertise to WPMED! Kudos to Spicy for this accomplishment in a content area that is helpful to everyone! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Nikkimaria you looked at the images here, on my talk, but some have changed. Might you have time to revisit? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that textual tables like File:Example_of_a_Complete_Blood_Count.jpg should be presented as images, per MOS:ACCIM. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RexxS: (but it's so perfect for the article!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, RexxS! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was worried that would be a problem. Here's an example of the first image expressed as a table: [30] (I know this will have to be tweaked for accessibility). To save on space, is there a way to embed an image (such as File:Iron-deficiency_Anemia,_Peripheral_Blood_Smear_(4422704616).jpg) into the table? Preferably with a caption to explain how the CBC results relate to the blood smear? I looked at Help:Table but I didn't see anything that looks quite like what I want to do. Spicy (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nikkimaria is right. I've replaced the image in question with a table that meets accessibility concerns. As a bonus, the small text inside the caption was too small, so I've taken the opportunity to make that as no smaller than MOS:FONTSIZE allows. It does take up a bit more room, but I can read the table now, which I couldn't do with the image. If you don't like it, please feel free to revert. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • RexxS Wow! Thank you - that looks much better than my attempt. Is there a way to include the image in the table without breaching the accessibility guidelines? Also, there is another similar image in the "White blood cells" section - but now that you have made a table for the first one I can probably just copy and paste that one and change the values. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Spicy: Erm, I'm not sure how including the image in the table would look. I wouldn't do it. Oh, wait - which image did you mean?
              It would be good if you can adapt it yourself for the White blood section, but it is rather more complex. Would you rather I did it for you so that you have another example for future reference? --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • RexxS, this image was the one I was referring to. Honestly, I'm terrible with tables and wiki markup so it would probably be better if you did the second table; just wanted to avoid making more work for you if possible... Spicy (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Spicy: Okay, sorry I got distracted. I've replaced the multiple image with an image + table. I think it looks nicer with the table on the left, but it's easy to rejig to taste. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks so much, it looks fantastic... I ended up taking the image out of the table because it looks odd when the image and table are different sizes, but the rest is great. :) Spicy (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've now tweaked it to remove the extra code needed to place the table next to the image. I also changed the captions below to match the size and line-spacing of an image caption. That's a little more compact now. --RexxS (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comment Acronyms are currently introduced both without an "or" (eg. "complete blood count (CBC), also known as a full blood count (FBC)") or with an "or" (eg. "mean corpuscular hemoglobin, or MCH", "red blood cell distribution width, or RDW"). Suggest removing the ors to avoid the impression it might be two different items. CMD (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT)

edit

I reviewed this article for GA, where it was already stellar, and commend Spicy for his work. Thanks to other reviewers for your comments. I don't have much experience reviewing for GA, to me this article seems at FA standard (therefore I would support). There are two small comments here: --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Approximately 10–25% of samples require a manual blood smear review,[4] " stands out as a weird single instance of a citation for a fact in the lead.
    • Thanks for taking a look Tom (LT). This was discussed on the talk page: [31] Iztwoz agrees with you, but according to Sandy it's expected for FAs to have citations for statistics in the lead. I'm not particularly attached to this one citation but I do think it could be helpful for verification. Spicy (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regular CBCs are necessary for people taking some psychiatric drugs" suggest this is broadened to "drugs including some psychiatric drugs", as it's also used to monitor immunosuppressants such as azathioprine and mycophenolate ([32])
    • Indeed, it's used to monitor many things - this is mentioned in the paragraph above: "people... who are receiving treatments that can affect blood cell counts may have a regular CBC performed". The purpose of the subsequent paragraph is to give a very basic overview of some specific applications in medical specialties... psychiatry is mentioned because it's something that many laypeople might not see the connection to and clozapine in particular is a big deal (my lab for example has special protocols for reporting CBCs on clozapine patients). Respectfully, I think covering every application of the test would be outside the scope of the article, since it is so ubiquitous. Spicy (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum

edit

I will leave my (non-medical-expert) thoughts on prose and style here. Ergo Sum 23:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Though I was reading only for prose, once addressed, I should be happy to support. Ergo Sum 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this, I really appreciate it. Spicy (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the prosaic changes made, and support the FAC. Nice work. Ergo Sum 01:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I think we just need a source review? Adding it to the source review list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking for a source reviewer. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my response there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add that while many of the sources aren't available online, I can share PDF copies with reviewers if they need them for spot-checking. There are only a few sources that I don't have in PDF format. Spicy (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial review by WhatamIdoing

edit

I took a quick look at a few sources. I'm a little surprised to see websites like Lab Tests Online and Choosing Wisely being cited for content that could/should be available in textbooks. These aren't bad sources, but they aren't typical of MEDRS's ideal.

  • It is surprisingly difficult to find certain sorts of information in "gold standard" MEDRS sources, since they're written for healthcare practitioners and they tend to assume that the reader has some prior knowledge of, for example, basic situations in which a CBC might be useful. I have only used these sources for simple and uncontroversial information (e.g. very general applications of the test, alternate names, units). Spicy (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although I think citation formatting is a trivial problem that can be corrected at the end, it's a little odd that these refs are pointing to the archived copies when the original web pages are 'live'. If this is accidental, then perhaps there's a way to change that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review

edit

I checked all sources and citations for WP:MEDRS-compliance and citation consistency. The article's sourcing complies with WP:MEDRS, using textbooks, secondary reviews, national or practice guidelines, and Historical articles (for the History section as appropriate). The (very) few instances that I questioned, where non-controversial content was sourced to websites or comparative studies (primary sources) were well explained on article talk.[33] Page numbers or section headings are provided in short-form citations for lengthy journal articles and the many books used. I hope (knowing that the sourcing is up to snuff) that someone else will do the close paraphrasing, copyvio, source-to-text integrity spot checks typical for a first-time nominator. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: might you be willing to do the first-time nominator spotchecks for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources cited? I am concerned that other reviewers may be intimidated by MEDRS, so I have checked all sources for compliance. I think you are comfortable with technical language and journal sourcing, and might be able to do this final piece. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

edit

As requested by SandyGeorgia. The procedure is to pick a random sample of references and check the statements against the source:

  • 12: I dunno. The source might be adequate by MEDRS standards but I am not sure if Don’t perform serial blood counts on clinically stable patients. Transfusion of red blood cells or platelets should be based on the first laboratory value of the day unless the patient is bleeding or otherwise unstable. refers to complete blood count.
Blood count is a synonym. See for example [34], [35]. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 156: I take that the "blasts" language is supported by the other source? Source looks otherwise OK, it's linked from the original too.
Yes - from d'Onofrio et al (2014), p. 289: "The basic requirement for the diagnosis of acute leukaemia is the morphological recognition of blast cells in the bone marrow and peripheral blood"
  • 95: Can't access this one, does someone have a copy? Source looks good beyond this, though. eta: Got it, seems OK.
  • 83: Same as *95.
I only have a hard copy of this one but here's a quote of the relevant section: "Schistocyte (fragmented cell): Schistocytosis is a very serious pathologic condition... Schistocytes are characteristic of microangiopathic hemolytic anemias and their presence is a danger signal requiring immediate action by the physician"; "Sickle cell (drepanocyte): Sickle cells are the result of a genetic condition in which abnormal hemoglobin S (HbS) is present in a homozygous state in RBCs". (being homozygous for hemoglobin S means you have sickle cell disease) Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, might want to mention that schistocytes are an emergency sign. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I kind of wanted to avoid scaring our readers. Schistocytes are classically associated with MAHA but they can occur in other situations as well (see Bain et al (2017) p. 72 which lists, among other things, thalassemia, megaloblastic anemia, mechanical damage to red cells via heart valves, and severe burns as causes of schistocytosis). But I have added "requires urgent investigation..." Spicy (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 89: The "clinically significant" is a bit implicit. Otherwise fine.
  • 18: OK source, I take it only has to "carry" the "shortness of breath" bit?
Yes, the other two refs are for the other two conditions. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 91: Same as *95, can't help but notice though that "Smock" does not appear in the Google preview.
Smock is the chapter author. I'll send you an email with this text & the others you requested (except for Turgeon (2016)) which I only have as a hard copy. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, found the chapter but it's hard to work with it when it has no page numbers (also, the entire book has over 7000 pages!?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately it is not a very well formatted ebook so my choices were either to cite the chapter + section headings or to pay 500 dollars for a hard copy. I went with the former as advised by Sandy on the talk page... The relevant section should be on pages 184-5 of the PDF. Spicy (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31: Same as *95. eta: I see that the text in our article omits most mentions of reactive leukophilia.
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by "reactive leukophilia". If you are referring to reactive leukocytosis/neutrophilia, this is mentioned in the white blood cell differential section but without using that specific terminology. Spicy (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 56: Why is radiofrequency not mentioned? Source looks otherwise good.
Because that's how it's presented in the source: "Despite the number of hematology analyzers available from different manufacturers and their varying levels of sophistication and complexity, most rely on only two basic principles of operation: electronic impedance (resistance) and optical scatter." Radiofrequency is mentioned as "a modification sometimes used". The article does discuss radiofrequency further down. Spicy (talk)
  • 155: The source mentions some more conditions in addition to these listed in our page. Otherwise, seems OK.
Yes - there are a lot of conditions that can throw blood counts out of whack and I was trying to stick only to the "classic" conditions here. See for example Bain (2015) p. 236 "some of the causes of eosinophilia are shown in Tables 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, the commonest being allergic diseases (particularly asthma, hay fever and eczema) and and, in some parts of the world, parasitic infection." The white blood cell differential article goes into a bit more detail, and could be expanded. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 198: Seems OK. Also the kind of claim that does not really need WP:MEDRS sourcing.
  • 83: Not sure why this appears twice...
Not sure what you mean by appearing twice Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It means that for some reason I did get the number 83 twice when making a list of refs to check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 123: Where does it say "Normal hemoglobin"? I take this is a MEDRS-compliant source.
Yes, it's a medical textbook from a major publisher. "normal hemoglobin" is from ref 122: "A high RBC and a low MCV despite a normal Hb are characteristic of thalassaemia trait" Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bit tricky to source because it's sort of like a "lead section" for all the subsections... because of the whole no page numbers issue, I ended up citing the whole chapter, which I realize is not optimal. The information is in there - but not a very elegant way to source it. Looking at this again it looks like all the info is in the LTO source [36]; since this is rather basic and uncontroversial information I'll just swap Wintrobe's out for that. Spicy (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54: "Spectrophotometry" is only mentione in the references of the source.
Graham Beards added that one. But this is supported by ref 55: "Hb is an intensely colored protein, allowing its measurement by spectrophotometric techniques [...] The absorbance of the cyanmethemoglobin is measured in a spectrophotometer at 540 nm to determine Hb." I'll move both refs to the end of the paragraph to make this clearer. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 87: Same as *95.
Hard copy only but the relevant quote is "The differential count consists of identifying and counting a minimum of 100 WBCs. After the RBCs and platelets have been examined, the WBCs are classified and counted in the optimal counting area of the blood film under oil immersion ... Occasionally, the absolute number of cells of each type is of interest, although values are usually reported as percentages. To calculate the absolute value, multiply the percentage of each cell type, expressed as a decimal, by the total WBC count".
Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 149: A finely cut sentence but it seems to be reasonably source.
  • 8: I take the other sources contain the justification for leaving out the "perhaps" in "perhaps most common"?
Yes; from Keohane et al p. 244: "The CBC provides such valuable information about a patient’s health status that it is among the most frequently ordered laboratory tests".
  • 109: Same as *95.
Graham Beards added that one. I don't have access to it. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a copy of Blann, A; Ahmed, N (2014). Blood Science (1 ed.). Institute of Biomedical Science. What is the issue exactly? Graham Beards (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: Jo-Jo is doing the random spotcheck for source compliance and avoidance of copyvio customary for first-time nominators. If you could provide the text that backs up citation 109, Jo-Jo can review. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a Table which has the same values but in a different order and excluding the ESR. The salient texts regarding the Table read: "This case is symptomatic and has several cell abnormalities, so is anaemic." "The major cause of microcytic anaemia are insufficient iron reaching the bone marrow and haemoglobinopathy." Should we add that the Table has been adapted from the source? I included this when I added the original image that has been removed but the data are the same. [37] Graham Beards (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably add a "Most likely" somewhere; to me "the major cause" implies "not the only one". Otherwise seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a typo - sorry. The source says "major causes" (plural) - it's most unlikely to be anything other than iron-deficiency or haemoglobinopathy

Otherwise it looks like all the sources are MEDRS compatible. Nothing out of the bits I checked jumped out as copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrase - for the most part other than terminology and meaning there was no text-source similarity. Mostly a cosmetic comment so feel free to ignore, but if the Bibliography section isn't part of a Harv ({{sfn}} and friends) referencing system adding |ref=none to the individual citations might be a good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo! I'm sure Spicy will get right on these. Also, Earwig copyvio check looks fine. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for taking this on. I'll email you with copies of the sources you requested. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. Posted excerpts here for sources I only have in hard copy format. Spicy (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up here Jo-Jo Eumerus, is there further action/review forthcoming based on emailed sources? --Laser brain (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have said earlier that no further action is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [38].

History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II

edit
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dęblin–Irena was an anomaly in the history of the Holocaust in Poland. While 99% of the Jews in surrounding areas were murdered, in Dęblin–Irena the chance of surviving was as high as ten percent. The article explains why. I would like to thank @Harrias, CPA-5, Peacemaker67, Piotrus, and Gog the Mild: for their reviews of the article at GAN and A-class review, which have got the article in the shape it is now. (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article is overall well written and throughout researched. I do have one relatively minor concern regarding the possibly WP:UNDUE level of detail in the 'Aftermath' section. Some of the content there about Poles killing/chasing Jews away after the war was added by a user who also tried to remove information about other Poles rescuing Jews and who was inconclusively discussed during Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz case that let do this entire topic area getting 500/30 protection a while ago. The sources are reliable, but I have concerns whether the level of detail given there is not excessive and therefore violates NPOV. I think this should be discussed further, as in whether this level of coverage is due and balanced, particularly given that the information about the rescue of Jews was shortened to a single sentence, but all minute details about post-war persecution are still present (I think it is fine to mention that several people were murdered but are it really due to mention details that one survivor had trouble reclaiming a bakery, and some other people received threatening letters?). We provide the name of the survivor who failed to reclaim their bakery after the war, but not the name of survivors who were sheltered on a nearby farm (their names are given here: [39]). Again, it's a minor issue, but related stuff was still controversial important to get an editor site-banned - I think we should be very careful with due balance in such issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full quote—three paragraphs

The YV testimonies recall physical violence in a variety of ways. Attackers often persisted through a longer period of time and employed means of harassing Jews that were straight out of wartime practices. Ester Kaminska (AYV O3/3029) returned to Dęblin after the liberation, where, she says, “I again had a fuss because the Poles thought that they would get all this. When they saw those few Jews, they carried out a fresh massacre. They did not want the Jews to return at all.”
A Pole who had been given the Kaminska family bakery by the Nazis was unhappy that Ester had returned and tried to get a group of Soviet soldiers (who resided in the town) drunk to incite them to kill her. These drunks caused a scandal one night, bringing Kaminska to the verge of despair: “There were no doors, no key, nothing to lock with. We were crying all night; there was nobody to turn to and nowhere to go. It was worse than the camp.”
Finally, Kaminskaʼs distressed daughter intervened, notifying the Soviet Peopleʼs Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), which arrested the soldiers and forced the Poles to move out. Although Kaminska managed to recover part of her apartment, she continued to be harassed by extortionists (referred to as “Poles” or “bands” in the testimony), who, in a gruesome repetition of wartime actions, demanded a “ransom” to leave her alone. She did not have enough money to pay it, so she departed for Palestine through Lower Silesia.

        • Thank you for the quote. Given the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_PRIMARY_or_unreliable? I am a bit confused why you think an interview of a historian is PRIMARY but the interview / document quoted here is not. Also, "Ester Kaminska suffered repeated harassment and extortion from local Poles," - why aren't the Soviets mentioned? And she did manage to recover part of her property, while the article does not mention this and suggests no property was recovered. Likewise, the support she did receive from the Soviet authorities is not mentioned. I am sorry but it seems to me like only facts to support a particular narrative were included. I still think this particular incident is too trivial to be mentioned at all; removing it entirely per UNDUE is my recommended solution. When we are talking about thousands of people, many of whom died, the story about a single bakery and resulting harassment, in which part of the property was recovered, some harassment occurred but nobody was wounded or injured seems out of scope, if not to say trivial. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a secondary source because it doesn't primarily quote what Kaminska says, but instead offers summary and original analysis. A one sentence summary (which is factually correct and not misleading, imo) cannot convey all the details. I would not strongly object to removing this, if others agree that it should be removed. However, Rice does cite this case in some detail as one which illuminates certain aspects of Polish-Jewish relations as reflected in personal testimonies. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I stand by my view that this particular incident is too trivial to be mentioned there, through this also got me thinking that we could use an article about the phenomena of property rights post-WWII or such, of which the issue of Jewish property would surely be significant, and in turn, in a section/subarticle about Poland, this incident could be more irrelevant. But as I said, in the current article, IMHO it stands out as a trivial side-story, compared to much more serious issues discussed everywhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed
  • The airfield bombing image is missing alt text
    • Added
  • File:Dęblin–Irena_Ghetto.jpg should have its FUR expanded, and suggest using the generic fair-use tag rather than "unique historic images"
    • OK, after looking at this again, I ended up removing it and linking it and two other images as external images. It's hard to justify this as fair use when at the recommended resolution it's hard to make out any details.
  • File:Zbombardowane_lotnisko_w_Deblinie.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source website is run by the government of Poland and states that all images are public domain / free use:[40] Also stated to be PD here
      • I don't doubt it's in the public domain in Poland, but my question is with regards to US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In Poland, any photograph that was published without copyright notice before May 23, 1994 (this is the vast majority of PD photographs from Poland) were never copyrighted at all. So these photographs were all PD on the URAA date, as stated in the template. It's highly unlikely that anyone tried to claim copyright on this photograph, especially since it is a reconnaissance photograph taken by military aircraft and no human author is known. It's also likely {{PD-ineligible}} as WWII aerial reconaissance photographs did not involve independent authorship by a human being. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

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

  • "It initially contained six streets" → 'It initially contained of six streets'.
    • Changed to "consisted of".
  • "for various local firms, especially Dęblin Fortress (a German Army base), the railway, and the Luftwaffe" I am not sure that these are example of "local firms". Maybe just skip "for various local firms"?
    • Removed
  • "in late 1941 due increased German restrictions" → 'in late 1941 due to increased German restrictions'.
    • Done
  • "located 68.7 kilometers (42.7 mi)" Why the false precision? Maybe 70 and 40?
    • That's what it says in the source, however, I've done as you suggested.
  • "The first chair of the Judenrat, Leizer Teichman, and the secretary were expelled in 1941". What does "expelled" mean in this context?
    • Clarified
  • "The Judenrat's command altered again". Optional: → 'The Judenrat's leadership altered again'.
    • Done
  • "Some Jews worked for German companies such as Schwartz and Hochtief, which were hired to do construction on the military bases in the town." "which" isn't right there.
    • Rephrased to "contracted by the Wehrmacht to do construction on the military bases in the town", hopefully that is an improvement
  • " Another 200 of the Slovaks worked for the Schultz firm following an expansion" Does this mean 'An additional 200' or is it just a part of the summary of how many Jews worked where?
    • Clarified
  • "had success with many Viennese Jews." I can't work out what this means.
    • Rephrase: "They recruited 200 Jewish workers in Opole, many of whom were Austrian Jews who had been deported from Vienna in February 1941..."
  • "They also built a barbed-wire-enclosed complex adjacent to the runway for craftsmen to work." Should there be an 'in' on the end?
    • Added
  • "often fictitious ones obtained through bribery" Are you entirely happy with "fictitious"? To me it suggests imaginary.
    • Removed
  • "he was physically present in Dęblin during the deportation." Delete "physically". (What other way would he be present?)
    • Removed
  • "they were turned away by the Jewish police there." But you then state that 400-1,000 were let in?
    • Clarified to say that some were turned away
  • "whose existence was justified by increasing the productivity of their parents". Should "by" be 'as'?
    • Done
  • "not equalled elsewhere in the Lublin District". Optional: → 'not matched elsewhere in the Lublin District'.
    • Done
  • Is "Autheried" a typo?
    • Nope, directly copied from the source
  • "Both theft and having foreign currency". Suggest "having" → 'possessing'.
    • Done
  • "to distribute the aid among the Slovak Jews". "the aid"? What aid? It hasn't previously been mentioned.
    • Referring to the valuables and money mentioned in the previous sentence. I wrongly assumed that was obvious. I tried to think of a way to rephrase "aid", but drew a blank. Suggestions welcome.
It may just be me, but aid in this sort of context calls to mind food and possibly medication, as in 'Emergency aid was flown into the disaster area'. How does a simple '... carrying letters and bringing valuables and money. A committee was formed in the camp to distribute these among the Slovak Jews' sound. The (three) things being distributed then seem (to me) obvious from there having just been specified.
Done (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The organization itself". What organisation? (A genuine question; whichever it is, it may be better to just name it.)
    • Home Army, mentioned
  • "Several members of the Kowalczyk family". Were they local Poles? If so, could we be told?
    • Clarified
  • "were run by the Luftwaffe and yet were still liquidated before the end of 1943". Optional: delete "yet".
    • Done

Nice work, my nit picking above notwithstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. I have commented above on the "aid" issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fine article. Only these superficial details that I could find to pick at. Nicely resolved. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit
  • Yale University Press link
  • Yad Vashem missing links in Bergman, Koźmińska-Frejlak, Silberklang, Miron
  • You could link Lukas Verlag to the German wiki article
  • I would still link United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 in the second mentions, since you already link Yad Vashem everytime in the refs (not sources)
  • link Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
  • Wondering what the "pp." is in the Schmeitzner source?
  • Spot checked the ones I could access, 22, 74, 76, 80
  • Some authors to link: Yehoshua Büchler, Eleonora Bergman, Jan Jagielski, Mike Schmeitzner
  • Sources all look reliable Aza24 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your review. I have now consistently linked first mention only for publishers, to avoid sea of blue. I linked all authors except Jagielski, since it's not possible to link another wiki in author parameter without easter egg. I fixed the Schmeitzner citation (it is actually a trans-title). (t · c) buidhe 13:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... I have an idea, you could do 
        "|author1=[[Eleonora Bergman|Bergman, Eleonora]] |author2={{ill|Jan Jagielski|pl|lt=Jagielski, Jan}}" and then in case the harv refs break "|ref={{sfnref|Bergman|Jagielski|2014}}"
        but this does seem unessesary lol – either way, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "other parts of Poland" implies that the towns are in Poland, but the location is so basic that I think it should be spelled out specifically, even at the expense of repetition.
    • Done
  • The only mention of Irena in the article on Dęblin is that the Irena colony is at the core of the present day town. If Irena is important enough to be part of the name of this article, it should have its own article. I suggest linking it in red as [[Irena (Poland)|Irena]]
    • Done
  • "Thousands of Jews lived in the town before the war, which was the site of the Polish Air Force Academy from 1927." This seems a non-sequitur. What is the connection?
    • I rewrote the lead to be in chronological order. Per MOS:LEAD it should cover all significant aspects of the article including (minimally) the background section.
  • "It initially consisted of six streets and was an open ghetto, with non-Jewish Poles allowed to enter." Was this just an area where Jews were required to live or also one they were not allowed to leave without permission?
    • Clarified based on the body, which specifies that Jews faced the death penalty for unauthorized departure.
  • "most Jews followed the Modzitz dynasty". Following a dynasty sounds odd. Maybe Modzitz branch of orthodox Judaism?
  • "there were some incidents in which Polish merchants vandalized their Jewish competitors' shops" Presumably the Jews were Polish. Would not Christian merchants be more accurate?
    • Rephrased to clarify that
  • "According to Israeli historian David Silberklang, "Szymon Drabfisz" was the first chair and Teichman the second". You have said above as a fact that Teichman was the first chair. Are you implying that Silberklang is less reliable than Crago?
    • I attributed both pieces of information since they are both reliable sources.
  • "Schultz was also under contract" What was Schultz and why "also"?
    • Reworded. I cannot find more information about Schultz other than it was a German firm contracted to do railway construction
  • "The organization itself accused Jews". What organization? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified that this refers to the last-mentioned organization (Home Army).
  • Thanks so much for your comments, I'm sorry that I managed to miss them for so long. (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Buidhe, just checking that you have noticed Dudley's comments above? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine apart from one query.
"Dęblin and Irena [pl][a] (Yiddish: מאדזשיץ‎, Modzhitz)". Yiddish for what? If for both areas together, this should be clarified, if only for Irena, then the Yiddish for Dęblin should also be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. The sources are not clear whether Modzhitz refers to (pre-1953) Deblin, Irena, or some neighborhood therein. There is no other Yiddish name found in sources. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Modzitz gives an answer, but it is obviously not a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and some reliable sources agree that it's a neighborhood within Deblin/Irena[41][42] And if so, it probably refers to Irena, as stated in USHMM encyclopedia which refers to "Irena (Yiddish: Modzhitz)". Whereas, Yad Vashem (also in the print encyclopedia cited) implies that the term covers all of Deblin/Irena, and some other sources seem to agree with that... (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

A solid piece of work, I expect my comments to be minor. Feel free to revert any copy-editing I do.

  • "the Jews of Dęblin and Irena" sorry to take issue with the very first sentence, but; the reader has no idea where these localities are
    • Good point, this is now fixed
  • There is some slight redundancy between lead paragraphs one and two. This isn't the biggest deal, but condensing would aid readability.
    • Reworked
  • "local labor camps became collection centers" "collection centers" sounds like jargon; what is this referring to? is a link available?
    • Reworded
  • The liberation of the area in 1944 seems worth mentioning; a lay reader may assume the area remained in Nazi control until 1945
    • Added to lead
  • This may be a naive question, but "Poles" can refer to people of an ethnic group or a nationality, right? So when saying "Poles and Jews", is it worth saying "ethnic Poles" to avoid implying that the Jews were not Polish, nationality-wise?
    • Changed to "non-Jews" or "ethnic Poles" as appropriate
  • "forced to wear armbands" presumably, armbands of a specific type, identifying them as Jews; if the sources say that, might be worth spelling out
    • Added link and slight clarification
  • It might be worth providing a brief description of what a Judenrat was, even though there's a link
  • The lead of Nazi ghetto does not specify how those were different from a "Jewish residence restriction"; if there was such a difference, it might be worth spelling out.
    • Removed, as explaning it would give undue weight and Silberklang is the only author who makes this distinction.
  • "The Jews could favorably compare their situation..." seems an elliptical way of putting it; why not "The Jews who worked there saw prisoners held in worse conditions than their own" or equivalent?
    • Done
  • "After the deportation of 6 May 1942" this deportation hasn't been introduced; perhaps "the first of several deportations on.."?
    • Done

Thanks so much for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Gendarme" seems to me an obscure enough term that a link (or wiktionary link) might be worthwhile
    • Linked
  • "but the children had to hide when the SS conducted inspections" this implies the SS was okay with children in the camp, but not in school, and is odd; was this actually the case?
    • Right, the camp was run by the Luftwaffe, which is not part of the SS, but SS would inspect periodically. The former tolerated the children, the latter did not. I changed the wording to clarify this.
  • The paragraph beginning "The camp had three German commanders" seems a little bit scattered, in that many different strangs of information are being presented. This is likely inevitable to some degree, but I'm wondering if some reorganization is possible; the Home Army is mentioned in the next paragraph, for instance, and the punishment piece may fit better with the material about some Jews trying to escape.
    • I think you're right; moved both these sentences to the next paragraph.
  • This may just be a personal preference, but I have typically understood "shot" to mean "struck by a bullet", rather than "killed by a bullet", whereas the article appears to use it in the second sense; would "shot and killed" be more appropriate in some cases?
    • Clarify that they were killed, where the sources support it. In one case it is not explicit, the source says "The square was crowded with people who were wailing and screaming, and the Germans beat the Jews and shot a number of them"

That's all from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

edit

I'll try to get to this over the next couple days. Insert standard claimed for the WikiCup disclaimer here. Hog Farm Bacon 23:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and at an important junction on the Lublin–Warsaw rail line" - Is this the official name? It seems like a context where an offical name would be used, but if so, then shouldn't rail line be capitalized?
    • I don't think it is the official name. In 2020, the Lublin–Warsaw rail line is part of Rail line no. 7 (Poland) [pl]. But I am not sure that the entire line (Warsaw to Dorohusk) existed in 1939.
  • For context, it feels like the Second World War should be mentioned in the German invasion section
    • Added mention
  • " the first chair of the Judenrat, Leizer Teichman was dismissed in" - Comma after Teichman, the name is an appositive
    • done
  • Link Wehrmacht at the first mention
    • Done
  • ". Under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Grossman" - Do we know Grossman's first name?

That's about it. I'm not seeing much to work on here, and what I am seeing is rather minor. Hog Farm Bacon 02:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [43].

Skegness

edit
Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be many British editors here who haven't heard of Skegness. It is one of the country's most popular seaside destinations. As one local historian put it, "Skeggy" is the "summertime Mecca ... for the toiling thousands of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby". The season isn't so rigidly defined these days, but when industry was still the heartbeat of the East Midland's factory towns, in six short weeks each summer Skegness became host to hundreds of thousands of workers seeking cheap fun, knobbly knee contests and sandy beaches.

This article marks my return to article improvement after several years focusing on creation. I've tried to capture the fascinating development and largely forgotten earlier history of this town, from its medieval port to its early modern slump following a disastrous flood, and from its burgeoning status as a high-end bathing place for the gentry, to its later reputation as a tacky resort for the masses. Today, the tourism industry and the town's dependence on it are at once a boon and a curse; it makes a lot of money, but there's a lot of deprivation and the town has earned the nickname "Brexit-on-Sea" in recent years. So read on to find out about this fascinating part of England's past and its present. I think this piece meets all the criteria for a Featured Article and I look forward to any feedback. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the railway line
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Will look into it -- it's not something I have done before.
  • File:PLmap.png: is just the background from OSM, or the line data as well?
    • I don't know and cannot see any indication either way. What effect does this have on licensing/use if it is?
  • File:Derbyshire_Miners'_Holiday_Camp,_Skegness,_1940s.jpg: title gives a date of 1940s, image description page says 2000 - suggesting uploader is not original photographer
  • File:Lifeboat_crew,_Skegness,_Lincolnshire_RMG_G02795.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found no evidence of it being published. If it was not, how does that effect it.
    • Thanks Nikkimaria for doing that so promptly. I've addressed each point above, though mostly with queries (sorry) -- I'd be grateful of your input on them. As a note, I'm not overly attached to any of the pictures and will drop them if the their copyright tags can't be put in order. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
      • Thanks again Nikkimaria. I have removed the coastguard pic and replaced it with another from Geograph, which looks fine to me. I have binned the holiday camp image altogether. I have also remade the Poacher Line image from scratch and inserted it in place of the old one. I used Inkscape to draw over a screenshot of OpenStreetMap for the coastline and current railways, then drew on lines for the disused railways based on a drawing in a 1982 book. Is that okay and have I used the right licence? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment from Amakuru - this looks like a well-written and referenced article, but my first instinct is that it's too long at the moment. The page size tool shows 77 kB of readable prose, which makes it considerably longer than other city FAs, such as Canberra (56 kB) and Dhaka (42 kB) and Arlington, Washington (33 kB). The first two are capital cities too, so if anything you'd expect a somewhat longer article there than a provincial town such as Skegness. In particular, the "History" section, which is actually two separate top-level sections, seems much longer than the "summary style" I'd expect in a general article. It's all good stuff, but some of it would be usefully placed in a History of Skegness subpage, with a shorter summary here of a length similar to the three articles I mention above. Of the other sections, at a glance I'd also say "Religion" is a bit on the long side - many city articles don't have this at all, "Notable people" also seems long and possible also "Public services and infrastructure"/"Historic buildings", which in many ways are related concepts. I get that it's great to have all this info, but if the article ends up too much of an ask to read from start to finish as a result, then that detracts somewhat. Will await others, but think I would like to see some splitting out before supporting. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Amakuru. The length of the article was my only concern before I brought it here and I wondered whether it would come up. I decided to go ahead with the nomination when I became aware that there are many other FAs which are longer, some substantially so. It's hard to compare places: Arlington is also a much newer town, founded in the 1890s, whereas Skegness has a recorded history stretching back a thousand years. I think one of the main issues for me is that major cities like Dhaka (which was also promoted in 2006 when we had different standards for comprehensiveness) can easily be forked due to their geographical size, wealth of source material and importance, but I question whether a comparatively small town like Skegness should or could have a separate history article. I guess that's subjective though. As for religion, I'd say the size of that section is about right and it's pretty common in UK place articles (see, e.g. Bristol and Chadderton). It gives a prose-form list and the briefest summary of each place of worship and their foundation. Having said all of this, I am very grateful for your points. If it's okay with you, I will wait to see if I get any other feedback before this is archived; if other editors express similar views, I shall go away and fork out some of the material and condense the article. Thanks once again, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: thanks, it's looking quite a lot better now although I think the "Early History" and "History of the seaside resort" sections should be merged into one, as it's very unusual not to have History as a single section in summary articles, even in articles with quite long reams of text... The existing five sections could probably just sit under one heading although if appropriate you could also merge them down a bit. Now that I think the macro issue has been solved, I feel more inclined to have a more detailed look so will hopefully carve out a bit of time to do that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru great, thanks. Any comments you can spare would be appreciated. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I've now merged the history sections. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Beginning my review, as promised. First bit of Geography section for now, more to come:
  • The ref for "Parishes map",[44] and indeed its archive copy,[45] both appear to be dead and returning 404 errors.
  • Boston - as this is the first mention in the body of the article, it should be linked here. And then unlinked in the History section. Lincoln similarly.
  • "13.12–16.40 ft" - this many significant figures seems excessive, when the metric figure is just 4–5 m.
  • And actually, looking at the OS map, there is in fact a 10 metre contour visible on the sand dunes to the north of the town between Skegness and Seathorne, as well as a 6m spot height near North Parade...
  • "it runs north-west in a narrow band to north of Louth in the Wolds" - it runs to Louth, but does it start at Skegness? I assume so since it's running north-west, but maybe clarify this.
  • "tidal flat deposits" - hyphen between tidal and flat, per MOS:HYPHEN
  • "deposited since the end of the last ice age during the Holocene" - I'm not sure what the last part refers to. Were the deposits deposited during the Holocene, or was the end of the last ice age during the Holocene? This may be obvious to someone who knows their geological eras, but would be useful to clarify.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, this wall largely saved the town during the 1953 flood, though gardens, the amusements and part of the pier were damaged" - this could be reworded slightly... having nevertheless and though sounds like too many levels of indirection!
  • "24 km (15 mi) stretch of coast" - the distances above (to Boston and Lincoln) showed miles first then km. Suggest consistency one way or the other.
  • Weather box - this is usually not collapsed in other articles I've seen
  • Most settlement FAs have some description of the layout of the town, including suburbs etc. Obviously Skeggy is a smaller settlement than many of those, but might be worth having something about the layout of the town in this section.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru thanks for your comments. I've addressed all of your comments through this edit, except for the one about describing the town in more detail; there is little to add without going into detail about the road layout: none of the suburbs except Seathorne, Winthorpe and Seacroft (already described) seem to have names and the general layout is clear from the map in this section. I look forward to any further comments you may have. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Amakuru Apologies, I didn't mention you in yesterday's edit summary -- just pinging as a courtesy in case you missed my response. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: that's fine, I did see it. Will hopefully come back with more today although can't promise I'll have time! Looks like you've got quite a bit of support here now anyway, so will just do as much as I can.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully scare up a few reviews... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Noswall59 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • SupportCMD (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Comments My first impression was also the length, although I understand the argument this is already quite a specific article. The second impression is of MOS:OVERSECTION. That is an overwhelming table of contents, and looking through the article, many subsections are tiny. Further, the only lv2 sections with any text outside of subsections are Geography, Transport, Historic Buildings, and Notable People. The subsection title "Physical geography and geology" seems entirely redundant to the section title "Geography and geology". Do the short Economy and Education sections need what seem like headers that are redundant to natural flow? Culture seems arbitrarily subsectioned. On overall structure, I don't see from the article why Religion is separated from Demographics, is this based on similar articles or external sources? A quite significant point for consideration is that this article currently fails WP:LEAD, with the lead reading as an abbreviated history rather than a summary of the article as a whole. As a final initial point, I'm surprised by the relative paucity of pictures. Most articles I run across often seem to have the opposite problem. If there's no good and relevant images then there's no good and relevant images, but it's surprising if that's the case. CMD (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis thanks very much for your comments. I have done the following:
  • I have trimmed 6k off the readable prose size, mostly by reducing the notable people, history and religion sections. I can't see where I could cut much more without losing a good deal of factual content or forking.
  • I have halved the number of level 3 sections; there are now none for geography, education and religion, and there are fewer in culture, public services and demography. I have merged some short paragraphs accordingly.
  • The demographics for religion are now in demography; the religion section now includes only information on places of worship and has had its name changed to "Religious sites" (as per WP:UKTOWNS).
  • I have expanded the lead's contents to include material on culture (including attractions), public services, schools, healthcare, the newspapers, places of worship, the police HQ and court, and the lifeboat station. I have also trimmed back the history stuff, so the lead is about the same size prose-wise.
  • The trick is finding good images. Is there anything in particular that you feel is missing? I'll see if I can find suitable pictures of the hospital, town hall, constituency boundaries and something for the geography section and notable people sectons. There don't appear to be any free images of the schools and there are no other free historical images online.
I think this covers all of your queries. What do you think of it now? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Chipmunkdavis I've tried looking for photos of notable people; the key ones, like Butlin, Ray Clemence and Elizabeth Allen all have either poor-quality or not-clearly-free images. There are also no images of the hospital, the schools, or the town hall. Adding an image into the geography section creates issues when viewing a tablet device, because the infobox squeezes content downwards, making the whole section look naff. As I said above, if there's anything more you'd like to see, I can see what I can do. I do have a map I made of the shifting coastline based on Pawley's PhD thesis, but I don't know what the copyright situation is for something like that... Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm usually a fan of dumping onto subpages rather than removal on a whole-wiki basis, but certainly for this page as a standalone the trimming is useful. It was mentioned above that history may just be too long, and it has by itself 12 section headers. Perhaps wait for further comments before doing anything drastic, but there's always the option of doing what Amakuru mentioned of dumping it all to a subpage (could even use the old lead and get an easy GA probably).
Thank you for pointing to UKTOWNS. I don't agree with some of its structure decisions, but if you're following that structure that's reasonable. I appreciate the edits to the lead, it's much more comprehensive now.
On images, like I said if they don't exist they don't exist, I'm just surprised. The article as a whole is missing is a good map. The geography section might use a photo of the sea defences. There's various empty sections. At any rate if you've given it a go I don't think it'll hold back the nomination. However, one thing that is key about images is that per WP:ACCESS they need to be within the section they are being used to illustrate. There are a few places in the article where I think the image has been placed at the end of a previous subsection, which need to be moved. An image needs to be shifted from the "Since 1945" subsection, which has sandwiching; perhaps the caravan park can move to workforce and deprivation.
I'll take a closer look through the article later. For now, I know it's rounding, but I still don't think you can say 8 people are "making up 0% of the population". CMD (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis Thanks very much. I've decided to bite the bullet and fork the history section to History of Skegness; I've also moved some of the material from culture, education and religious sites which felt too historical/niche to stay in the main article. I have cut down nearly 20k of readable prose in the process. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That history article is already 35kB by itself! Why isn't the map used on this history article used on the main article? Prose of the main article is now 56 kB, which while long is within guidelines.

  • The sentence on distance to Lincoln and Boston does not seem to be in the article body or sourced, and the second distance is missing a convert template.
Good catch. Now cited in the body and conversion templates used throughout.
  • Should "to the headland which" read "to a headland which"?
Changed.
  • The concept of "the landowner" may need to be introduced more clearly, or removed from the lead, as it sites without context for those who aren't familiar with English history.
I have linked "landowner" and explicitly named and linked the earl; he was literally the man who owned the land, so I'm not sure how I could be clearer.
  • I would suggest a different wording to "Skegness's trade", as it comes right after a mention of deindustrialisation.
Changed.
  • Does "visiting for a second holiday" mean a repeat trip to Skegness or a second trip in one year?
It means going there as well as taking a holiday abroad. I've tweaked to clarify this.

CMD (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What caused the destruction of the offshore islands?
Sentence added to clarify -- it was very likely the exceptionally bad weather recorded during the 13th century.
  • How does the Church of St Clement fit into the history section? The caption could indicate the connection.
It not longer does. I've moved the image to the "Historic buildings" section.
  • How local are these gentry?
I've added a note to clarify, but no one explicitly says what the catchment area is.
  • The first mention of "Roman Bank" doesn't explain what it is.
I've now added a mention explaining its origin. It's a bank (i.e. levee) which, despite its name, is medieval or 16th century.
  • The mention of the Marine Gardens could use a brief explanation as to what they are.
Clarified (hopefully – other sources don't explain much more about what it was)
  • "By 1981 20 caravan sites" could probably use a comma.
Comma added
  • The 2011 VisitEngland source seems to refer to places in England not the whole UK.
Clarified in the lead and body.

CMD (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "PPR (Prior Permission Required) is stated for landing" should probably say "required for landing".
Changed.
  • I would put local politics before national politics.
Done
  • Capitalisation of "urban district council" is inconsistent, and it is sometimes referred to by an acronym despite that acronym not being introduced anywhere.
Changed. I've used capitalisation for the proper noun (Skegness Urban District Council), but otherwise used lowercase (e.g. "built by the urban district council..."). UDC is now introduced before its first use as an abbreviation.
  • Why are Skegness Grammar school and Skegness Academy described as coeducational when the gender intake of other schools is not mentioned?
In the UK, I'm pretty sure all state primary schools and further education providers are coeducational; it is stated in each of the sources used for the five current schools so I've clarified this in the text but the FE colleges don't specify, so I've not explicitly stated it.
  • "boys and girls" should probably be changed to "pupils" to match the later sentence.
Changed
  • I can't discern the pattern for the ordering of notable people within each paragraph.
The paragraph order is: entertainment; religion; sports; miscellaneous. I've tried to clarify this.
  • I think the note for the 1882 census should independently include a citation to Gurnham (1972), p. 73.
Done
  • The note on Britain's first switchback railway needs a source for the Skegness Herald page.
Changed to a better source.
  • Why are some Bibliography authors redlinked?
Because the authors are probably notable enough to have their own articles.

CMD (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chipmunkdavis. Hopefully I've addressed all of your points, except for the offshore islands one: I need to re-read the source to see if he says what destroyed the islands. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, Chipmunkdavis. I have now addressed every point. Thanks again for your comments. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
On the topic of the landowner, it will not be obvious to many readers how the whole (or most of the) town could come to be owned by a single person. Given there are preceding sentences covering a few hundred years of the settlement, seeing "landowner" brings to mind the question "landowner of what?" The body explains the historical process of enclosure and how it led to the land being owned, but for the lead this is left to be assumed knowledge. Perhaps it could say "primary landowner", or "majority landowner", or the like, which would make it a bit less jarring.
Regarding notable people, I meant I couldn't understand the order of say just the entertainers. However, I think I now see they are loosely grouped into more specific categories.
Having browsed through a few other UK settlements at FA level, I don't see anything obvious they have that this article lacks that can't be explained by local differences or normal editorial variation. As it stands, happy to support. CMD (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis thanks for taking the time to review this and for being so patient while I made the changes. I have tweaked the lead to clarify the landowner situation; hopefully, it makes more sense to non-UK readers now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "it also incorporates Winthorpe (previously its own parish)". "previously its own parish" sounds odd to me and not important enough for the lead. I suggest deleting.
Done
  • "Historically Skegness was situated further east and at the mouth of The Wash;" This also seems confusing to me. Perhaps "The original Skegness, which was lost to the sea, was situated further east at the mouth of The Wash".
Swapped
  • "following the Great Recession" I have not come across this expression before as referring specifically to the one of 2007 to 2009 and suggest adding the date for clarity.
Clarified
  • "several Christian places of worship" Why not churches?
Done
  • "superficial geology". I assume this means Superficial deposits, that is Quaternary deposits built up over the last 2.6 million years. This seems strange as you say they have built up over the last 12,000 years, and are therefore Holocene. You have to go by your sources, but superficial geology is an obscure expression and should be linked to Superficial deposits.
I know very little about geology. All I can say is that the BGS map is the source I used and it shows most of the town as having tidal flat deposits built up over the last 11,800 years, although the blown sand on the beach is said to have accreted during the Quaternary period as a whole. I've therefore simply said that: "The superficial deposits consist of clay and silt tidal flat deposits built up during the Quaternary period (the last 2.59 million years). The shoreline consists of blown sand and beach and tidal flat deposits in the form of clay, silt and sand." Since I used it, they have updated the map and the whole area is now described as "tidal flat deposits -- clay and silt", so I've amended that. I've also linked superficial deposits. Is this acceptable now?
  • I do have some knowledge of geology, although this is the first time I have come across the distinction between superficial deposits and bedrock geology as meaning Quaternary and pre-Quaternary. The Ferriby Chalk Formation is part of the Chalk Group, so you could link to that. The reference to Quaternary is misleading in this case as they are saying that all the surface deposits are Holocene. I suggest "The bedrock under the town is part of the [[Chalk Group|Ferriby Chalk Formation]], a [[sedimentary]] layer formed around 100 million years ago during the [[Cretaceous]] period. The surface layers are tidal flat deposits of clay and silt, deposited since the end of the [[Younger Dryas|last ice age]] during the [[Holocene]]." This is based on the BGS map and you can add to it based on your other sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "middle ages" should be capitalised.
Done
  • "There is evidence of late Iron-Age and early Roman saltmaking activity in the coastal area which Skegness now occupies." Why not just "in the Skegness area"?
Done
  • "who enclosed 400 acres of saltmarsh in 1627 and in the 17th century reclaimed more marshland which had emerged from the sea" This does not sound right as 1627 is in the 17th century. Maybe "later in the century"?
Good catch -- I think I must have lopped that too far during a previous trim.
  • "This stagnation coincided with a declining number of day-trippers, which fell from a peak of 230,277 in 1882 to 118,473 in 1885." Is it known why?
The sources are oddly silent on this, with Gurnham sound frustrated at the lack of local comment on the issue, save a contemporary comment in the local paper that a fall in numbers reflected a "depression in Nottingham's trade". I suspect it is the product of localised effects of the Long Depression, which lasted from the 1870s to the 1890s. Do you feel that is sufficient for me to add anything?
  • "Botton's Bros" The spelling looks wrong. This article is the only hit on a google search of "Botton's Bros".
You're right, I introduced it when I meant to switch from Botton's to Botton Bros. Amended.
  • "were replaced with the Embassy Centre in 1999" What is the Embassy Centre? A shopping parade?
It is principally a theatre; having reviewed the source, the name is now the Embassy Theatre Complex (the Centre was a previous name) so I've amended the article to that effect. There is an adjacent swimming pool and leisure centre, which I've now mentioned as well.
Thanks very much Dudley Miles. I shall await further comments. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Dudley Miles thanks for your response to the query about geology. I have now amended the article based on your response. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • It is helpful to create archive copies of online pages in case they disappear. There is a tool which works for most web pages at [46].
I have run the bot and it did not archive anything, presumably because they were all archived.
No. Archiving is adding backup versions of sources to references. The version of the bot you used does not seem to work, and the article is too large for the bot for one page. I have split the article in two in sandboxes and run the bot on each half, then copied the archived version back. I got it wrong the first time, but hopefully OK now. Revert if not. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Skegness was the fourth most popular holiday destination in England for tourists from the United Kingdom" "from the UK" sounds odd when they are not going abroad. "UK residents" as in the source would be better.
Changed
  • "Stiebels and the ride manufacturer J. R. Mitchell were still operating in the late 1980s, alongside Rose-Forgrove and Sandersons Forklifts.[126] The industrial estate, off Wainfleet Road, continues to house a range of businesses and the district council have proposed expanding it as of 2016." This is very dated. Can you not get more up to date information, for example on the council web site?
There is no official directory or more up-to-date history. I have used Google Maps to offer a summary of current occupants, and have beefed up the historical aspects to offer some explanation of what has happened since the 1980s.
  • "Nevertheless, Skegness is relatively weak at offering comparison goods" What are comparison goods? It is not helpful to provide a red link to an obscure term. Ditto elementary occupations.
Both articles are created here and here.
  • Religion. Perhaps also of interest that the figures for 'no religion' and 'religion not stated' are almost the same as the national average.
Done.
  • "in the most deprived quintile nationally, compared with 20% for England as a whole; only 7.7% fell in the least-deprived three quintiles, compared to 60% for England" I do not think you need to say 20% and 60% for England, as this applies by definition - one quintile is 20%.
Done.
  • Candleshoe links to a film of that name.
Replaced with red-link to the wapentake.
  • "the hospital includes a contraception and advice centre" "the hospital includes a contraception and general health advice centre"?
Changed.
Thanks Dudley Miles. That latest tranche should now be done. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
This has been fixed. I have also reviewed the Webarchive templates -- thank you for adding them. A few pointed to paywalled resources, so I have removed those. They were also inserted in the wrong place in each reference, so I have moved them to the end of each ref tag. I have just noticed that about two thirds of them have their dates in YYYY-MM-DD format, whereas all other dates in the article are in DD Month YYYY, so I've started to fix that. Otherwise, I think that's everything (so far anyway). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • There is a script to fix the date formats, but I cannot remember the details. If you have it installed, when editing you will see options under tools on the left to fix them. I will do it now. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until the post-war period, the only secondary education available to Skegness's children was at Magdalen College School, a grammar school in Wainfleet." Which war?
Clarified chronology
  • "with the rest of the building dating to the later Middle Ages at the earliest and probably the mid-16th century;" This sounds clumsy. Maybe "with the rest of the building probably dating to the mid-16th century;"
Edited
I usually prefer one column, but this is a long bibliography and I think the columns make it easier for the eye to scan.
Dudley Miles. Thanks for all of that (especially for the formatting fix!) I've now made all the requested changes. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you very much! (I've had a look at the notes and it seems the Reflist is splitting into columns automatically so I'm not sure it can easily be fixed). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I assume that the reason is that you reflist for both notes and citations, so the 30em applies to both. I use {{efn|Note.}} for notes and then {{notelist}} instead of {{Reflist|group="n"}}, and then you can have different column formatting for notes and citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Laser brain

edit

Just made it through the lead but it doesn't seem as polished as I hoped. Some random potshots:

  • "lost to the sea" being repeated in the lead doesn't make much sense.
  • "The arrival of package holidays abroad" - this phrase confuses me. Do you mean the advent of package holidays abroad being sold to Brits?
  • "took visitors away from Skegness's in the late 20th century" I don't understand the use of possessive here.
  • "It has a reputation as a traditional English seaside resort; as well as the long, sandy beach, the seafront's attractions include amusement arcades, eateries, Botton's fairground and the pier, as well as nightclubs and bars." Bit of a trainwreck of a unrelated ideas that don't need to be living in the same sentence.
  • "The town also hosts Natureland Seal Sanctuary, a museum, an aquarium, golf links, a heritage railway, an annual carnival and a yearly arts festival; to the south is Gibraltar Point nature reserve." Same comment
  • "Despite the arrival of a number of manufacturing firms" - "a number of" is poor prose. Either state the number, or use a term like "several".
  • "Residents are served by five state primary schools and a preparatory school, two state secondary schools (one of which is selective), several colleges, a community hospital, several churches and two local newspapers; the town is home to the divisional police headquarters, a magistrates court and a lifeboat station." Same comment as before... lots of overly long sentences where using a semicolon to join all that information affects readability negatively.

Will continue later, but someone might need to take a hatchet to some of these long sentences. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain: thanks for your comments. Apologies for some of these prose issues in the lead; it's one of the few aspects of the article which I've changed a lot over the course of this review and, in doing so, had introduced some of the issues you cited above. I've copyedited it here, which I believe addresses each of your concerns. I look forward to any comments you may have about the rest of the article. I will likely be unable to make any changes until tomorrow, however. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! I will resume reviewing today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "Sand continues to accrete at the southern end of Skegness in the early 21st century, but coastal erosion carries on immediately north of the town; following the 1953 flood, sea defences have been built along a 24 km (15 mi) stretch of coast between Mablethorpe (to the north) and Skegness to prevent erosion, but currents remove sediment and the defences hinder dune development; a nourishment scheme began operation in 1994 to replace lost sand." Sentences like these are just wildly long and need to be broken up. I noted some of the lead. Any time you're using semicolons to join independent clauses, please take a look at not just whether they're peripherally related, but whether you're affecting readability.
I have broken the sentence up and checked the rest of the article, chopping a few others up as well.
  • "During the medieval period the offshore islands which sheltered the coast were destroyed, very likely in the 13th century during a period of exceptionally stormy weather." This sentence doesn't have an immediate citation—is it meant to be covered by the next one? It doesn't bear repeating, but I usually look for a citation when I see phrases like "very likely".
It is supported by that citation to Pawley's thesis.
  • "This stagnation coincided with a declining number of day-trippers, which fell from a peak of 230,277 in 1882 to 118,473 in 1885." Is there a known explanation for the decline?
No. Because Dudley also asked about this above, I've added a sentence to say that Gurnham does not offer an explanation for it though recites one report about falling trade in Nottingham. Some Googling suggests that industry in the Nottingham area went through a rough patch in the 1880s, but it'd be OR to connect that with Skegness's dip in trade.
  • "The Embassy Ballroom and the swimming baths were replaced in 1999 with the Embassy Theatre Complex, which includes a theatre, indoor swimming pool, leisure centre and cark park" Car park? I'd change it but maybe a cark park is a thing :)
Excellent catch, changed!
  • It looks like your cited sources separate "roller coaster"—is there a reason for piping/combining it?
I've changed it, though either is acceptable.
  • There may be some overlinking throughout but maybe it's deliberate because of the length? I think I spotted "accretion" or "accreted" linked a 3–4 times. Dic-defs like "fishing" (twice linked), "ferry" etc are probably not needed.
I've gone through using the duplicate link spotter tool and pruned all but a couple where they are introduced at different ends of the article, like Methodism (in religion and history) and social renting (linked as council housing in the history section). Otherwise, I think it's good to go now.

I'll probably want to make another pass. It's long. It's looking pretty good. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain: Thanks again for this. I have hopefully addressed your concerns with this edit. I shall look forward to any further comments if you give it another read through. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Support now. I've made a few tweaks and I'm happy with the quality. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting and for taking the time to give this a thorough review Laser brain. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ian Rose, Ealdgyth: with three supports following detailed reviews and a completed image review, am I right in thinking that this now needs a source review request? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and I've added it to the list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! —Noswall59 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Plenty of source here – I'll get through some right now and come back tomorrow for the rest... Aza24 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Biblio[reply]

  • Link for "Lincolnshire Research Observatory Statistics about Skegness, East Lindsey (Lincoln: Lincolnshire Research Observatory, 2003)." is broken
  • House of Lords Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities, Written Evidence (London: House of Lords, 2019). is broken as well
  • VisitEngland has a link
  • All books and encyclopedias (not including online encyclopedias) need an ISBN 13. Some, usually ones maybe 60 years or older, may not have one assigned and instead would benefit from an OCLC, which you can find at Worldcat
  • I'll go through the inline refs later Aza24 (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Wait what does "Phillips (1932)." (ref 20) even refer to? Can't find a phillips in the biblio – missing page number as well if it's a printed source
  • I am unsure what the "2.2.4.4." is supposed to mean in ref 42
  • ref 73 should be 1972, right?
  • ref 111 should have em dash: –
  • ABC missing wiki link
  • That's all I could find. Reliability is good. Aza24 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 Thanks for doing this so promptly. I will make the relevant changes sometime today or tomorrow -- it may take a little while to get all the ISBNs in order. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Aza24 Okay, I believe I have now fixed all of the issues through these edits – all printed works have an ISBN or OCLC; the journals have ISSN numbers; the House of Lords link is fixed; the Lincolnshire one may still be broken, but I've added an archive link; I've added archive links to every web-online document in the bibliography as well. All of the citation fixes have also been done (I also swapped out Phillips for a better ref anyway). Thanks a lot for carrying this out – do let me know if I need to do anything else. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your thoroughness – everything looks good now. Pass for source review. Note for FAC coords I did not do thorough spotchecks but I glanced through the links while checking most of them, nothing seemed to be off. Aza24 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [47].

Elizabeth Willing Powel

edit
Nominator(s): GreenMeansGo and Coffeeandcrumbs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Willing Powel has been called a forgotten "Founding Mother" of the United States. An apt moniker for a woman perhaps forgotten by history but whose influence on early American History is evident in her communiques with the notables of her period, including many of the Founding Fathers of the United States who she entertained at her home at Powel House (now a museum in Philadelphia). She is most often remembered for a light exchange with Benjamin Franklin which became an often quoted statement about the Constitution of the United States. The story goes as such: a "lady" asked Franklin "What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?", to which he responded, "A republic ... if you can keep it". Who this "lady" was is often glossed over. This article attempts to answer that question with the best sources available today. Powel was a kingmaker and power broker of her time who counseled Supreme Court justices, presidents, senators, and mayors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eddie891

edit

Yup, I forgot :)

That's it for a first pass from me, most of my comments are rather subjective and I'm open to further discussion. Best wishes and a very nice article, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two things: "French nobleman François-Jean de Chastellux recalled that, rather than her husband as the foremost political thinker of the family, "contrary to American custom, [Mrs. Powel] plays the leading role in the family." I think this would read better as "French nobleman François-Jean de Chastellux recalled that, "contrary to American custom," rather than her husband as the foremost political thinker of the family, "[Mrs. Powel] plays the leading role in the family"." No big deal either way, though. 2) are you going to mention John Adams climbing the steeple? Other than that the prose seems pretty good to me. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eddie891: I've added a bit about Adams' shenanigans. Thank you for reminding me that I was trying to remind myself. I...am struggling a bit to find a formulation of your formulation for Chastellux that isn't repetitive re "family". Maybe "foremost political thinker of the house", "of the home", in the home? GMGtalk 12:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like 'of the house' the best, personally. Happy to Support (mainly on prose) either way... I see there's a lot of talk below about comprehensiveness. As I don't have access to the sources, I'll leave that for others. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

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

Thank you. Always something new to learn. (I kinda knew that, but have never seen in expressed in that way.)
OK. I see the point. But I think that it assumes a knowledge of the fine details of the period and its people which most (ie any non-US) readers won't possess.
Fair enough.

On an editorial note, wonderful last paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading.

  • "The daughter and later wife of mayors of Philadelphia" Her father's role as a mayor is not mentioned in the main article.
  • Added that bit. Not sure where it went. But it seems fairly important that she was born already part of the local political elite. Charles did die more than a decade before Elizabeth was married. But maybe that's too much detail best left to the main article for Charles? GMGtalk 12:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy. If it is in the lead it needs to be in the article. Obviously there are two ways of resolving that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes:

  • Any reason why the Maxey quote on education couldn't be paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice?
    • I have shortened this quote down to only a few words. It is...a bit difficult maybe to say something like "benefited from superior instruction" in WPs voice, since that's basically a historical judgement call on the part of Maxey. It is still technically possible that she was just a self-taught savant, however historically unlikely it may be that one of the wealthiest families in Philadelphia would have failed to educate their children. GMGtalk 12:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, if a little less obviously, the Anishanslin quote on women's roles.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Just my response re "General Washington" above to look at. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Would removing "General" aid non-US reader? I don't think so. However, it does add value for those familiar with the period's US history. Don't get me wrong, I hate honorifics. However, this is an earned rank and title. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that you remove it. How about something like 'Elizabeth was a close friend and confidant to George Washington, commanding general of the Continental Army and later the first president of the United States"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't bother me if that's more intuitive wording. My impression was that it served primarily to differentiate pre- and post-war Washington, since the section is grouped thematically, with each thematic section kindof having it's own chronology. So the general overall header goes until well after the revolution, but then we kindof "reset" and reorient ourselves a bit when we switch focuses to Washington and then Franklin. GMGtalk 16:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. It's your article. You need to introduce Washington, which "later the first president of the United States" does to an extent. IMO a broader introduction would be better - but I don't insist. "General" is a nod towards this, but - IMO - it unreasonably assumes that a reader will understand the nuances you are trying to convey. So either remove it or - better - expand it: I certainly don't insist on my choice of words. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anybody has any objections/suggestions, I'm fine with moving it to a description rather than an honorific. Honorifics are kindof a no-no anyway. GMGtalk 17:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I am always surprised how discussion solves all problems. I realize now I misundertood what Gog was saying. Apologies. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about solving all problems, but at least it gives us a fighting chance. A nice little article you have here. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tagishsimon

edit

For people of this era it's always worth doing a check for person + slave/slavery. For EWP, I find that her husband, at least, for a time, was a slave owner; and that she is said to have taken a journey from acceptance of, towards membership of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and hardline abolitionism - see e.g. David W. Maxey A Portrait of Elizabeth Willing Powel (1743-1830) pp.53-54.

My concern with respect to FA status is that the article may lack coverage of her political thinking and the positions she took on issues of the day, beyond a couple of sentences in the Public life section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Noting the FA criteria "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and reading through Maxey, I note the following which all seem to be missing from the article; that's not to say all this stuff should be in the article, so much as that the context I get from Maxey seems lacking from this article.

  • Her engagement with John Dickinson and his ideas, contrasted with her advice to her sister that women should not engage in politics (pp.18-19)
Her alleged engagement with John Dickinson and the possibility Samuel Powel was a second choice
  • In relation to the above two, I have added a bit about Dickinson. Maybe that will suffice. Though I would note that Maxey still pretty much treats this as a tantalizing rumor, the colonial equivalent of celebrity gossip. He doesn't quite venture to say that Samuel was in fact her second choice, and it's not clear at this point that we have really any published details at all about her and Samuel's courtship, or for that matter, whether they were already speaking while rumors were swirling about Dickinson.
Her comments about women in politics are a bit "out of time" here. But there seems to be a general favor toward a stand alone section on her political views if feasible. Maybe that would be a good fit there. GMGtalk 12:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section on this now under way on the talk. I would prefer to avoid putting in a half-finished section before everything is written/repurposed as needed. Standby. GMGtalk 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possibility she was under pressure to leave the family house, as the oldest unmarried sister, once her London educated brother had married & started filling the house with children
  • All we get of Samuel is "richest merchant" - no backstory on e.g. his european travel and his defection from the Society of Friends, let alone that his father died when he was 11 ^ his grandfather when he was ~20, such that he inherited a vast fortune early in his life.
  • The inference that EWP & Samuel were 'especially solicitous' to their servants, whether slave of free.
  • The grevious nature of the tragedy of the deaths of their childre, upon EWP in particular, and upon the couple's ambitions.
  • The role of smallpox, inoculation and EWP's medical cousin
  • Could probably make something of the Marquis de Chastellux's assessment of EWP - her loquaciousness, her leading role in the family.

I'll pause; I'm only a third of the way through Maxey. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a bit more involved than tweaking wording. I've been travelling all weekend and I've been on conference calls all morning. Will look to re-read Maxey and move forward soon. GMGtalk 13:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I would note that I believe the commentary on the Marquis de Chastellux was shortened per above due to concerns about over-reliance on quotes. And while Samuel in his own right did live a very interesting life, and his article needs a great deal of improvement, he does have his own article, and I am wary of the possibility of letting that bleed entirely too much into the article on Elizabeth. Not saying we couldn't flesh that bit out a bit more, but there is a fairly small margin there. GMGtalk 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • GreenMeansGo, I agree about not making this too much about Samuel, but I also agree with Tagishsimon that we need more content about her views. I think we should add a new H3 section focused entirely on her views and political opinions. I have been a little busy as well but I plan to tackle this some time over the next weekend. Feel free to start without me and I will jump in as always. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will look to work on it more also in the coming week or so. Just noting for coords that nothing here is abandoned, it's just moving at the speed of "busy angsty adult". GMGtalk 15:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of the changes; sorry they drove you mad. The article is *so* much better in all sorts of places, and we know so much more about her. I think all my concerns, above, are well answered; I'll have a scout around and see if I can find anything else to draw to your attention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor break 1 (Tagishsimon)

edit

Legacy section. I have concerns.

  • If we accept the section as is, her legacy is a) the fabric of a house b) 500 letters and some papers found in a trunk c) what people wrote about her Franklyn question and d) what more people wrote about her Franklyn question
  • I think we're missing any discussion of the substance or importance of her Franklyn question ... surely the question itself and the meaning and implications of the question, are her main legacy/ies? If so, we lack any discussion of it. Why is the question important? Why do we remember it? Did it change anything? When has it been brought up since she asked it? What are the circumstances in which it is remembered? So, for instance, we might talk about why exactly Nancy used the phrase earlier this year. We might talk about the use Gorsuch made of the question. TBH, in this article the Franklyn question is not unlike 'The Object' on the cover of Led Zeppelin's Presence (album)#Packaging and artwork (and see that article's infobox for a photo) ... one is sure that it's very important, but one is not sure quite what it is nor why it is important.
  • The last two paragraphs, on her slow dissolution from the Franklyn question story, are legacies only in the way they're exemplary of identifiable women being written out of history. Those two paragraphs might fly better under some sort of historiography of the Franklyn question section?
  • Is the house a legacy? Does it add any understanding of the subject of the article? I have doubts. For sure we should have this information somewhere on Wikipedia - probably in a dedicated Powel Houe article. Not convinced it should be here (but, I stress, YMMV). If it is a legacy, I would hope we could say more than the chronicle of purchasing woodwork and restoring the fabric. It might, for instance, provide a legacy in the form of one of the only examples (or accessible examples) of its type/period/class of architecture/interior design/domestic environment in Philly.
  • Can we say anything more about the 500 letters? Presumably they provide valuable insights into the issues of the day, useful to historians &c.
    • I hesistate to drift too far away from the subject at hand, Powel herself. The contents of her letters are evidenced in the Views section and elsewhere. I will however be on the look out for any sources that mention the letters' value to scholars. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we now add that a very contemporary aspect of her legacy is the realisation/recognition (vide Anishanslin's 'What we get wrong' article) that she's a poster-girl for the cultural practice of writing identifiable women out of history.
  • Finally - and I have not thought this through - it may be that you can address the above, within the article, but not within a Legacy section ... which is to say, I don't think you should feel that you are constrained to trying to fill a section called Legacy, if the good & useful things we have to say are better said under other headings.
  • hth. Know that I feel guilty raising these questions with you, but it's an arduous process if done right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, thank you, I am quite enjoying this experience. I have completely restructured the article to allow space for more expansion and accommodate a comment below by Venicescapes who like you suggest bringing the whole Franklin/republic bit together, which I had initially resisted. Apologies to GreenMeansGo for the sudden change of heart and the BOLD move. You will note I have made the Franklin thing an H2 section. I am going to expand it to explain its context and significance to McHenry and modern political commentators. We may have to split off into A republic ... if you can keep it or A Republic, If You Can Keep It (which redirects to Franklin), while keeping the parts we like for Powel. But let's see how long this article ends up being. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Views, starting Like many during the Revolutionary War, the Powels suffered extensive destruction of property ... that first sentence is not a view & should be removed elsewhere or deleted. Her loss of property, and her lament for lost education, are found in the same paragraph in Maxey (p.25) (but not under a heading "views". The first sentence would sit better in the appropriate place in the first 5 paras of the Public Life section

Some more from Maxey. As before, it is for you to decide whether any of the following should be included in the article; I raise it for your consideration, not as a demand that any or all of it be added.

  • p.37 - her fear of being buried whilst still alive
  • p.41 (last para) - your article states in a couple of places "She adopted her sister Margaret Willing Hare's son, John Hare Powel". Maxey says, specifically, that there's no evidence she adopted him and p.42 that special legislation would have been required. (Maxey notes that "it has often been asserted she adopted, but...") Maxey is clear that she always referred to him as nephew, that the renaming legislation identified his father &c.
  • p.51-52 - her views on the British (which are a. hilarious and b. all too believable.)
  • p.52-53 - her servants becoming her companions. You touch on this in sentence 3 of 'slavery', but there's possobly more to say (and in Maxey, there's a reprise of this when he deals with Amy Roberts (p.57 onwards))
  • p.54 - her great concern to preserve the Powel name
  • p.55-56 - linked to that, perhaps more on her shepherding of John Hare Powel
p.55 - her fairly extreme anti-catholicism - again, linked to her wish for the name to continue - "the Man that I had selected to transmit the Name of the virtuous correct Protestant Powel to Posterity."
Combining the top two for the sake of organizing my thoughts. It's difficult to say what to do with her religion. Maxey is the only one who seems to mention it, other than what inferences we can make by being married and buried by Episcopalians. Then again, Maxey is the most comprehensive source, at least until the day Synder publishes her own book. But the only bits we currently have are fairly passing mention of her disposition toward suspicion (p. 55), her concerns in reference to John (55-56), and her apparent distaste for Deism (p. 29). (Even then, Maxey rightly points out that is is fairly strange for a zealous Anglican to really breathe any words of pro-Irish-anything.)
Maybe @Coffeeandcrumbs: has further thoughts. But I'm not sure we have enough at this point for even a level three header on religion.
My inclination (and this may also address the below point) is that we should make the later life section lvl2 again, with three lvl3 headers:

==Later life==
Samuel dies. She inherits and manages everything.

===Will===
Everything about her meticulousness, leaving out John and only alluding to her servants, not to spoil the slavery section.

===John===
Everything about John, including the sentence from para 2 and all of para 4, also including the feud over his Catholic paramour.

===Death===
Basically all of para 3.

GMGtalk 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo, I don't think I like the above idea. I think we should handle religion in §Views under a section titled "Religion" or "Religion and education". If we begin with her Quaker background (see "Society of Friends" in Maxey p. 91), mentioning her mother Ann and her Quaker influence on Elizabeth's education (Anishanslin 2016 book starting on p. 171), and go into criticism of deism, hatred of Catholicism, and desire to propagate the Protestant Powel name, we have a good enough content for a separate section.
If you take care of adding more about her will in the Later life section, I will handle religion and John Hare. Be sure to mention her relatives fretting about the influence of her servants. We may have to split the Later life section into two pre- and post-1802 when she went into "self-imposed semiconfinement" (Maxey p. 51). Let's see how big the section gets before we consider organizational concerns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section heading on her religious views and added her anti-Catholic sentiments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.56 - the extreme length & detail in her will, perhaps linked with the reaction to her will being read (p.58) - the Griffitts (Samuel's family) being horrified to see his estate going to her nephew - "John Hare Powel and all his family are preparing to go to Europe in a month or two, to spend his money (as much as he can come at)."
  • p.63 - You might pick up Maxey's closing quotation on this page (e.g."Maxey sums up her life by quoting from a letter to her brother "the quote".)
  • Finally, from Maxey, it would be possible to have a section on her portraits; there's plenty of information with respect to the symbolism employed; the yellow (invented or fictional (p.46)) dress; that it would have been produced for her consumption only (p.47); its provenance before it finally returned to the Powel House (p.51 onwards) and, perhaps, Maxey's view of the near-end-of-life portrait (p.63) --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor break 2 (Tagishsimon)

edit

It's looking like very much of the above has been dealt with - thank you very much. This new list is anything I come across on another read; wording quibbles, mainly. Later I'll close down the above two sections by bringing down here anything remaining (e.g. the strong concern about 'adopted son' is, I think, still unaddressed).

Stay strong. Nearly there.

  • Lede Para 2. "It was first recorded by James McHenry," -> "The exchange was first recorded by James McHenry,"
  • Lede Para 2. (change 'or' to comma) "the role played by Powel all but removed in 20th-century versions or replaced with an anonymous "lady"," -> " the role played by Powel all but removed in 20th-century versions, replaced with an anonymous "lady","
  • Lede Para 3. "She had also inherited a country estate " makes it sound like this is an inheritence from left-field. It's presumably some of Samuel's (or the couple's) property, possibly part of Samuel's inheritence from his family; I forget. You could turn the whole sentence around, along the lines of "She built a home for her adopted son and heir, John Hare Powel on a country estate which formed part of her inheritance."
  • Lede Para 4. I think this needs splitting into two paragraphs at "Christ Church. The Powel House" since the first part deals with her life, the second deals with stuff that happens much later.
  • Lede Para 4. "The Powel House was later renovated and reopened to the public as a museum." -> ""The Powel House was much later renovated and reopened to the public as a museum.
    • I think adding the date when the museum opened handles the above 2 comments. I would prefer to keep this to 3 paragraphs to avoid short paragraphs. Her legacy of property, papers, and portraits is in my view related enough to her death to treat in the same paragraph. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede. I don't get a sense in the lead of just how fabulously wealthy she was (or the couple were). I got the impression from my reading that they were, indeed, comparatively at the top end of the super-rich of the town. We mention in 'Marriage and children' that Samuel wasone of the richest...
  • Infobox - Parent(s): Add her mother (whether as a redlink or in black; we say later both were prominent).
  • Infobox - Relative(s): Promote Edward Shippen (great-grandfather) to the top of the list (e.g. somewhat more chronological). For extra pedant points, John Hare should be higher than Ann Willing since the connection clearly was stronger.
  • Marriage and children Para 1. I think this needs to be reordered; we launch into the house before we've even been introduced to Samuel. Rude. Suggest (and note teaks to the final sentence):
In a wedding officiated by Jacob Duché at Christ Church on August 7, 1769, Elizabeth married Samuel Powel.[19][20] Also of Quaker ancestry, Samuel was well traveled and, at the time, one of the richest merchants of Philadelphia. As a young man, he had inherited a fortune from his grandfather Samuel Powell who was among the first settlers of the Province of Pennsylvania and died in 1756.[19][b] This marriage brought together two of the most prominent mercantile families in the city.[24] Five days before the marriage, Samuel had purchased a home for his new family, later to be known as the Powel House; it was located on South Third Street in Philadelphia,[7][21] just south of Elizabeth's childhood home.[22][23]
  • Salonnière Para 1: She was married in 1769. This section tells us she opened her house to delegates in 1774. It begs the question whether she was a salonniere between 1769 and 1774. Put another way, we date her salonniere habit to 1774 when it may predate? Don't know if we have anything on this or can come up with a form of words to bridge those 5 years
  • Salonnière Para 2. I think we could afford another sentence on just how lavish their entertaining was? iirc there are refs to 20-course meals? I appreciate we've made the point, in part, with the Adams anecdote. (I'll try to hunt out a ref if you don't get to this first)
  • American Revolution para 1. We need to beef up this para - it's quite weedy and fails to provide detail which we summarise in the lead. I think there are two main lacks:
    • We should make clear as sentence 1 that the American Revolutionary War started in April, and then go on to say that Samuel was elected in October. Remember, especially, that non-USians are not familiar with US history and get confused by its 'Revolutionary War' and 'War of Independence' and the 1812 war. It's fine to repeat American Revolutionary War as a link here.
    • We should add a sentence on the couple's view, or Elizabeth's view, on the whole revolution business - which seems to be equoivical? I appreciate we go into some more detail in Views, below, but the reader wants to know in this para whether they were loyalist or revolutionary or fence sitters.

Anchor break 3 (Tagishsimon)

edit

With apologies, I have more substantive things to raise. I've been doing a little more reading, specifically J L Bell's blog series on the question - https://boston1775.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-republicif-you-can-keep-it.html and "The Account Books of Elizabeth Willing Powel: Part 1", "Part 2", and "Part 3".

I'll do some spadework on this, but you'll recall I raised queries about the significance and use of the Franklin question. We have the "A republic ... if you can keep it" section composed of two subsection. In these, we largely relate how the tale changed over time. Only once do we try to put this in context - "McHenry, a staunch Federalist, may have had political motivations for changing the story." A couple of things jump out of Bell's analysis 1) his specific point that the longer exchange omitting 'monarchy' and pointing to the "people, on tasting the dish" is << an explicit warning that “the people” could ruin the republic if they “eat more of it than does them good.” Again, that reflects Federalist thinking. A story of Powel worrying about monarchy had become a story about Franklin (now conveniently dead) worrying about democracy. [48] >>. We talk about Republic vs. Democracy, but not Republic versus The People 2) Bell throughout the series of posts provides us with the context for specific instances of use of the question, such as "In 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to run for a third term raised the specter of monarchy again." [49] or Powel's 1814 comments about the question perhaps being an attempt to "keep the President above the sniping between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian factions".[50] Or there's 1876 and Frederick J. Brown’s Sketch of the Life of Dr. James McHenry in which "The twenty-six-word anecdote that McHenry had written into his journal of the Constitutional Convention had, after nearly a quarter-century, grown into a firmly spelled out warning against popular democracy" [51]. For modern times we say "The same month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while announcing the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump in the House of Representatives, attributed the question to "Americans gathered on the steps of Independence Hall" - as if her attribution is the crucially important frame through which to view the question, when the more pertinent frame is the 2019 question of whether Trump is acting as a monarch.

From the account books (and associated) blog posts, I think there's more useful information for the 'Later life and death' section, and probably the 'Powel House, papers, and portraits' section; possibly other sections too. Examples of specific or general info I think we get might be 1) the $800 loan she made to secure a Black church 2) more general philanthropic activities 3) more emphasis that she continued her socially active life after Samuel's death (the papers are 1816-24, iirc) 4) the detail on, and importance and uses of the below-stairs life contained in the papers.

With regret, I think we need to go through the above sources again and, especially, improve our coverage of the question through time. I'll try to turn this into concrete editing suggestions tomorrow, since you must be getting tired of the whole thing by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by this. This is becoming more about the quote and less about her. The expansion you are proposing would make this article a coat rack. Much of the monarchy vs republic vs. democracy vs. the people has little to do with Powel. All that belongs at "A republic, if you can keep it", or Benjamin Franklin, or even better James McHenry. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I'll make any (minimal) suggestions with that in mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagishsimon, BTW, I do not want you to think I don't want to write the article that answers the question of why the quote became important. I really really want to write that article as well. I fully intend to make the redirect "A republic, if you can keep it" into an article of its own. Maybe, you would like to write it with me. It would be nice DYK for the day after election day, no matter the outcome of that dumpster fire.
Can you summarize any lingering concerns you may have? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tagishsimon

edit

I'm totally with you on the desirability of having A republic, if you can keep it and agree with your thinking. And yes, I'll try to help with it. You have covered all of the major points I raised with this article, and there are no minor points outstanding which mitigate against FA. I'm very grateful to you for the tireless work you have put in to the article. I support promoting this article to FA. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Can you confirm that your image review still stands? Thank you and sorry for calling you back. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When and where were File:Elizabeth_Willing_Powel_(c._1760).jpg and File:James_McHenry.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, AFAIK, File:Elizabeth_Willing_Powel_(c._1760).jpg was first published in 2016 on the source website. I have added {{PD-US-unpublished}} instead. File:James_McHenry.jpg appears to have first been published in 2004 by the US Gov on the NPS website from where it is source. Added the same template as former. Sound good? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ergo Sum

edit

Having done the GA review for this article, I am quite happy with its quality and expect to support it for FA. I will just leave a few comments here:

That's all I have. Ergo Sum 19:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Venicescapes

edit

My expertise lies elsewhere, but I can offer a few observations.

In the section "Early life and family":

THe additional information helps. It was not clear that all of the children died. I think it would be clearer if you stated that two were stillborn. The other two, both named Samuel, died in infancy.Venicescapes (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have further expanded and clarified the section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow.Venicescapes (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Friendship with Washington":

In the section "A republic ... if you can keep it"

In the section "Legacy"

  • In the sentence Led by Frances Wister, the house..., I assume you mean Under the leadership of... or Upon the initiative of.... Led cannot refer to the subject house.
  • Do you have any information as to the extent of the restoration of the house? Are all rooms restored/furnished? How long did the restoration last? When was the museum opened?
  • What was the nature of the documents that were discovered?
  • I believe it should be: at the time of the Constitutional Convention
  • How was the exchange adapted over time? In literature? In film/stage? In historical works?
  • Since the last paragraph refers to the statement alone and neither of the speakers, Pelosi and Gorsuch, associate the exchange with Powel, I'm not sure if it's pertinent... unless you show how the figure of Powel diminished over time with the conclusion that she is no longer mentioned.Venicescapes (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly the theme of the paragraph that precedes this one: how she was replaced by an anonymous "lady" and how the setting of the exchange was moved from one of her parties to the steps of Independence Hall. All culminating to the point that when the quote resurfaced in Pelosi's speech and Gorsuch's book, Elizabeth was not mentioned. Gorsuch spefically refers to "a passerby" asking the question which is mentioned in a footnote (now moved into the body). It was only after several historians wrote articles pointing that out that her name became well-known and I ended up starting this Wikipedia article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence: The collection of about 256 pages, consisting mostly of financial records and inventories in her handwriting, were given to PhilaLandmarks for safekeeping., change were to was in order to agree with subject collection.

Your proposal to trace the changing perceptions of the quote certainly has merit, but I think the task you’ve set for yourself requires considerably more research and analysis. To begin with, there is no mention of nineteenth-century portrayals. You mention that the quote was published in 1908. Was this the first instance? If so, how was the quote 'rediscovered'? Is there a reference to Powel in 1908?

With reference to the 1986 miniseries, many aspects are not explained: who made the decision to portray Powel as a flibbertigibbet and on what basis? Was this portrayal based on a preceding work; was it following in a trend already underway; was it a radical departure from tradition? How is she portrayed in the play Com[promising] Future? In those accounts where Powel is not present, is she always replaced with a generic woman? You say that over time, the setting was also changed. When was the change first made (or what is the first evidence you can find); by whom? Was the change due to a lack of knowledge of historical facts, or was it deliberate? If the latter, for what reason? Were there other venues proposed or just the house or Independence Hall?Venicescapes (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes, I have rewritten the last paragraph and added a bit to the penultimate paragraph. Does this version make more sense? I have tried to include how the questioner is described in every instance whenever I could find info. I could not find any more information about her portrayal in the miniseries or the play. I have added more info about the play but I am starting to think mentioning it at all was undue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have also traced the quotes history back to 1908 and from 1787 upto 1811. I have not found any appearances of the story between 1811 and 1908. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking my observations into account.
  • In the sentence Powel remembered an account of the conversation also appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser but could recall on what date., insert not after could: Powel remembered an account of the conversation also appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser but could not recall on what date.
  • Consider rewriting the sentence The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time, with the role played by Powel all but removed in 20th-century versions, while Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him. as The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time. While Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him, the role played by Powel was all but removed in 20th-century versions.
  • Tracing how information (in this case a quote) is received, altered, and transmitted over time is, alas, not easy. The best solution, in my opinion, requires some restructuring.
(1) I agree that the reference to the student play is undue and would definitely remove the information about the students' play since it's not known how she was portrayed in the play.
(2) I would then move the sentences: According to Mickey Herr of PhilaLandmarks, Powel's relationship with Washington was later "looked at with jaded eyes". Herr specifically criticized the 1986 miniseries George Washington II: The Forging of a Nation —in which Powel is played by Penny Fuller— for portraying her as "a flibbertigibbet of the first order". to the section "Friendship with Washington" (perhaps as a footnote). In its present location, it stands alone, having nothing to do with the previous paragraph (the house as a museum and documents) nor the following paragraph which talks about the quote.
(3) Move the entire section ""A republic ... if you can keep it"" under "Legacy" as a second subsection. You can create a first subsection "Powel house museum" (or something similar). There are several advantages. It keeps "Later life and death" with the rest of the biographical information (which is certain, whereas the quote is attributed). It also enables you to better analyze the development of the quote.
(4) After the sentences Powel remembered an account of the conversation also appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser but could not recall on what date. Historian J. L. Bell notes that he did not locate the story in the Daily Advertiser, and it did appear elsewhere, so Powel may have misremembered where else, besides McHenry's writings, she had seen it., begin a new paragraph with McHenry's journals on the Constitutional Convention first appeared in print, in its entirety including the footnote mentioning Powel, in the April 1908 issue of The American Historical Review. It is to this publication that Bartleby.com and The Yale Book of Quotations trace the anecdote's recent history., followed by The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time. While Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him, the role played by Powel was all but removed in 20th-century versions. (You'll probaby need to adjust the wording of the sentence. Consider: However, the story of Powel's exchange with Franklin has been adapted over time.)
(5) Move the sentence In later versions, the setting of the exchange was revised from Powel House to the steps of Independence Hall or the streets of Philadelphia. to the end of the penultimate paragraph. You have two topics: the identity of the lady and the place that shouldn't be jumbled. Also, in this way, the sentence Powel herself was often replaced with an anonymous "lady", "woman", or "concerned citizen" should follow The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time. While Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him, the role played by Powel was all but removed in 20th-century versions.
(6) You may have to adjust some of the wording, but I think it would logically flow much better. I'd be happy to take another look. If it's easier, I could also make the edits for your review and approval.Venicescapes (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...I may need a little bit to reread the sources and think. I seem to have run out of my "quiet time" this morning to really get knee deep in research. GMGtalk 15:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is merely a suggestion and could be wrong, although it might be advantageous to avoid mixing biographical facts and a tradition with limited documentation. I appreciate the information you've been adding. It fleshes out the biography nicely.Venicescapes (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Venicescapes, I assume then that we only need to flesh-out the part about her convincing Washington to stay for a second term before we earn your support in this FAC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I just saw the new layout. Much better. My compliments. I hope you're equally pleased. I noticed that you've added quite a bit of information. So, I'd like to do a copyedit. It will probably take a few days. But the article is well on its way to FA.Venicescapes (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Venicescapes, give me a couple more days. I have a bit more to add to connect the dots and address comments from another reviewer above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I had just started. Here's what I have for now. Please let me know when you're ready. Nice job.
Consider using past perfect: Charles had immigrated to the city at the age...
I would delete twice since you've given two dates. Perhaps: ...in 1748 and again in 1754.
In the sentence Ann descended from a Quaker family..., the verb should be immigrated. Also, I would use past perfect: ...who had immigrated to ...
It should be engagement to: ...Elizabeth's potential engagement to John Dickinson....
Consider either ...but died at two weeks of age... or but died after only two weeks...
In the sentence The death of all her children and her constant depression throughout her life it's not clear (only implied) that the depression is linked to the loss of the children. Consider: The death of all her children and the constant depression that resulted throughout her life...Venicescapes (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, nice work. Let me know when you'd like a copyedit. In the meantime, there are a few points on standardization. (1) Make sure that the notes are always in numerical sequence. For example, in the "American Revolution" section, at the end of the sentence: He found them to be "very agreeable, sensible people"., invert notes 41 and 38. This occurs several times in the article. (2) You have several quotes but use two formats. The quote from the letter to Washington appears in a box on the right, whereas the others appear centred in the text. I would standardize these and recommend the latter format so as to avoid too much on the right of the page. (3) There are various widths to the images which gives the page a haphazard look. I would give a standard, default width. None of them is so elongated that the image would be disproportionately large.Venicescapes (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll slowly go through it. Here are a few points:
  • In the sentence Washington renewed his friendship with the couple when he returned to Philadelphia (initially without Martha) for the Constitutional Convention in May 1787., invert notes [49][36] to maintain numerical sequence. Is it necessary to specify without Martha?
  • I would move the reference notes to the end of the quotes.
OkayVenicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Later life and death":
Consider: In 1793, Philadelphia suffered (instead of underwent) an epidemic of yellow fever, during which the Washingtons invited the Powels to seek refuge at Mount Vernon.
That works as well.
Consider moving Following the death of George Washington in December 1799, she was among the first to write to the widowed Martha, and continued correspondence with the Washington family, including George's nephew, Bushrod Washington, for whom she had purchased a gift of black satin robes upon his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1799. to the section about Washington, giving priority to related topics as opposed to strict chronology. Also, as written, the comma after Martha should be deleted (compound predicate: She was ... and continued) You could also break this into two sentences.
Do give it some thought. I think it would work better.Venicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence She oversaw the management of her the estate and wrote increasingly on the subject of business., delete either her or the
I would rewrite as two sentences: She died on January 17, 1830. Her funeral five days later was, according to Maxey, a well-attended "social event and a religious experience" presided over by William White, the bishop of Pennsylvania. (note well-attended with the hyphen)
I would rewrite as: The property in Blockley Township included a Greek Revival country home, built by Elizabeth in the early 1800s, which John Hare expanded in 1824–25 on the basis of designs from architect William Strickland. Additionally: He also inherited her mansion on Chestnut Street which he converted into a hotel named Marshall House and then leased to Samuel Badger who operated it from 1837 to 1841.Venicescapes (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes #2

edit

You've added quite a bit of information (all very good). So I started from the top.

  • In the Lead:
Redlinks are ok, but in the lead they can be very glaring. I would eliminate of the Republican Court. It doesn’t seem to be essential at this point anyway.
Add commas: Extensively, but privately, on a wide range of subjects...
I would move The setting of the exchange was revised from her home at the Powel House to the steps of Independence Hall. to the end of the paragraph. It's wedged in between two sentences which both discuss her and not the place.
I would move the sentence The Powel House was later renovated and reopened to the public as a museum. to the end of the paragraph. It's interupting the biographical information.Venicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Early life and family" section:
Can you reword this sentence: She also commissioned a mourning portrait c. 1793 to retrospectively depict her in this period for her private viewing and as a reminder.?
Yes, now it makes more sense.Venicescapes (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "American Revolution" section:
Consider: When British troops withdrew from the city, Elizabeth emerged among the most prominent Philadelphian socialites of the post-revolution period, establishing the Philadelphia salon of the Republican Court which consisted of the leading intellectual and political figures of colonial America.Venicescapes (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Salonnière" section:
Avoid false titles: As the historian...
Insert comma: contemporary elites, including
Consider: In at least one instance, Adams recalled enjoying what, from his Puritan perspective, was "a most sinful feast".
  • In the section "Friendship with Washington":
If possible, avoid two relative clauses. Consider: They were officially introduced on January 6, 1779 at a Twelfth-Night ball, hosted by the Powels and attended by the Washingtons who were celebrating the 20th anniversary of their marriage. There are other possibilities.
Change to record: His diary and various letters record frequent visits to the home. Alternatively, In his diary and various letters, he recorded frequent visits to the home.
Insert comma after reflections (compound sentence): In her own words, her "mind was thrown into a train of reflections", and she considered it...
Can you change one of the she wrotes: She wrote Washington urging him to reconsider. In a letter dated November 17, 1792, she wrote.
Insert the and comma: ...not offended by the strongly worded, seven-page letter...
hobby sounds modern and seems out of place. How about leisure activity or pastime?

Images

It's not critical, but you might want to experiment with image placement for a more polished look. You have a cluster of images at one point. Some ideas to consider could be:

increasing the size of the portrait in the infobox so that the three spaces (left, right, above) are all the same
placing a portrait of McHenry in a multi-image template along with the except from the diary
adding a portrait of Franklin
moving the portrait of Powel by Alexander to the section "Later life and death"
moving the image of the withdrawing room to the section "Powel House…" where it’s actually mentioned
moving the image of Samuel to the marriage section and placing in a multi-image template along with the portrait of Elizabeth by Pratt. The two portraits are almost contemporary and correspond to the period discussed in that section … perhaps a horizontal arrangement with the two portraits facing one another would work nicely.

I’m not sure if the black-and-white photo of the house adds much … perhaps a coloured photo … perhaps in a multi-image template along with the interior.

  • I have taken most of these suggestions. I have to disagree about the black-and-white photo. I think it is better than a modern color photo. The exterior of the building has deteriorated since its renovation almost 90 years ago. I think the 1960s photos better show the efforts done to restore the house. As for the withdrawing room exhibit, I have moved it to the section on Washington. The section mentions Powel often having tea with Washington. Besides the guest bedroom where he would have slept as a guest, he would have spent the most time in this room flirting over tea with Elizabeth. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should finish the rest tomorrow.Venicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest:

  • In the section "Views":
Delete comma after politics: She discussed politics and the education and social standing of women…
Insert that: … saying of David Hume and of deist philosophers generally, that they were like a person who would leave a family homeless….
The article a followed by c. is a little confusing, especially since a tiny dot appears before the c.. I had to stop for a second and study it. Try: In a letter to Maria Page, Mary's recently married daughter, c. 1784, Powel…. Alternatively, you could spell out circa: In a circa 1784 letter…
I don’t think have can be substituted by the action verb do. Either: By 1790, the family no longer held slaves in their service, although their peers and neighbors continued to do so. Or By 1790, the family no longer had slaves in their service, although their peers and neighbors continued to have them.
Delete former since at that moment they would have still been her employers: who was unhappy with the treatment of her former employers
Delete comma after woman: was ultimately a free woman and could
Either traced back to as early as 1814 or traced back to at least 1814
  • In the secion "A Republic...":
Insert comma after entry: The entry, dated September 18, 1787,...
Optional comma after Advertiser for contrast: ...appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser, but could not recall on what date.
Change its to their to agree with journals: ...journals on the Constitutional Convention first appeared in print, in their entirety.
Change is to was: When Powel was included...
Maintain sequence of Gorsuch/Pelosi as in text: ...neither Gorsuch nor Pelosi...
  • In the final section:
Consider preservation instead of safekeeping
Same as above with the a c.. Consider: The earliest of these is a miniature, c. 1760,... or spell out circa.
Delete either latter or Pratt since either is sufficient to identify which portrait: provenance of the latter Pratt portrait
Insert the: ...engage with the viewer...

That's it.Venicescapes (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes, thank you so much for your review and patience! If you have no further comments, I hope gain your support before I finish up with the review above. Needless to say, you are always welcome to edit the article directly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned initially, I do not have specific expertise with regard to the subject, nor do I have access to any of the sources. So, I am not able to determine if it well-researched and neutral. My support is therefore limited to specific criteria. The article is well-written, but as it is still evolving, a final copyright will likely be necessary. With the addition of information since it was first nominated, it is comprehensive yet stays focused. The structure was redone and is now appropriate. Images are also appropriate, although layout and sizing could be further improved for aethetics (admittedly subjective).Venicescapes (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComments by Ceoil

edit

There are A LOT of detailed prose concerns above. Form a quick scan I can see why. Is the article fully prepared for FAC or does it need a week or two of copy editing. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To note am following all the on-going work.....Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review is now almost twice as long as the article (153kb vs 66kb). I think it should have been asked to have been archived earlier, should have done so myself. I continue to oppose...such a radical re-write (which is still on-going) during FAC sets a poor precedent.

From the lead;

  • After the American Revolutionary War, she once again - remove "once" so not to sound so old fashioned
  • a politically connected woman seems patronising. All "high-profile parties" are "well-attended"...the last bit sound like from a contemporary gossip column
You are missing the point and leading me to question the use of old sources. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have this backwards. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time ..."Powel's exchange with Franklin..."
  • The setting of the exchange was also revised from her home at the Powel House to the steps of Independence Hall...."revised" should be relocated surely, 'meeting' rather than 'exchange'
  • Hundreds of letters to and from her and several portraits by various artists - "exchanged"
  • the collections of institutions in the United States - where? Would just say survive.

Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family:

Marriage and children

Because tense. The following statement "to retrospectively depict her in this period for her" is a mess. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the sentence. The portrait is covered in a later section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salonnière

American Revolution

No you have not, a number of you refutations are blasse, and anyway, I could go through the article again and come up with the same amount of points if I had the energy. My oppose, fwitw, stands. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After imbibing a selection - imbibing? better to say "drinking". Not sure either about the following "emboldened". Again, olden language.
  • admire a view of the city - "the" not "a"; its not as if they made a choice
  • 'venturing out to climb the steeple of a nearby church - "venturing" also 19th century, or fanciful, language
  • extensive destruction of property - what does this mean; burning, theft, reparation? It seems the sentence in the following para attempts to explain this, but is misplaced, nd should come earlier - "During the occupation of the city as part of the Philadelphia campaign, the family home was taken over by the British."
    • I have tried to clarify the section. Very little information is available from this period. The most reliable sources such as Maxey are circumspect on the matter but mostly say that the reports of Samuel's patriotism "cannot be readily substantiated". The older sources and some of the less reliable modern sources lionize both Samuel and Elizabeth. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now Strong oppose, the more I read the more work I see needed.[52] Ceoil (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, this edit has introduced information that is unverifiable. The portrait is currently on loan, which you would realize if you only checked the citation attached. I have to assume you are just trying to make this more difficult. If you had only asked, I could have assuaged this non-concern without making the sentence false. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C&C, I don't understand; the word loan doe not appear appears in the text in any version. However "kept" is still the more usual word than "remains", especially if the loan is not specified either in therms of the lender or loan period. Ceoil (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "ON LOAN: YES". My issue is not with the word "kept" which is perfectly acceptable. The issue is that you wrote "kept in". If you had asked, I would have changed "remains in the collection of" to "is kept by". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
..establishing the Philadelphia salon of the Republican Court from the leading intellectual and political figures of colonial America.[41][43][44] - is the word "from" right here...was it a breakaway? Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was bit more of a herding process. Political life returning from a state of general disarray: the Congress in exile in York, the two most important political cities under military occupation, not to mention just the war in general. In a more extended sense, one could say "from among the elite, who at this point were largely scattered, they reformed informal institutions of political, economic, and social power." GMGtalk 12:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. That makes sense. Re informal institutions of political, economic, and social power. - that insight would make a great addition, and bring the para further alive, if you have access to sources. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to read back through the sources to figure out wording. Was just kindof going from memory. GMGtalk 13:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if you could. As I say it gives colour and context for, eg Europeans that mightened have this stuff in memory. When you get a chance. Ceoil (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more context there, and we've at least now blue-linked it, though the subject definitely deserves more than a stub. GMGtalk 11:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that many of the changes that were undone this morning were made in response to comments above. Ceoil, I also do not understand the removal of commas here, in the sentence: The Powels maintained a substantial cadre of slave free and indentured servants. There should be a comma before and after "free". Serial commas are a stylistic choice and removing the comma before "free" makes no sense. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my oppose in recognition of the herculean and tireless effort by Coffeeandcrumbs. I recognise all the work reviewers have and continue to put into the page, and it has paid off. Am following Gerda's review below, and now close to supporting on prose. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

I had this on my to-do-list for August, so a last-minute look, and no look at the above, just the article, leaving the lead for last. Will comments as I read but save now to not cause edit conflicts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Marriage ...

Salonnière

American Revolution

  • "Samuel" alone seems not proper for an elected mayor.
  • "Elizabeth's loyalty remains a mystery." That sentence could mean diverse things, no?
    • Changed to "Elizabeth's allegiance during the war remains uncertain." We really don't know. I slightly expand on this in the Views section. We really don't know what side she was on. There is info on her sisters and her brother. Some info on Samuel's views but nothing substantive about what she thought about the revolution. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. W.

Later life ...

  • "Samuel contracted and later died of the disease in September."? - or is it just me (wanting to give more than given name facing death, and wanting disease after contracted)?
    • Can't do anything about the given name. Moved "disease" next to "contracted"
  • "and wrote more often on the subject" - more than what?

That's it for today, and I'll be out for most of tomorrow. - I think the names question is hard to solve, - had the same problem for the Schumanns in Clara Schumann. Good luck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, yeah, the names thing is really not an issue for me. I have read many FAs where the wife is referred to by just her given name many times in the article. It seems unavoidable to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in late today, as predicted: thank you for many adjustments! Good Main page today ;) - more on my talk. When I began work on Clara Schumann, she was called just Clara from start to finish, as major sourced also had. I changed that, prompted by concerns from John, about sounding overly familiar, and unlikely the same would happen to a man. - I usually have last name only, and when distinction between people is needed, often say "her husband" or "the couple". (I wonder if the "George and Elizabeth" sentence could profit from something like that, - given names alone suggest an intimacy that possibly wasn't there.) For the sentence about someone's death, I usually use the full name, any case, even if clear. - For what I read, with your changes, I could support, but will probably not get to reading further today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, in this edit, I was able to get rid of a lot of the given names (indluding "George and Elizabeth") following your suggestions. I could not figure out how to get rid the given name in the sentence about Samuel's death. Giving both his names just seems wrong to me when he has already been introduced. If the roles were reversed, we would not blink an eye at a wife's first name alone being used in that sentence. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role of women

Slavery

I am ready to support at this point. Take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

It seems that this is the major missing element, so I will take a pot at it. @Coffeeandcrumbs and GreenMeansGo: have either of you had previously successful FAC nominations? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I believe that GreenMeansGo has had one. This is my first nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did my first FA a few years ago. Though I've mostly been doing GAs lately. GMGtalk 11:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I'm maybe grading on a curve a little bit. It would be hard to argue that a few cites to a Master's thesis on George Washington would constitute significant influence, given that you could fill entire libraries with sources on Washington. In comparison, you'd be hard pressed to fill a large book shelf with the works on Powel. Such is the case with many 18th century women.
But when we can see another historian citing her thesis, and folks with the journalistic credentials of PBS and NPR citing her thesis in the same breath as Maxey, that ain't half bad as a proportion of the total extant works on the subject. It shows us that at least this wasn't just lost and forgotten in the archives of the Université de Montréal. If we had a thesis where say (I dunno) 1.4% of all works on Washington cited it, that would be pretty significant, though in the case of Washington, that 1.4% would be many thousands of citations.
Perhaps adding that Templier herself appears to have gone on to be a fellow at John Hopkins, and to apparently teach history at the University of Ottawa... that all ain't half bad either. At the end of the day, Roof and Pen is probably one of only a handful of modern longer-form works specifically dedicated to Powel, and it doesn't seem to be merely an amateur work of a passing student that immediately faded into obscurity. GMGtalk 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate GMG's point that we really only have two scholars that have studied Powel in detail, Maxey and Templier. I will add that she also wrote "Elizabeth Willing Powel et la sociabilité de la plume : discours sur la place et l’éducation des femmes et l’agentivité féminine dans l’écriture épistolaire" published in Cahiers d'histoire [fr]. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The it's the best source we have argument doesn't cut it, but that doesn't matter, because I am convinced by GMG's argument.

I'll let you have a look at these while I do some spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's all done. I need to get to the spot checks.

Spot checks - pass
edit
  • Cite 1: tick.
  • Cite 129: tick.
  • Cite 5: tick.
  • Cite 72b: "According to Maxey, her later writing seems to suggest there may have been at least one Patriot at the Powel House." I am unsure what this means. If it is a round about way of saying that Powel was patriotic, either in general or in 1812 I suggest that you simply say so. (Although if the latter, this seems covered by the following sentence and quote.)
  • Cite 87: tick.
  • Cite 125: tick.
  • Cite 61: tick.
  • Cite 68: tick.
  • Cite 83: you have, I think, confused "physician" - in the work cited - with physicist, and need to delete "and physics" from the article.
Ha! To be even more fair, knowing Rush et al to be physicians I misread the source as that! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Sorry. I'm not an expert on Rush, and these terms tend to get loosey goosey the farther back you go. Like...some guy who doodles on notepads and is really into the occult is a physicist. GMGtalk 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall cut this short. Impressive referencing, bar one humorous misreading.

A couple of actions above: against 72b and 83. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small things

edit
Good work; well done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of support

edit

I think this FAC might be done as at 2020-09-11. Summarising the above, we have:

Support
  • Support from Eddie891 - I like 'of the house' the best, personally. Happy to Support (mainly on prose) either way... I see there's a lot of talk below about comprehensiveness. As I don't have access to the sources, I'll leave that for others. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Gog the Mild - Not sure about solving all problems, but at least it gives us a fighting chance. A nice little article you have here. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Tagishsimon - I support promoting this article to FA. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2020
  • Clean image review from Nikkimaria - Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Ergo Sum - Everything checks out. Nice work. I'm happy to support. Ergo Sum 00:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Venicescapes - My support is therefore limited to specific criteria. The article is well-written, but as it is still evolving, a final copyright will likely be necessary. With the addition of information since it was first nominated, it is comprehensive yet stays focused. The structure was redone and is now appropriate. Images are also appropriate, although layout and sizing could be further improved for aethetics (admittedly subjective).Venicescapes (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Ceoil - Pleased to now be able to Support...Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Gerda Arendt - I am ready to support at this point. Take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Source review and spot-checks from Gog the Mild - A couple of actions above: against 72b and 83. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Dissent
  • Nil

Well done & many congratulations to C&C & GMG; big thanks to all the FAC reviewers. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not closing this FAC - way beyond my paygrade & not sure what the process is.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagishsimon, this is very helpful but in my experience the FAC delegates are surprisingly up to date with not just the tally, but the weight of the support/opposes for each candidate article. Agree there is likely to be a satisfying resolution here, but its not for us to say. Later. Ceoil (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I look forward to the verdict of our FAC-gnome overlords. Meanwhile I respectfully disagree with your call on the trailing a in the signature alt. I think what we're seeing above the fullstop is in effect a tilde - see Tilde#Nasalization. Or in the alternative, it is a badly written h with a fullstop below it - a fairly standard name abbreviation like Wm, Ths (william, thomas). What it absolutely is not, is an a, nor should we make an unfounded suggestion that EWP signed herself off as Eliza. It's not, you'll be pleased to hear, a deal-breaker. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon, I have several sources that say she signed her name as "Eliza Powel". Maxey is cited in the article saying so here. McHenry also has a similar cursive handwriting where he trails off at the end of "Philada", short for "Philad[elphi]a". See Bell here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The alt tag is describing what we can see in this instance of her signature, not describing what Maxey has seen elsewhere. Per your Philada example, this is *exactly* a contraction in which the last letter is employed to suffix a string of characters from the front of the name - thus Eliz h. You have invented an a which does not reasonably exist. That is a problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [53].

Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Navy joined the dreadnought building frenzy in the late 1900s, ordering the three smallest ships of the type, one of which was Alfonso XIII. All three ships met unfortunate ends; Alfonso XIII, by then renamed España and part of the Nationalist fleet during the Spanish Civil War, sank after striking a mine laid by another Nationalist vessel. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
File:Spanish battleship España sandwiching screenshot.png
Sandwiching screenshot
Thanks Buidhe. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coords that this article has not passed its image review as it does not meet MOS:IMAGELOC, which is part of the WP:FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 18:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of fact, it does not meet IMAGELOC for you. There is simply no feasible way to ensure that image locations work equally well across all device sizes and resolutions. That you fail to understand that is your problem, not mine or this article's. Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It violates imageloc on my laptop, but with mobile presentation on my device, the infobox is above the prose. Imageloc is kinda iffy considering the sheer number of layouts users see pages on. Hog Farm Bacon 04:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that more than half of readers are using tablets and phones. My view on IMAGELOC is that something like
[[file:xyz|right]]
[[file:abc|left]]
with no intervening text should be avoided, since that will always sandwich text. But given the wide range of devices, and the trend toward small mobile devices, image placement should be treated generously. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is my view that this article in its current state does not violate IMAGELOC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query by WerespielChequers
  • Hi, nice read thanks but I have a query and a suggestion, "that blocked the advance of Republican forces" - surely that should be "that blocked the advance of Nationalist forces"?
    • Good catch, yes
  • There are a lot of references to mines, including one that is linked to naval mines but I suspect the sentence "The ship's landing party went ashore to guard a rail line and several mines" refers to a different sort of mine. Given the amount of discussion of the other sort of mine in this article, it would make sense to add the type of mine in that case - coal or otherwise. ϢereSpielChequers 12:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

edit

This may be claimed for WikiCup points.

  • This currently lacks a short description. I'm not a Wikidata expert, but I think it's possible to add one either on here or at Wikidata.
    • Added
  • Since this ship was known as España, I can see a case for making a hatnote pointing to Spanish battleship España
    • Good idea
  • "At the end of the year, Alfonso XIII's crew won the Spanish Christmas Lottery" - I'm not convinced this is completely relevant. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.
    • My sense is, the lottery is a bigger deal in Spain than we might think (according to the source, "the winning ball from the tombola has been preserved for posterity in the naval museum at Ferrol.") This was a significant event of the ship's early career.
      • Yeah, it's probably significant if they preserved the tombola ball.
  • "The ship's landing party went ashore to guard a rail line and several mines" - All previous uses of mines are in reference to naval mines, so it takes some thinking to realize this is a reference to mineral mines. Is there a way to rephrase this?
    • It'd be nice if the source told us what kind of mines we're talking (I'd assume coal, but you never know)
  • "World War I on the side of the Entente" - Link Entente to Allies of World War I.
  • "which was at that time ruled by the dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera." - I'm not too familiar with Spanish history, so this may be a dumb question. Who was top dog: the king or the prime minister? The earlier part of the article makes it sound like Alfonso XIII was in charge, but now Primo de Rivera is given as the leader. Who was head of state?
  • "The plan ultimately came to nothing" - Can it be briefly stated why?
    • Good idea, added a bit on this
  • "Some army detachments, including some coastal artillery units around the harbor, sided with Franco. The destroyer Velasco also defected to the Nationalist side" - This, and a later sentence, give the impression that the batteries and Velasco were Nationalists. But it earlier states that Franco was a Republican. There looks to be a contradiction here.
    • Ah, I see the issue - the earlier sentence was malformed - Franco led the coup, not the government
  • SS Kostan is redlinked, but aren't a lot of freighters non-notable? If that's the case with this one, the redlink should be removed. There's several other of these
    • You'd be surprised at the articles that can be written about seemingly nondescript freighters, particularly those that sank for one reason or another - SS Helsingfors (1903) is an example of a relatively small and obscure vessel
  • Link Dry dock at the first applicable point
    • Done
  • "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" - Is redlinked. A lot of merchant ships aren't notable. Consider unlinking.
    • As above, it probably is at a basic level
  • I don't remember the exact guideline, but all sections of the article should be summarized in the lead. The Wreck section isn't.
    • Added a line

Willing to discuss any of these comments, as usual. Hog Farm Bacon 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm!. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments from The ed17

edit
  • I tried to copyedit the awkward opening sentence, but I'm not sure that I'm totally happy with it. What is/are the most important thing(s) a reader needs to know straight from the opening sentence? (I don't think it is links to its classmates.)
    • How does this work for you?
  • "The class was ordered as part of a naval construction program to rebuild the fleet after the losses of the Spanish–American War in the context of closer Spanish relations with Britain and France. – this is a really confusing sentence. How does the conflict segue into diplomatic relations with different countries? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: - do you have any further comments on this? Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not returning to this, Parsec, and thanks for the ping. I'm good and support this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • Abbreviate shp in the infobox
    • Done
  • Provide a bore diameter for the 3 pounders. Does the source specify that they were saluting guns? If so, add that.
    • Done, but no mention of the purpose of the guns in R-G
  • Not at all sure that we need the second sentence of the lede to list her sisters. Suggest that you change the lede to state that she was the second of three ships in the class, delete the second sentence entirely, and add links to where ever they're named in the lede, being sure to add a link to sister ship.
    • Works for me
  • Suggest that you move the namesake to the construction para, not least because you have no source for that statement
    • I'm not sure what you mean here - in the intro or in the body?
      • Two issues. I prefer to put namesakes in the main body, generally wherever the construction info is, not the lede. And I don't see any source for the namesake statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's covered in the body as well - "...where the ship's namesake, King Alfonso XIII..."
  • received major damage awkward. Suggest "was fatally damaged"
    • Done
  • Trailing commas are missing after Cuba and Portugal
    • Fixed
  • Move the link for naval gunfire support to the first use in the first sentence of that para
    • Done
  • first aerial, naval, and land combined arms unpack this a little
  • perceived lack of prizes It wasn't just perceived, IIRC. Weren't the Italians supposed to get more territory than they actually received? Rephrase to clarify that it was the lack of territorial rewards, or some such.
    • I don't know, they got most of what they wanted in Europe - the main problem, I think, was that Britain and France got all of Germany's colonies
      • See the consequences para of Military history of Italy during World War I--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, though I'd point out that the specific issue at hand in 1923 was a dispute over colonies in Africa. That was the problem - Mussolini et. al. believed that Italy deserved greater colonial possessions in Africa (and obviously, Britain and France disagreed). I'd think getting into the Italian irredentism issue over Dalmatia and elsewhere is beyond the scope of this article.
  • Do Gibbons and Lyon actually have useful info on the ship that isn't available in the sources used?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [54].

Groundhog Day (film)

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No fancy intro, this is Groundhog Day, even if you've never seen it, you've heard the term. Classed as one of the greatest comedy films ever made, up along the likes of Some Like it Hot and Annie Hall, this article has had a major overhaul, a copy edit and has now passed GA. Please impart your wisdoms so it can be elevated to FA. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Driveby comment: The Epoch Times has been deprecated as a source, so it should be removed, and any information sourced to it that cannot be sourced elsewhere should be removed with it. I am getting a lot of potentially useful hits on Google Scholar. Have these been dug through? Josh Milburn (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dug through for what? There is an extensive Themes section if that is what you mean. I've removed the Epoch source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking if there is an extensive themes section. I am asking if you have hunted down and read the scholarly analysis of and academic research about this film, and incorporated material from it where appropriate. If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have. If you have, perhaps you could quickly explain why there is no (very little?) scholarly work cited in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of what is not already covered in the article? I can't respond if I don't know what you are talking about. There is no rule that I have to cite a student essay to say what I have found on a website elsewhere. There's a deep analytical themes section. Please advise on what is absent. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked what I take to be a straightforward question, but I can try to rephrase it if you do not understand. You are putting words in my mouth. I have no opinion on whether the Themes section is or is not extensive. I have not made any claim about what is or is not covered in the article. I have not asked you to cite a student essay. I have asked you whether you have delved into at the scholarly literature on this film. If you have not, I have advised you to withdraw the nomination. If you have, I have asked why the scholarly literature is not (as far as I can see) cited in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you get the time to read the article, the term "groundhog day" is heavily abused and misused. I have gone through Google Scholar because of what happened at the Ghostbusters II FAC and have found nothing that was either relevant to the film itself or not already covered. That is why there is not an exhaustive referencing of google scholar links. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick sample of sources that could be cited: [55][56][57][58][59]. While there are sources that use the term for unrelated things, there are definitely relevant ones out there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And which of these say something that is not already said in the article? When did it become a default that Featured Articles must cite these spurious essays by nobodies? This is the third(?) time now that J Milburn has drove by to derail an FA nomination, such that I preemptively prepared a thorough analysis of the themes in the film this time and yet still this is not enough because I have not cited *cough*
Life on a loop: The enduring appeal of groundhog day

Abstract: Few films have entered the cultural imagination as pervasively as Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993). The title itself has become a kind of linguistic shorthand, referring to the sense of being trapped in some kind of undesirable recurring situation. Yet while the central narrative conceit may seem overwhelmingly familiar by now, the film itself remains a tangled web of contradictions: a high-concept romantic comedy with a surprising amount of pathos and a genuinely dark undercurrent. In hindsight, it represents a career highlight for its stars, Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell, as well as for its director. It is also a work of rich thematic depth, and provides a useful entry point for considerations of altruism, happiness, and deeper existential and metaphysical concerns.

All of which is already present in the article. Or Mass Market Medieval: Essays on the Middle Ages in Popular Culture, the contents of which from searching through it, are funnily enough, already present in the article.
And the worst thing is that it's always paid material, like the months you give up to write the article are not sufficient toil. But DWB I hear you remark, you can ask on the Resource Exchange for these. I know, I reply. And you get the contents and for something like Memory and Movies the film is probably mentioned in passing once in the entire book like with the Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II "scholarly" articles suggested by yourself or others. OR you're waiting 3 months on for a Variety article for Scrooged. BUT, there's still Revisiting Groundhog Day (1993): Cinematic depiction of mutative process; Its contents from that abstract are already covered in the article. Which is to say, I have pre-empted this argument because I expected the attempt at derailment again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could have effectively pre-empted this argument by writing what WIAFA refers to as "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", which in this case includes scholarly literature. What leads you to believe that these materials are "spurious essays by nobodies" and the sources you have chosen to cite are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I raised these concerns on your first Ghostbusters II FAC (or "drove by to derail an FA nomination", as you put it) purely because the first person to raise these concerns "declin[ed] further involvement/help" because they could not "work in the environment created by the nominator here". Had that oppose stood (i.e., had the editor in question, who is one of the FAC directors, not been forced out of the review), I would not have contributed. I don't think your badgering of opposers and your disdain for scholarly sources (and, I add, the "nobodies" who write them...) has any place at FAC. As I have said before: such apparent hostility towards the idea of incorporating academic analysis or seeking out scholarly sources is surprising for someone who chooses encyclopedia-writing as a hobby. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis is included and I've just laid out that the sources Nikkimaria invoked are already covered in the article by documents other people can actually check. The analysis is incorporated, you're just unhappy that it isn't from student essays. That is not a complaint, it's a preference. The sources I was forced to include for Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2, written by people who can't even get the names of the characters right, are not vital or enlightening articles, they are things I would have been asked to write for a 6th form media studies essay. And I wouldn't include my 6th form media studies essay here either. The analysis in this article is comprehensive and thorough, the entire article is thorough, it is MORE thorough than Ghostbusters II. If the pair of you cannot say what is missing from the article (because you have clearly not actually read it) then kindly stop involving yourselves in these nominations and/or attempting to bully me at every nomination into doing things that are not required. If you're unable to do a proper review, you shouldn't be here. When one of your first statement's is "If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have." you are clearly not here for any purpose but to push your own agenda, an agenda that is not required to pass FA. It is It's not possible to say the article is not comprehensive and contains an academic analysis, because it does, it passes all FA metrics. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written quick stubs about two of the nobodies students senior professors who authored some of the work Nikki referred to above: Jude Davies and John Seamon. As Nikki has said, criterion 1c is a part of the featured article criteria. In my view (and as Nikki said above), the "relevant literature" referred to in 1c (in cases like this) includes the the journalistic and academic literature. I don't think that this is in any way an unusual or unreasonable view: I do not think this is a mere eccentric "preference", I do not think there's some secret "agenda", and I do not think raising questions about it constitutes "bullying". If you don't want to engage with academic literature, that's your prerogative. But don't be surprised if you meet resistance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) DWB, you're not doing yourself any favours here. You're free to disagree with reviewers' comments and ask them for specifics but pls do so in a collegial manner. I see no attempt at "derailment", no "agenda", and none of the condescension and arrogance in Josh or Nikki's points that I've seen in some of your responses. It's common for a coord to archive a nom when an experienced reviewer has recommended withdrawal but I haven't done so yet because I wanted to give you the chance to discuss it civilly -- I hope I won't have cause to regret that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? I have said at least 5 times that the information they want included is ALREADY in the article. They have said, in essence "ok, but why aren't you citing that same information to Josh's friends?". Neither of them have said that they have read the article. If you have not read the article, and have ignored my comments that the information you want including in the article is already in the article, what am I meant to do here Ian? If you want to understand why your quality FA noms are going down and no one bothers, this right here is why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of any of these people before you nominated the article here. With no disrespect meant, they are not my friends. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There, I've included even more content specifically from academic sources including John Seamon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I am pleased that you have done this. I'll leave reference formatting to the source reviewer, but two quick comments about the new additions: 1) The Pick is a student journal. It has roughly the shape of an academic journal, and its content is (apparently) peer-reviewed, but I do not think that it counts as a high-quality reliable source. 2) Mass Market Medieval is an edited collection. You should cite the particular chapter, not the book as a whole. See Template:Cite book#Examples for an example of how to use that template to do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the chapter. I can't say I am familiar with The Pick, the editorial process sounds pretty thorough but I am not familiar with the university to say if it can be relied on to uphold that standard. Would you recommend removing the reference and associated information then? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but others may have a different view. It seems that this is the kind of "student paper" you were objecting to above; The Pick a journal for students to publish their coursework in, not an outlet for peer-reviewed research. (Proper peer-reviewed journals will sometimes publish students' coursework, of course, but only if it's gone through the usual review process.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you made the Ghostbusters II article worse by including bullshit academic texts to pander to FAC reviewers, you should remove them. I know how many people read the New Yorker and how reliable and influential it is. Whereas it looks like no-one read or cited "Immigrants as aliens in the Ghostbusters films". Including academic work just because it exists is WP:UNDUE. I trust your judgement here, as long as you've read the texts, you needn't include them. - hahnchen 13:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

One of my favorite films, though I've always considered the ending a bit forced. I'll wait to do a full review until you've addressed the above comment, but preliminarily:

  • I think in the plot summary, some mention should be made of the homeless old man, whose recurring deaths teach Phil that he is not a god and that there are limits to what he can do, that man is going to die no matter what Phil does.
  • Many years ago, I leafed through one of the early scripts (I looked at it well after the movie came out) and it contained an explanation of why this happens to Phil, that he has been placed under a curse by a former girlfriend. You mention that having such a scene was considered. Does the source go further than merely considered?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a line in the plot mentioning his failed attempts at helping the old man already. Did you mean to add more?/
Must have missed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only mention I can find on a website about the girlfriend being in the script is from someone who was not involved in the film but claims to have read the script. There is mention in the article that they would put something in if needed to satisfy the studio but that they were never going to include and/or film that scene because they did not want it in there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Wehwalt Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking if you're all done here, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a day or so to look it over, please. I see it's bottom of the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Argento Surfer

edit

I'll probably add more comments as I read and digest, but the line "It can be argued that the length of time is not important." strikes me as too vague. I assume at least one person actually made this argument? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work so I'd have to have a thorough read through of the source, but the quote that stands out to me is "It could be 10 years or a thousand, however long it takes him to memorise the personal histories of Punxsutawney's townsfolk, and to become, among other things, a pianist, an ice-sculptor and a doctor ("It's kind of an honorary title," he shrugs)." I could change "argued" to "said" if its a semantics issue. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at re-framing the sentence. Feel free to tweak it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • First off, kudos for all of your work so far here! I've seen this movie many times and it still is something I love, so nice to see somebody took the time to improve its article. Now I'll kick this off with a media review.
Thanks for taking the time to add your review SNUGGUMS. I will have to take a look at some of these when I get home from work but a few responses. The Cherry Tree in image, I do understand your point, I think the Filming section just wasn't big enough to include it, but it seemed a shame to not have an image of that particular location so I put it where it was next most applicable. The Boddhisvasta image is somewhat decorative but I did add it to be informative as I wouldn't know what a Boddhisvasta was otherwise (I'm not even sure I'm spelling that right without checking). The decorative part is breaking up a big wall of text. The reversed images of Minchin and Warchus, on a previous FAC I was told that images of people should be facing into the article rather than away from it. The staggering of images means they fall on the right hand side, and at least in Minchin's case I believe that was the only image we have of him for free, hence the flipping. I will take a look at the Anne Rice image too. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure. For the reversed images, you could re-flip those and then align them to the left instead of the right to face the text, and also move the 2008 MacDowell towards the right so it does the same instead of the left where it currently is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Anne Rice image by adding the correct link. Clicking on an image on the site shows it marked as Public Domain. I guess Anne Rice is just really cool and not pointlessly possessive over photos. I also flipped the Warchus/Minchin photos. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. Now the Warchus and Minchin photos can be aligned to the left instead of right in order to "face" the text, and for the same reason, you can align the MacDowell pic from 2008 holding a Groundhog to the right instead of the left. After that, I'll review the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the plot section:
  • Using a day within "The following day, February 2" is redundant when we've already established that the previous day is February 1st.
  • It looks like "He confides his situation to Rita who directs him to a psychologist and neurologist who cannot explain his experiences" is missing a comma after "Rita". Also, when telling Phil to get his head checked (or something along those lines), he goes to the neurologist, and that guy is actually the one who refers him to the psychologist.
  • I get what you mean with "better himself", but that doesn't seem like the best tone for (what's supposed to be) a neutral and professional encyclopedia. Using "change himself" would be more appropriate.
  • The semi-colons in "he saves people from deadly accidents and misfortunes; learns to play the piano, sculpt ice, and speak French; and reads poetry" should be replaced with commas, also I'd take out the poetry bit as that isn't a skill (even though Mr. Connors does offer to read French poetry to Rita at one point and recited some to her)
  • "so eloquently reports" feels like puffery regardless of what the intended point is
  • That's all I have time to assess for now aside from "cast", which is underreferenced and this only mentions a few of the roles. WP:FILMCAST doesn't say these sections are exempt from in-text citations regardless of what other sections contain. If you don't wish to provide individual sources for each role, then I'd be fine with one collective reference for as many as possible and having "Credits adapted from ______" or "Credits taken from _____" or something similar. See Saving Mr. Banks and Evita (1996 film) for examples of this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all changes barring the "so eloquently reports" one. I don't think his reporting is eloquent and am puffing it up, in universe that is the case. I cannot think of a better way to say something, ironically so eloquently, in other words to convey what is happening in the film during that scene. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rearranged the sentence to make it seem less of an opinion and more matter-of-fact. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement. Looking through again, I'm not sure "manipulate" is the most accurate word choice within "so that he can manipulate her into sleeping with him" as that could give a misleading impression he tries to trick Rita into sex or make her do so against her will. I'd recommend "so he can sleep with her" instead. Now for other parts.....
  • Under "Development", the use of "flop" within "his last directorial effort, Club Paradise (1986), had been a flop" is subpar tone. You'd be better off saying "unsuccessful" or "failure", and I'd specify whether this was in terms of reviews, box office, or both.
  • From "Writing", it looks like the "studios" part of "the studios demand for a broad comedy" is missing an apostrophe (to read as "studio's"). Also, I'm not sure what "accessible" supposed to mean in "the changes made it more accessible to the audience", but it reads awkwardly regardless.
  • Within "Pre-production", maybe add "As" to "A Chicago native, Ramis enjoyed filming in Illionis"
  • For the third paragraph under "Filming", it feels monotonous to have three consecutive sentences start with "Murray"
  • "Critical reception" and "Accolades" shouldn't be in the same section as "Release" or anything pertaining to "Box office" (entirely separate matters).
  • In "Aftermath", I'd replace "misfortunes at the box office" with "box office failures", and "classic" from "had created classic films like" is puffery.
Have at it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still didn't take out the misleading use of "manipulate" from "manipulate her into sleeping with him. Also, I'd say the script bits "voice over" and "thinking" under "writing" should be in parentheses instead of italics, and the use of "hit" isn't really professional tone when talking about success (found within lead, "release", and the latter's "box office" subsection). Thankfully the un-mirrored pics of Minchin and Warchus (respectively File:Tim Minchin singing (Cropped).jpg and File:Pride 02 (15085757719).jpg) are appropriately licensed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change manipulate because I'm not sure what is wrong with it? He's deliberately learning stuff about her so he can manipulate her into sleeping with him. He's very deliberately trying to manipulate her feelings to make her want him in a short time period. It's a malicious act. He upsets her multiple times over multiple loops and only cares about learning more information for next time. It's selfish, evil, and manipulative.
Done the rest. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with saying Phil manipulated Rita in that regard is it incorrectly suggests he forced her to have sex with him against her will or tricked her into the act. This doesn't mean I condone his actions, I just feel it gives the wrong idea of what he was doing. We're better off going with something like "so that he can sleep with her". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You now have my support. Good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by isento

edit
  • copyvio tool shows what appear to be serious issues. Can this be possible at this point in the article's development? isento (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with Snuggums' view about the wording. "Manipulate" does not mean "force". At least a few high-quality sources ([60], [61]) frame what Phil does as a tactic or ploy for sex, even with Rita. If not "manipulate", I suggest wording it as one of these sources does: "Phil momentarily recognizes that he actually loves Rita, but quickly turns that realization into another one of his ploys for seduction." Or something like that. isento (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I also brought up the idea of manipulation being a way to trick people into doing things. Phil didn't try to trick Rita into sex from what I could tell when watching the movie. Seduce for self-serving purposes, yes, but it's not like the guy attempted rape her even if using love as a means to obtain sex. Perhaps ploy could be used when he was indeed taking advantage of the time loop and his knowledge of her and the day for personal gain. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I personally wrote the article and the site the tool is saying is a 99% match is a forum, I would guess that they have copied the article not the other way around. The next is the New Yorker and the match appears to be the quote from the article, which I can't do much about. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, everything else seems fine. Support isento (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Isento. I can't see those files on the forum without signing up, which given the URL I don't particularly want to do, but I can put my hand on my heart and say I didn't 99% copy the article from a dodgy forum XD Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review - Pass

edit

A lot of refs so I may do this in two passes, we'll see. Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • One minor thing not part of the source review, "Groundhog Day (musical)" shouldn't be listed as the "main article" of the adaptions section, since it's not, the main article would be an article like "Adaptations of Groundhog Day". So I would switch it to "further reading: Groundhog Day (musical)" or "see also: Groundhog Day (musical)"

The works cited

  • Gilby 2004 should be ISBN 13 (use the converter)
  • Racicot 2006 needs an ISBN
  • Seamon 2015 needs an ISBN (Make sure these are both ISBN 13s as well – they're 13 if they start with "978" if not you can simply convert them with the tool above)

References

  • Ref 15 missing date
  • Refs 20, 24 and 28 are all "16, 17" or "22, 23" these should both be "pp. 16–17" and "pp. 22–23" (You do it correctly later in the refs it looks like)
  • Ref 34 missing date, you could also put the author here as something like "Staff" or "THR staff" but only the date is required for when the author is unspecified I believe
  • Ref 35 missing date
  • Ref 42 missing author
  • WP:MOS dictates that the article title shouldn't be in all caps (or have multiple words like that) (for ref 55)
  • Ref 63 says it's from "Website"? Linking format error I'm assuming
  • Ref 121 missing date
  • Link for ref 127 doesn't work for me – probably fine since it's archived though
  • Ref 144 missing author
  • Page number for ref 146?
  • Having both ref 150 and 151 seems unnecessary, doesn't hurt though I guess? (Especially since 150 doesn't mention Groundhog day)
  • Same thing with 154 and 155, but in this case both of them mention Groundhog Day
  • Reliability throughout looks good.
  • That's all I got, I'll do some spot checks later. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Aza24. I've addressed the ones above but I am working on the ISBN ones as I'm not clear on how those work. RE: Ref 150 and 151, and ref 154 and 155, I've included both as one is the actual list and the other explains the context of what it is for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK I think I have sorted the ISBN issue as well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
edit
  • Can't find anything about a "scooter" in refs 1 and 2 ("Punxsutawney Phil is portrayed...")
  • Checked 10, 50, 70, 87, 109, 133, 169–171 and 197, all good. Address the above and then you'll be good with the source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scooter credit is under the BFI one, you have to click the "more" option on the credits. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say there is no page number for the Schneider reference. I have an ePub file of it and there are no page numbers, and apparently page numbers change depending on what program you use. So while I could guess a page number for it based on where it is, it would likely be a different number for someone else. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is everything now, Aza24? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for the ping, forgot to check back in. Changes look good, I tweaked an ISBN and now we should be set, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, are we still waiting for more reviews? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I wanted to make another pass at both article and review after my first quick look and haven't found time yet -- this w/e I expect. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [62].

Fatimid conquest of Egypt

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 16:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the conquest of Egypt by the Fatimids, who would make the country their seat and rule it for almost exactly two centuries. The conquest itself is an excellent example of successful political subversion, as the Egyptian elites were gradually induced to not oppose the invasion itself. As a direct result of the conquest, Cairo was founded, Egypt became once again the seat of a Mediterranean imperial power, and the Fatimids were brought one big step closer to their (ultimately unfulfilled) goal of taking Baghdad and overthrowing the Abbasid Caliphate. The article was begun in October 2019, and has passed GA and MILHIST's ACR since. I am confident it is the most complete treatment of the topic available, and look forward to any suggestions to improve it further. Constantine ✍ 16:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

Wow. Written with considerable deft and skill, this is an absorbing, engaging read throughout. Its not often you see a 6k word article written with such consistent clarity. Support on prose. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Ceoil. Is there anything at all that might be done to further improve the article? Anything left unclear? Constantine ✍ 09:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

Agreed. I went over it with a fine tooth comb, and cannot find any problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Images are free and placement meets MOS (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

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

I had a look at this at both GAN and ACR, let's see if I can find anything new to pick at.

  • A minor point, but why "organized a large-scale expedition" rather than just 'a large expedition'?
    • No particular reason, changed
  • "the expedition set off from Raqqada on 6 February 969". Maybe 'the expedition set off from Raqqada (in modern Tunisia} on 6 February 969'?
    • Good suggestion, implemented it somewhat differently: Added the clarification about Tunisia to Ifriqiya, and then clarified that Raqqada was in Ifriqiya
  • "failed to take the capital of Fustat" → 'failed to take the Egyptian capital Fustat'?
    • Good point, done
  • A couple of words on who the Makurians were would be helpful.
    • Good point, done
  • Qarmatians similarly.
    • Done.
  • "The domestic situation in Egypt was only worsened by a series of low Nile floods". Does "only" add anything here?
    • Removed.
  • "aggravated still further by the outbreak of a rat-borne plague". Similarly "still".
    • Removed.
  • "25 times its normal price". Suggest "normal" → 'pre-famine'.
    • Changed.
  • "leaving Egypt in a virtual power vacuum". This doesn't sound very encyclopedic and am not sure what it means. Is there not a more felicitous turn of phrase?
    • Changed to "effectively without government"
  • "who had a special interest in having stability restored". Perhapsa few words on why this was the case?
    • Done.
  • "even Ibn al-Furat is suspected by modern historians". By modern historians, or by some modern historians?
    • Good catch.
  • "The Fatimids' own experience made them well aware of this fact." Optional: delete "fact".
    • Removed.
  • "that the military refused to accept it, and resolved to fight and bar passage over the Nile." Insert 'had' before "resolved".
    • Done.
  • "The resistance of the troops had broken Jawhar's amān and made the city licit for plunder according to custom, but Jawhar consented to its renewal". This doesn't make sense. I think "its" needs elaborating.
    • Done.
  • "but Damascus was enraged" A picky point, but maybe 'the citizens of Damascus', or whatever?
    • Done.
  • "forced to recognize Fatimid supremacy so by a joint Fatimid–Medinan expedition". Is "so" a typo?
    • Indeed.
  • Should "Lev" have an upper case L?
    • Since it is a proper name, and not the Bulgarian currency, of course.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, and thanks for the usual thorough review. Your comments have been addressed above. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 19:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that all looks fine. Just as good as the last two times I went through it. More than happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • Though the article has the necessary support, it is a subject I'd like to know more about, so I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya in 909" You could state where this is today.
    • Done
  • "The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya in 909, when they overthrew the reigning Aghlabid dynasty" Could more background to this be added? How recently had the Fatimids arrived to the region, and from where? To give context for how focused they were on taking over.
    • Done
  • "The interior courtyard of the Mosque of Amr ibn al-As" Perhaps give more context in the caption, like "where Jawhar led the Friday prayer after entering Fustat"?
    • Done
  • "as the sources report different detail." Details?
    • Changed
  • Link Alid.
    • Done
  • "inhabitants of Damascus was enraged" Were?
    • Corrected
  • "Egypt was not yet wholly under Fatimid control" you then go on to events in the Levant, but could it be elaborated how Egypt itself was not fully under their control? I see you mention it in the section below "and extend Fatimid rule to the north (the Nile Delta area) and south (Upper Egypt)", but I wonder if it should already be stated earlier that these areas remained?
    • You are right that this is a bit confusing. Moved this further down, to the section about Jawhar's administration of Egypt
  • Maybe show a photo of the Al-Azhar Mosque, since it seems significant it was begun as a result of the conquest?
    • Done
  • You are inconsistent in whether you give conversions for distance measurements. You have "10 kilometres (6.2 mi)" but also "some five kilometres".
    • Fixed, thanks for catching this.
  • "The Fatimid general called almost the entire population of Fustat to arms" The male population, I assume? If so, could be specified.
    • Done
  • It is confusing that you mention Cairo a bunch of times before the part about its foundation.
    • Added a mention when writing about the new capital founded by Jawhar
  • "which he renamed as al-Qāhira al-Muʿizzīya" and "and their capital, Cairo", so when did it become known as Cairo? A bit confusing when you refer to two names.
    • darkblue
  • Link ecumenical.
    • Done
  • "the Abbasid Caliphate had collapsed" That's not the impression one gets from reading the article, only that they were weakened?
    • Well, when "the Abbasid caliphs themselves were reduced to powerless pawns", it is pretty much equal to collapse, isn't it? Sure, the institution of the caliphate didn't vanish, but the caliphs went within a couple of decades from being emperors to having less power than the Queen of England currently has.
  • "which became the seat of the Fatimid Caliphate for the remainder of its existence" The last section could state how long the Fatimid rule over Egypt lasted, when and how it came to an end.
    • Added, and in the text as well
@FunkMonk: Thanks a lot for taking the time and the good suggestions. Have replied to your points above, please have another look. Constantine ✍ 21:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The added context looks great, one last thing in the text you added: "of their rightful place leaders of the entire Muslim world" Missing as? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Fixed, thanks. Constantine ✍ 11:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

edit

Thank you for this well-written, interesting article!

  • The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya... Consider explaining Ifriqiya with modern/better known geographical term(s).
    • Done
  • ...as an Isma'ili Shi'a sect claiming descent from Fatima... I think a "sect" could not claim descend from Fatima. Maybe "family", "clan"?
    • Done
  • ...take their place at the head of a universal empire. Were the Abbasids the head of a universal empire? They may have laid claim to universal leadership.
    • Clarified: since Islam held ecumenical aspirations, the caliph, theoretically at least, was a universal monarch (much like the Roman/Byzantine emperor). This was even more so for the Fatimids, who as imams were supposed to be God's 'proof' on earth.
  • As the Abbasid Caliphate entered a severe crisis in the 930s,... A wikilink to "severe crisis" or a short explanation ("economic/political/military/general")?
    • We don't have a single article on this, unfortunately. Added 'general' as it was indeed a systemic collapse.
  • Abu Yazid A short introduction? ("the anti-Ismaili Berber leader",....)
    • Done
  • Consider shortly mentioning the Ummayad conquest in the Maghreb in the "Background" section, because the article only writes of the Fatimid reconquest of the region.
    • That takes as too far back, I am afraid, and is not really relevant to this article. Plus the Fatimids did not reconquer the region, since they never held power there (or anywhere) before. They were a secret movement that rode a religious-social-political movement to power against the Sunni establishment, but their origins are not related to the Umayyad conquest of the Maghreb, as the Isma'ili sect was a recent import into the region.
      • In this case the following text in section "Fatimid preparations" is misleading: By 965, his armies under Jawhar had triumphed over the Umayyads of the Caliphate of Córdoba, reversing their gains and once more extending Fatimid authority over what is now western Algeria and Morocco. It suggests a reconquest.
        • Ah, of course. The reconquest here refers to the first wave of Fatimid expansion over the Maghreb in the 910s and 920s. Clarified now.

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Thanks for your suggestions and kind words. Looking forward to the rest :) Constantine ✍ 22:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the balance of power gradually shifted in the Fatimids' favour...Gradually deprived of its outlying provinces... The word "gradually" is used twice in a short paragraph
    • Removed the first occurrence, it was not necessary
  • The first paragraph in section "Collapse of the Ikhshidid regime" is not clear. 1. I assume Kafur was the vizier until his death and al-Furat became his successor, although the commanders of the army wanted to achieve the appointment of one of their number to the post. 2. We are informed that the Ikshidiyya and the Kafuriyya were rivals, but we are also informed that they wanted to have one of their number appointed to be Kafur's successor. (Maybe al-Furat was a compromise to avoid a clash between the two military factions?)
    • Kafur was the power behind the throne for about 20 years before becoming emir himself in 966. He was not the vizier, Ibn al-Furat was. I wanted to avoid delving too much into the details of the Ikhshidid period except in so far as it impacts the events shown here. I've added a brief summary, just to give an idea why Kafur's loss left such a vacuum. On the second part, of course the military wanted to continue the 'tradition' of having one of their own in charge. But I think the article makes clear that in the end, they backed down and a compromise between the various factions followed.
  • ...slave-soldier... Consider changing it to ...ghulām, or slave-soldier... and de-link "ghilmān" in section "Occupation of Fustat".
    • Done
  • The Caliph made no secret of his ambition... Consider naming him or mentioning him as the "Fatimid Caliph".
    • Done
  • ...the massive influx of high-quality gold from sub-Saharan Africa... A short explanation? Only the footnote clarifies that it was not a tribute, but it was imported.
    • Altered influx to importation
  • ...Kutama homeland... Where? (I assumed that it was in the Maghreb, but we are informed that the Maghreb was recently (re)conquered.) Consider mentioning against that the Kutama were Berbers. (I know that it was mentioned, but a repetition helps to memorize it. :) )
    • Done. Just as a note, the Maghreb includes Ifriqiya, but the 'reconquered' area was the western half of the Maghreb, so the Kutama homeland was not actually lost.
  • ...short-lived regent... Is "short-lived" a proper adjective?
    • It is, but incorrectly (and redundantly) used here. Removed.
  • ...al-Hasan ibn Ubayd Allah is said ... By whom?
    • That is unclear; in Halm's reference for this passage, a few sources are listed. Likely it was a pro-Fatimid source, like the Sirat Jawhar, but I can't be certain.
  • ...Modern historians stress... Too general? Do we know that all modern historians stress it?
    • Rephrased; it is indeed a factor stressed in all accounts I have read on the events
  • ...by the Abbasid-aligned Muslim rulers of the region... I may be wrong, but as far as I remember Shiite families dominated northern Syria in this period.
    • You are correct, e.g. the Hamdanids; but they were Twelvers and still recognized the Abbasids as leaders of the umma, not the Fatimids.
  • ...do Jawar homage... Is this the proper term? I have only read the "do homage" expression in the context of European feudalism, but I am not a native speaker.
    • I am also not a native speaker, but I've often encountered the phrase in a more general use to mean a public gesture of respect and'submission. The feudal terms are used in the same way in French and German, BTW.
  • ...the unfamiliar phrases from a note... Clarify. (I assume the preacher was Sunni, that is why he did not know the Shiite phrases.)
    • Good point, done
  • ...the khuṭba was proclaimed in al-Mu'izz's name in 969 or 970... Consider changing: ...the khuṭba was proclaimed for the first time in the Fatimid Caliph's name in 969 or 970....
    • Done
  • ...The Hasanid Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Hasani... is said... By whom?
  • ...one account... By whom?
    • Clarified, as far as possible. Like above, the references are not always clear.
  • Delete "(see below)". (We will see it.)
    • Done
  • ...900 of them... Who? Two different groups of Ikhshidid troops were mentioned in the previous sentences.
    • Clarified.
  • Consider mentioning that the Ikhshidid troops were familiar with the conditions in the Nile Delta in this section, because many of them were not dissmissed for their special knowledge. (Now this is mentioned in the section "Pacification of the provinces and the Qarmatian invasion".)
    • Done, good suggestion.
  • Introduce Tibr.
    • Done
  • Explain the term "ashrāf" in footnote "d."
    • Done
  • Consider consolidating the text of footnote "g." in the main text.
    • I considered that, but I felt it would break the chronological narrative.
  • ...the Abbasid Caliphate had collapsed... I am not sure this is the proper term (although I read your explanation above).
    • Well, the problem is what we mean by "the Abbasid Caliphate": it can mean both the caliphal institution, in which case of course it did not 'collapse', but also the territorial state, the "Abbasid empire" for lack of a better term, which most certainly did vanish entirely. After 946, the Abbasid caliph had no power outside his palace walls, and often not much within them either. Only after the partial restoration of their temporal power in the 11th century did they again become actual rulers instead of figureheads. If you can think of a better description, of course, I am open to suggestions.

End of my comments. I really enjoyed reviewing this article. Previously my knowledge of the events was limited, but now I have a picture. Again, thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I've fixed the issues you raised or otherwise answered you above. I am happy that you found it interesting and (presumably) accessible, this is always one of my big worries with my articles due to the rather obscure (for a Western audience) topics. Is there anything else, even beyond FAC concerns, that might be improved? Constantine ✍ 12:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits. My principal concerns were addressed. Where not, I mainly understand your concerns. Could you rephrase the three sentences containing the phrases "is said" and "one account"? They suggest me unrelevance and force me to raise the question "By whom?". Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Did a bit of tweaking on the "is said", but short of removing the qualifier altogether (which I won't do, for obvious reasons), the ambiguity will always remain until I can somehow trace the exact source. The "one account" bit has been fixed already. Constantine ✍ 09:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, so I think I have no choice but to support. :) Thank you for the article. Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for a thorough review that helped improve the article further. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I think we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

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

  • "Sources": J comes before K.
    • Done
  • Canard: are you sure that you have the details right? Are you referring to this?
    • Yes, but I don't see the problem. The worldcat reference says "Extrait de : "Annales de l'Institut d'Etudes Orientales", VI, 1942-1947, p. 156-193." which is what I am referencing as well.
  • Lev (1988); one should be Lev (1988b).
    • It is linked via the harvid feature. Or do you mean that the year in the visible reference should also be changed?
The cite should be trackable by eye, without having to click on anything. So it needs to be visible in the Sources list as well. I have made the change; let me know if you have a problem with it.
That's fine and makes sense, thanks
  • Cite 97: I am struggling to find support for your text in the article on p. 456 of "Zaydi Shiism and the Hasanid Sharifs of Mecca". Could you point me towards the text in the work you are relying on?
    • The citation is for page 457, not 456: "The Sharif Ja'far b. Muhammad is reported to have mentioned the name of the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah in the ritual sermon (khutba) during the Friday prayers in the Great Mosque at Mecca as early as 358/969, after having been informed of the Fatimid conquest of Egypt" for the first instance, and "whereas al-Maqrizi (d. 845/1442), relying on contemporary Fatimid sources since lost, claims that the khutba was not recited in the name of al-Mucizz li-DTn Allah until the following year, 364/975." for the second.
Tick.
  • "Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn al-Athir put the recitation of the Friday prayer[99] as late as 974". 1) I think that the cite should be moved to after "as late as 974" 2) the page should be pp. 65-66, not p. 65 3) the source given supports a date of 970, not the 974 in the article.
  • I suspect that cite 96 should be pp. 65-66 not pp. 64-65; and further suspect that it may have become confused with cite 99.
    • Fixed ref 96. On 99, there's indeed a mix-up inadvertently introduced during my last edits in the section: the citation concerns the khutba at Mecca, not Medina. So the correct reference should have been Mortel 1987, p. 457. Corrected now, thanks, Gog the Mild.
Tick.

I will let you come back to me on these before I go any further. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Against this backdrop of internal problems and external threats, and following the permanent decline of their former imperial overlords, the possibility of a Fatimid takeover became an increasingly more attractive prospect to the Egyptians." is cited to Welker, p. 136. Looking at the page I can't see any of this, could you assist?
    • Should have been pp. 136-137, but the relevant info does begin at "With a caution..." and ends with "making Baghdad even less important". The context given here checks the following boxes: a) the decline and increasing irrelevance of Baghdad ("the distant and increasingly impotent Abbasids"), b) deterioration of the internal situation ("As economic conditions along the Nile deteriorated"), c) the external threats (Byzantine advance and Qarmatian raids), and d) the increasing appeal of a Fatimid takeover ("many Egyptians wondered if the Fatimids would not be preferable").
Tick.
  • "Fatimid propaganda was quick to exploit the Byzantine offensive, contrasting the ineffectiveness of the Ikhshidids and their Abbasid suzerains with the Fatimids, who were fighting with the Byzantines in southern Italy, as vigorous champions of Islam". Similarly. I thought that I must be doing something wrong, but the similar cite - 33 - to " "intended the conquest of Egypt from early in his reign" " is there, as is 33d. Help! Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • p. 136: "His propaganda apparatus leaned heavily on the need to bring strong leadership to the jihād against the Byzantines in northern Syria. This was a theme designed to appeal in the east and was something the Abbasids, by implication, were not doing". "By implication", also, the Fatimids were publicly known to be active in the jihad, namely through their wars with the Byzantines. This is only hinted at in p. 136 ("complicated dealings with the Byzantines", rather a euphemism), but I gave the relevant link for clarification. I have now added the relevant passages from Halm's work on the Fatimid offensive in Italy.
My bad; not sure how I missed that.

@Gog the Mild: Answered. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives is represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [63].

Battle of Dunbar (1650)

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild, GirthSummit (blether) 10:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first major battle in the Third English Civil War, between the New Model Army under Oliver Cromwell, and a Scottish army under the command of David Leslie. Gog the Mild and I rewrote it between May and July of this year, with assistance from Harrias who made the maps of the battle. We have attempted to set out the series of events that led up to the conflict, describe the opposing forces, give an account of the battle itself, and explain what happened in the aftermath of the battle and why it was significant. There is also a brief description of the current condition of the battlefield. Since we published the article, it has been reviewed for GA and DYK; we hope that it's now ready for consideration as a featured article, and humbly present it for review. GirthSummit (blether) 10:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit

This might be something of a bits and pieces review, with me dropping in and adding more as I have time. As always, feel free to argue discuss any points: unless I am quoting a specific MOS, it is probably just my personal preference, rather than a requirement. I will probably claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "The Scots withdrew to Edinburgh stripping the land of provisions." Add a comma after Edinburgh.
Done.
  • "Due to the terrain Lesley.." Leslie?
Done.
  • Link cavalry and infantry on first use.
Done.
Done.

Background

  • "In England Charles's supporters.." Personally, I would prefer a comma after England.
Done.
Done; roundhead linked to "English parliamentarian" - to distinguish from the Scottish type.
  • "Charles now engaged.." replace "now" with "then".
Done.
  • "He rejected these as well however.." No need for "however", cut it.
Done.
  • "..by act of parliament.." I think "Act" should be capitalised.
Why? It is referring to a general, non-specific act, not to a specific act which would make it a proper noun.
Both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries capitalise it even in the general usage, "An Act of Parliament", as does the UK Parliament. Harrias talk 12:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? Wat matters is MOS:CAPS which I believe requires a lower case a. But I don't much care, so capitalised. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might be misremembering how a dictionary works, but I thought that when they capitalised it, that meant they defined it as a proper noun, which would mean that MOS:CAPS requires it to be capitalised? Anyway, if you've changed it, I guess it is academic. Harrias talk 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why they capitalise it. The Cambridge Dictionary says that a proper noun is "the name of a particular person, place, or object that is spelled with a capital letter". So act of parliament used in a general sense, as it is here, cannot be a proper noun. (It's not a "particular ... object [thing]".) As you say, academic now. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through the major broadsheets and books sources, and there is a mix. If you want to return it back to lower case, I won't object. I think essentially you could argue this either way, so applying the logic of MOS:RETAIN might be best. Harrias talk 06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few titles/positions throughout where the capitalisation needs looking at. Check out MOS:JOBTITLES: for example, based on that MOS, "They pressured Thomas Fairfax, lord general of the New Model Army" should either be "They pressured Thomas Fairfax, Lord General of the New Model Army or "They pressured Thomas Fairfax, the lord general of the New Model Army. Similarly, in the lead, I think "of Charles II as king of Britain" should either be "of Charles II as King of Britain or "of Charles II as the king of Britain". There are more through these two sections. Honestly, overall, I find this a confusing area, so definitely feel free to shout back at me if you think I'm misinterpreting the MOS.
That section of the MoS has something been something of an area of special interest to me since I first became active here. This does not of course mean that I am necessarily interpreting it correctly, but I believe that the current usages, specifically the two you mention, are MoS compliant.

That's it so far, reviewed to the end of the Background section. Harrias talk 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Harrias. All good stuff. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

Opposing forces

  • Wikilink "rank" on first use.
Done.
  • It might be worth mentioning, maybe just in note 3, that musket butts were typically steel-lined for battle.
Good idea, do you have a source for this?
Sure, {{sfn|Royle|2005|p=194}}. Harrias talk 16:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.
  • "..to some 45 centimetres (18 in) per man.." In this instance, I think "roughly" or "around" would suit better than "some".
@Approximately@.
  • "..more expensive then matchlock ones.." "than", not "then".
Done.
  • Wikilink "lances".
Done.
  • If you want to use "supernumerary", it's going to need a wiktionary link: I think substituting for a simpler word might be more accessible though.
Wiktionary link added.
  • "A high proportion of the remainder were ill.." Okay, so we started with 16,289: minus 2,000 odd makes roughly 14,000. Cromwell says that 11,000 were "sound". That leaves around 20% ill: is that a "high proportion"? (Using Royle's figure it would be more like 15%.)
Nice OR. I have unpacked my summary style to give the source's numbers and left it for a reader to decide how serious they are.
  • The final paragraph, about the artillery duplicates a lot of the information given in the artillery section before it.
I know, but it's one sentence and I struggle to see how I can subtract information from either without making them read badly or even incoherently.

Battle

  • "The whole Scottish army stood-to and the English withdrew slightly, maintaining patrols to try and ensure that the Scots were unaware of the manoeuvres going on behind them." Because it hasn't been explicitly mentioned that the English were manoeuvring, this is a bit confusing on first read; even though I theoretically knew what was happening, my first thought was that something was happening behind the Scottish lines.
Ah, yes, I can see that. I have moved the "In the foul weather it took the English army all night to reposition in preparation for the planned pre-dawn assault" sentence to the start of this paragraph. Does that remove the ambiguity? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and Major General James Holborn ordered.." and later, "..2,000 men under James Holborne..". Pick a consistent spelling, and move the wikilink to the first usage.
Sorry. The sources don't agree - that always confuses me. (There is even a Holburne!) Fixed. And moved.
  • "A little further downstream of Brand's Mill the English field artillery had set up.." Is it not upstream?
Yep. (It's down on the map!) Fixed.

Reviewed to the end of the Preparation section. Harrias talk 07:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the link to Edinburgh from the Prelude section, per MOS:OVERLINK (also, the first mention comes earlier, in the background section.
Done
  • "In the confusion Pride's regiments came into action piecemeal and the leftmost (Lambert's) only engaged stragglers in the vicinity of Little Pinkerton." I'm confused at the mention of "Lambert's" here: is this a different Lambert to the cavalry commander? It sounds like it is talking about a regiment commander serving under Pride, but that doesn't fit the Lambert mentioned previously...
The name of the regiment is "Lambert's Regiment". Similarly one of the regiments in Monck's brigade was called Monck's Regiment. I could delete "(Lambert's)", which may be easiest. Or add an explanatory footnote. I think that trying to explain inline is going to wreck the flow.
I'd just remove it altogether, it doesn't add much, and is just likely to cause confusion. Harrias talk 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..sang the "117th Psalm"." Modern usage favours "Psalm 117", rather than "117th Psalm".
Truly? I have never even heard of that usage. (It reads like a typo to me.) You are aware that this is in British English? Quickly checking six sources I find two 117th's and no "psalm 117's". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Just double checked with my wife, who was an altar server and sang in a church choir for years. Harrias talk 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And one of those Ngram things that CPA likes: [64]. Harrias talk 12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you listen carefully, you can hear me being dragged into the 20th century. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..refused to take orders from him, and left Leslie's forces to join a new army that was being raised by the Western Association." There is a little ambiguity in this sentence at the moment: it might be tighter as "..refused to take orders from him, left Leslie's forces, and joined a new army that was being raised by the Western Association."
Done
  • "..had been put in a worldly prince.." Leslie? "worldly prince" could do with a bit more context and expansion; it's an odd phrase to stick with outside a quotation.
Charles II was the worldly prince, not Leslie (prince in the broader sense of the word, to encompass kingship). He'd signed the covenants, but they knew he'd been pushed into it and thought they were being punished for getting into bed with someone who wasn't a true believer. I've just changed this to 'Charles II'
Girth Summit: this was mostly your work. What do you think? (Harrias has a tendency in my experience to prefer more succinct backgrounds and aftermaths than me or most other reviewers. This doesn't, of course, make them wrong. Either in general or in this case.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mm - missed this. I think that our article on the Third English Civil War could, and should, be expanded upon, and it's very likely that the ground we cover here would also be covered in such an article - but, I'd suggest that we would need to do it in more depth there. What we provide here is four paragraphs (two of them very brief) covering the immediate effects of the battle on the government and military preparedness of Scotland (i.e. that the cracks between the competing factions were greatly widened, and Leslie's remaining men started deserting to join a different army - divided we fall, etc), and then three paragraphs skimming quickly over the rest of the campaign, which is closely linked to Dunbar in the sources (as exemplified by the Coward quote we provide). So unless Harrias isn't going to put us to the push of pike on this, I would resist any major trimming to this section. GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair Gog, I complained that the aftermath section in your last FAC was too short, I think. Simply put, I think the current aftermath violates FACR #4: "going into unnecessary detail". For example, the point at which I really started thinking it had gone too far was when we started going into detail about the sacking of Dundee. In the context of the Battle of Dunbar, "Dundee, the last significant Scottish stronghold, fell on 1 September; Monck's troops sacked the town, and several hundred civilians, including women and children, were killed. Monck admitted to 500, but the total may have been as high as 1,000. Monck then allowed the army 24 hours for looting and a large amount of booty was seized. Subsequently, strict military discipline was enforced." could have been simply "Dundee, the last significant Scottish stronghold, fell on 1 September." That is just one example, but I think throughout the section, some of the detail could be plucked out, leaving the framework intact. Yes, it is all good information, but this just isn't the place for the detail: that should go elsewhere. Harrias talk 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph - I am here upon an engagement very difficult. I've trimmed Dundee, and also cut a couple of sentences from the end about nature of Scottish government in the years after the defeat. How do you feel about it now? GirthSummit (blether) 13:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Brox burn" "Broxburn"?
Done

That's it from me I think. Harrias talk 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias - I've done most of these, leaving two for Gog the Mild as they concern the bits of the article/sourcing he's more familiar with. GirthSummit (blether) 10:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I have commented on the two outstanding issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Replied, and marked two more that I haven't seen responses to. Harrias talk 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Girth Summit: Why does the article now seem to go back in time at the start of the Outflanking manoeuvre section? After a few hours of fighting, we finish the previous section saying that "The battle hung in the balance". But then, we go right back to "By around 4:00 am.." again? Harrias talk 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was some changes GtM made in the last hour or so to address some of Cassianto's comments - Gog the Mild, do you want to pick back through your last few edits and make it say what it's meant to? GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry, and thanks Harrias. A sentence which I inserted into the middle of Preparation for Cassianto somehow also got pasted to the start of Flank attack and I didn't notice. Fixed. Probably time for me to take a break. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image page for the Dunbar victory medal says that "It is believed to be the first medal to be granted to all the ranks of an army." If we have a RS that backs that up, then that should really be in the article. Even if not, it feels odd having an image of something that is not mentioned at all in the article; work it in somehow. (Yes, I know, I was asking for the aftermath to be trimmed, and now I'm asking for stuff to be added. But this seems more relevant to the subject of this article than a lot of what is present in the article at the moment.) Harrias talk 09:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, if you have a RS for this I would be happy to see it. Frankly it sounds like a hobbyist's opinion to me. None of the sources I have looked at in putting this together have mentioned this hypothesis, and you wouldn't think that it is the sort of thing eight or ten academics would miss. At near random the National Portrait Gallery, for example, makes no mention of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't have an RS for it. If nothing more, the caption should be expanded a little to provide greater context, and cited. At the moment, the article does not make it clear what the medal is. Harrias talk 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox does not summarise the full range of casualty estimates given in the prose; looking, it seems to largely adopt Reid's figures. The prose accepts that "Several modern secondary sources accept" Cromwell's figures: if that is the case, the infobox should include that full range of estimates, surely?
Harrias I'm not sure that I quite agree that that's what we're doing. Cromwell claims 10,000 "killed or captured", but doesn't differentiate how many of each, and since he says he let many of them go the following day I'd argue that they wouldn't fall into the 'prisoners' category. I think that figures in the infobox represent the most specific numbers we can get at for estimates of those actually killed, those wounded, and those actually taken south as prisoners. Does that allay your concern?
"killed near four thousand" vs "300–500 killed"? Harrias talk 16:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - you're right, I misread (misglanced ought to be a word) that. I'll remind myself tomorrow what Woolrych and Furgol actually say about this and think about how best to address this. GirthSummit (blether) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've checked them both. Furgol states 4,000 killed, Woolrych gives it as over 3,000. To put that into context though - neither of them give the source for those figures, or discuss them in any detail, they each just report the figures as fact in single sentences. These are fairly broad histories of the whole campaign, each giving the battle less than a page - for details like this, I am inclined to put much more weight in studies of the battle itself which discuss their methodologies, rather than a brief mention from someone who probably just needed to find a number to stick in to round off the section.
I wonder whether there would be scope in the infobox for us to be a bit more specific - is it possible/acceptable for us to put three ranges in there along the lines of:
  • Cromwell's report: nearly 4,000
  • Balfour's estimate: 800-900
  • Modern estimate: 300-500
I just don't see how putting in a range as broad as 300-4000 is helpful for the reader - people would probably interpret is as a typo, with either a missing 0 or an extra 0, and scratch their heads! GirthSummit (blether) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that for this reason, I often omit the casualty field from infoboxes completely for battles where it isn't possibly to give relatively precise figures. I should also point out that I get moaned at during reviews for not having it. Possibly, we could just quote the "modern estimates" in the infobox, with a footnote including an explanation that only the modern estimates are given, and providing the other figures? Harrias talk 17:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea, and will do it once I get a moment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started to do this, and realised that all I was doing was copying much of the information from the "casualties" section into the note, which seemed pointless. So instead I have added a short note and a link under the Scottish casualties in the infobox specifically directing readers to the "Casualties" section for further information. Will that suffice? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stewart, Laura A.M. (2017)." doesn't seems to be used anymore: either use her, or ditch her.
You heard it here first, Girth  ;) ——Serial 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it; this is a great article, sorry to have been such a nitpick through this review! Harrias talk 15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Stewart - I think it would be odd to omit her entirely, since she's one of the main scholars working on the Scottish government of this period (plus she's actually read over this article a couple of times and given us some feedback) but we're still using her 2016 book - the stuff about Dundee can go into another article about the campaign itself. GirthSummit (blether) 16:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I wasn't suggesting removing the other reference, just that unused one needed to be used or removed, which you've done, so that's all to the good. Harrias talk 16:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • At least the first map should include a legend indicating what the colours and patterns mean, and the image description pages should include sourcing
Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: Looks good to me. I have added mine. Would you care to repay the favour? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: there was what looked like a rogue paste, I've fixed, the rest looks good to me. How confident are you on PD US tags - do you think I've added it correctly to the portrait of Cromwell? GirthSummit (blether) 16:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: Thanks.
Well, I do the occasional, more simple, FAC image review, and IMO yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:David_Leslie,_Lord_Newark_portrait_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag and a publication date
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, there don't appear to have been any changes made? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, apologies. I don't know what went wrong. I remember doing the research and thought that I had seen it on the page. I assume that I forgot to click Publish or something equally stupid. Now (re)done and apologies again. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria and many thanks for going through the images. I believe that all of youcomments have now been actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, did you spot NM's comment above? GirthSummit (blether) 07:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't. Thanks. That is very odd. I remember doing the research. I assume that I forgot to click Publish or something. I can remember where it was and I'll redo the necessary tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • This'll only be my second review of a Scottish history-related article after Gog's Siege of Berwick (1333), and since my grandmother was Scottish and we know little about her side of the family, it'll be interesting to read. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infantry and cavalry appears to be duplinked.
    I've removed duplinks
  • Maybe the roles of the people shown could be stated in the image captions? Now it's just names without context.
    I've expanded their captions slightly
  • Some of the really small images could maybe benefit form being default size?
    Which images are you thinking of?
"An English lobster-tailed pot helmet" and "The Dunbar victory medal". FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have enlarged a number of the images. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The white space under Outflanking manoeuvre is kind of unfortunate. Maybe the many maps on the right could be arranged horizontally (in a sort of gallery og sequential images) to prevent it? That could also ope up space for more images in those sections if available.
    At the moment the maps are arranged so as to sit next to the description of the part of the battle they illustrate. I'd be concerned that they would be less helpful if separated from the text and presented horizontally as you suggest; perhaps Gog the Mild has some thoughts on that?
If it fits the adjacent text of each, it should be ok then. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Civil War reenactors" Could there be a more specific caption? is it showing the third English civil war as would be relevant?
    According to the description, this is a reenactment of a siege of the First English Civil War. I don't think it matters enormously though, that was just a few years prior to Dunbar and I don't think there were any major changes in equipment that you would notice in a photograph - calling them 'civil war reenactors' is accurate, and the relevance to this article should be clear.
I agree with Girth Summit. The First, Second and Third English Civil Wars started and finished within 9 years and 12 days, with no discernable changes in dress or equipment. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and comments FunkMonk - I've addressed some of them, and made a few of my own, above. GirthSummit (blether) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reform the Scottish Kirk" Interesting it's called that, being a Danish speaker, where church is "kirke", this seems to be a Norse loanword. But the Church of Scotland article doesn't give an etymology (not that you have to do anything about it)...
    I'm not an etymologist, but my assumption would be that the English 'church' and the Scots 'kirk' are both descended from the same north-Germanic word, but that the English variant has had the 'k' softened to 'ch' over time. That's a completely unsupportable guess though! Certainly both words must come from Germanic sources, rather than the Latin 'ecclesia' (which is used in Scots Gaelic, 'eaglais', and in French 'église', which is where most of our non-Germanic words come from).
The kirk article seems to have it, though with no source: "Whereas church displays Old English palatalisation, kirk is a loanword from Old Norse and thus retains the original mainland Germanic consonants. Compare cognates: Icelandic & Faroese kirkja; Swedish kyrka; Norwegian (Nynorsk) kyrkje; Danish and Norwegian (Bokmål) kirke". FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A contemporary English view of the Scots imposing conditions on Charles II in return for their support" Link Charles II in caption?
    Done
  • "Cromwell at Dunbar, by Andrew Carrick Gow" Give year for painting, so we know it's not contemporary?
    Done
  • Link dysentery?
    Done
  • "with about one metre" you convert other length measurements, why not here?
    Done
  • "Most of the English cavalry were mounted on large, for the time, horses." Do we know which breed?
    I don't know, and I suspect that wasn't standardised, but Gog the Mild might have more on this.
I haven't come across a source which mentions this. My OR guess would be that they bought or otherwise acquired the heaviest horses they could and didn't worry too much about the breed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 to 20 pounds (1.4 to 9 kg)" For length measurements here, you give the metric number first, why the disrepancy?
    I see this as the difference between describing a thing, and naming a thing. Pikes were just pikes - they had a standard length, which we can describe in modern units. Historically speaking though, a three pound gun was a thing, distinct from a nine pound gun. I think it makes sense to give the calibres in the units that would have been used at the time, and then to give the metric equivalent to help the reader understand what that meant.
Yep. Imagine writing Four Kilogramme Hammer. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More responses above FunkMonk. I'd like to hear Gog's thoughts before changing the image sizes (he wrote those sections and selected the images). GirthSummit (blether) 15:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 2015 archaeologists announced" Is the month of any significance?
No. But as we have the information would you wish us to leave it out? (I assume that if it read 'in the 21st century you would ask us to be more precise?)
Not a big deal either way. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mass grave is linked at second mention.
Fixed
Done.
  • Any photos of the locations involved today?
Possibly. Let me have a search.
Gog the Mild, FunkMonk I found this, which shows a (rather naff) commemorative plaque, and this which shows the view from the top of Doon Hill down onto the battlefield, but if I'm honest I don't think they would really add anything to the article, either in terms of informing the reader, or merely as decorations. GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they'd add some nice flavour to the article, especially the plaque maybe, since it shows the event's significance even today, and reflects the text about the mass grave. But of course, it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with GS, but who are we to argue with a reviewer. I have found a couple of bland landscape shots which could perhaps be worked into the battle section, but I think that the plaque in the last section is our best bet. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I uploaded the image to commons, and have added it to the relevant section - feel free to tinker with size, placement. GirthSummit (blether) 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite Cromwell's army being greatly weakened by sickness and lack of food, the battle was decisively won by the English force." Shouldn't it for balance then also be mentioned that the Scottish forces were weakened by religious purges, which the article makes a big deal of?
Good point. I have trimmed the first paragraph and moved both of these points to the end of the second.
  • I wonder if the The Dunbar victory medal image should be shown under English conquest instead of casualties, where it seems a bit misplaced?
Moved. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

edit

I've read from top to bottom and enjoyed it very much. A few comments:

Preparation
  • "In the foul weather it took the English army" -- not liking "foul" here - "bad" is better.
I am not at all keen on "bad" - although you're the reviewer, so I will use it if pushed. As a poor second, how would you feel about "stormy"?
I am indeed a reviewer, but you are the nominator so the decision to adopt any suggestion I make is entirely down to you - I certainly won't push you to adopt anything you don't feel comfortable using. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware that nominators (even me!) get close to their creations, and that a first response can be defensive. I suspect that that is partially what is happening here. So even when I don't like a suggestion I try to take a reviewer's PoV on board. I suspect that in my response above you could see the cogs going round. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Inclement weather'? 'Typical Scottish summer weather'? More seriously, 'Adverse weather conditions?' GirthSummit (blether) 11:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "typical" is redundant. I like "In the adverse weather conditions". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Let's go for that. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...without any overrunning them and alerting the Scots." -- could this be looked at again as it's not quite making sense.
Rephrased as "By around 4:00 am all of the English reached at least approximately their intended positions; none had gone past them in the dark and blundered into and so alerted the Scots."
"all of the English"...what? Sounds clunky. "By around 4:00 am, the English reached, approximately, their intended positions; none [what] had gone past them in the dark and [they] blundered into and so alerted the Scots". -- I can't even reword this last part as I can't make head nor tail of it." CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say, obviously ineptly, is that in the dark it would be the easiest thing in the world for an English unit to advance a little too far, past its designated jumping off point, blunder into the Scottish outposts or even units, start a firefight and completely remove the "surprise" element of the surprise attack. It would be even easier to simply get lost and not reach their jumping off point in time, or at all. That A) all of them more or less found their positions and B) none did overrun them are two separate minor miracles. An entire army redeploying to attack in the face of the enemy and in the dark! It speaks to very well trained troops and the possibility that God was indeed smiling on Cromwell. It is the sort of thing that the greatest of generals never tried, because they never thought that they could pull it off.
Now, how do I get that into a succinct and comprehensible sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about: By around 4:00 am, the English troops had taken up positions approximately where Cromwell had intended them to be; certainly, none of them had made the mistake in the dark of going too far and alerting the Scots to their manoeuvres. Or something like that? GirthSummit (blether) 12:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I mistook that for Cassianto's comment and have just used it. Any hoo, Cassianto, does that work for you? Possibly I could put some background into a footnote? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- all concerns addressed. This is a very good article. Worthy of FA. CassiantoTalk 15:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial assault
  • "Reese reports that many of them were new recruits who had only recently joined the brigade." -- are "new recruits" and "only recently joined the brigade" both needed?
IMO yes. One could, and they often did, muster a new regiment consisting entirely of veterans. Recently joined/been around awhile and raw/veteran aren't (necessarily) interchangeable. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, understood. CassiantoTalk 22:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outflanking manoeuvre
  • "Just what happened next, as with so much of this battle, is contested." -- I don't like this line. It sounds too conversational. Is there a way of reworking it? For example, "just" is not needed at all.
Fair enough. Changed to "As with other aspects of the battle, the sources differ regarding what happened next." How's that?
  • "The Scottish cavalry holding Cockburnpath Defile and most of the defeated Scottish cavalry from their right wing rode a wide loop south and then west of Doon Hill to rejoin Leslie's main force as it withdrew towards their forward base at Haddington, 8 miles (13 km) to the west of the battlefield." -- this seems awfully long not to have any punctuation in it and it makes it quite difficult to read.
Split in two. See if that reads better
  • "Entirely separately the English cavalry gradually got the better of their Scottish counterparts..." Could this sentence be understood just as much without the (in my view) unneeded adjective?
"Entirely separately" binned; replaced with "meanwhile".
Scottish response
  • "The more practical blamed the purges for Leslie's defeat" -- not much sense is being made my end with regards to this sentence. It may be down to punctuation...?
I've rephrased this a bit, hopefully makes more sense now? I'll be slopey-shouldered and leave GtM to consider the points above, that is his prose and he has the sources. GirthSummit (blether) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CassiantoTalk 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto Apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I think that between us we have addressed all of the points you have raised so far. Any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell's own fist re. Dunbar

edit

If anyone has—or knows anyone with, perhaps—access to the National Library of Scotland, they could photograph this, a Letter of Oliver Cromwell to the Committee for the Army concerning the medal to commemorate the Battle of Dunbar. {{Db-scan}} would apply for the license and might add something to the aftermath section, mirroring as it does the photo of the medal itself. ——Serial 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know several people with access to the NLS, and I expect that I could twist one person in particular's arm to get a picture of this for us at some point - not sure when though, I believe the building's open again but term time is starting, not sure when a trip to Edinburgh will be possible. GirthSummit (blether) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 I spoke to a certain someone with access to the NLS - she doesn't think this will fly. Having used images from the NLS for books in the past, she says that they are very cagey about allowing you to take photographs - you have to sign agreements that they are only for private use, or you have to pay them significant whacks of cash if you want to distribute them. So, this isn't looking like something we'll be able to get hold of in the short term. :( GirthSummit (blether) 10:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> Who said the age of institutional heritage banditry was done? OK, nevermind. ——Serial 13:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • BBC News is not an author. Ditto Durham University
Removed.
  • Be consistent in how you order refs without named authors
I think they're now ordered alphabetically, based on how they're presented to the reader.
  • National Portrait Gallery should just be listed as publisher
Done.
  • Dow title should use endash
Done.
  • Be consistent in how you punctuate refs with multiple authors
Gog the Mild - I've looked at this, and I can see what NM is talking about - Hutton and Reeves gets an ampersand, but Ffoulks and Hopkinson don't, for example. I can't see a difference in how we're putting the information into the Cite Book format though - why are they appearing differently? Is it because Ffoulks and Hopkinson have middle names do you think? Or can your eyes see something mine are missing? GirthSummit (blether) 10:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's because Ffoulkes and Hopkinson were missing "|lastauthoramp=y" which I have added. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - good spot, hadn't noticed that field.
  • Reese and Wanklyn have the same publisher but it's formatted differently.
Fixed.

Ditto Dow and Young.

Fixed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I think that's all done now, thank you. GirthSummit (blether) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [65].

Hey Y'all

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a 2002 country music album by American singer Elizabeth Cook and her only release on a major record label (Warner Bros.). Prior to Hey Y'all, Cook self-released a critically acclaimed debut album and performed over 100 times at The Grand Ole Opry. The album received a positive response from critics, but it was commercially unsuccessful, likely due to a label shift and a lack of airplay on country radio. In 2003, Cook voluntarily left Warner Bros. in favor of releasing independent music. Thank you in advance for any comments, and I hope this FAC encourages other editors to work on articles on more obscure music. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Damien Linnane

edit
  • 'A majority of the songs were written by Cook and Hardie McGehee, who shared a publisher'. - This reads odd to me. Who is Hardie McGee? Should publisher be linked to Music publisher? These things don't seem clear in the lead, and furthermore we don't really learn any morein the body either.
  • Is it really necessary to put 1955 and 1975 in brackets after "Making Believe" and "I'm Not Lisa"? It seems out of place and irrelevant, but granted I haven't worked on very many song articles (at this level anyway).
  • From my experience, a song/album's original release date is often mentioned in the prose (possibly to give the reader a greater context), but it is not particularly useful here, and I can see how it can be rather distracting from the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cook said that she wanted to balance her "artistic integrity"' - up to you, but I don't think artistic integrity needs to be in quotes.
  • 'he had people play instruments in an "open studio"' - what's an open studio? Is there a better link?
  • I have rephrased this part to hopefully be clearer. Here is the sentence about this from the source: "Producer Richard Dodd cut most of the album in an open studio, letting the players play and the instruments blend together with a liveliness you don't hear on most major-label records." Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'She wrote "Dolly" during a shower after that meeting.' - Should this be reworded? I mean, I doubt she literally wrote it down while in the shower. Would it be more appropriate to say she composed the lyrics in the shower?
  • 'During a live performance of "Stupid Things", she introduced it by saying: "This one was allegedly a single.' - This is interesting. Can you tell us what year this happened?
  • 'in it, she is wearing a suit while sitting on a man's shoulder'. - I'm guessing the source doesn't give an indication of who the man was? It would be interesting to know, that's all.
  • It is likely a family member, but unfortunately, the source does not identify the man, and this is the only article that I could find that discusses the album's packaging. It would be nice to know though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The feature received pushback from a Music Row publicist who wrote: "I loved the article by what did she have to do to get on the cover of Life?"[27] A follow-up article on Cook and other people covered in that year's Life section was published on December 29, 2002.' - You've lost me here. Can you try and explain what the publicist is complaining about differently? Also is the grammar here right? I.e "article by what did"
  • 'Robert L. Doerschuk remarked that Cook's writing had prevented "contemporary distractions in order to connect directly to a more conservative aesthetic"' - 'prevented "contemporary distractions' - what do you think this means? Does the article give any indication?
  • I think that Doerschuk is praising Cook for avoid then-current trends in country music to go back to a more traditional sound. I can understand how the quote is confusing though after re-reading it. It makes sense in the larger context of the review, but it is not a good quote to pull out and present on its own.

Well done with the article. Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Happy to support. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from zmbro
  • I don't think I've ever seen an infobox contain a link to another part of the article. I would suggest putting the actual studios instead of "various". Plus, I'm only seeing 4 different studios stated in the body so that shouldn't make the infobox much longer
  • Throughout the body, make sure artist names that begin with "The" are not capitalized mid-sentence per MOS:THEMUSIC

Rest looks good to me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ

edit

As you are a veteran in writing FAs, I should have no major concerns over prose. I do have, however, a few minor issues:

  • for the Nashville publishing company → I believe two disparate, consecutive wikilinks are discouraged. Any way to rephrase this? (like "the publishing company XX in Nashville"
  • I was told that "Due to" is almost certainly discouraged; maybe try "because of" or "thanks to"?
  • I personally don't like elevar (i.e. "of the same name"). I'd recommend reword the ballad "Ocala", in which Cook sings about the Florida city of the same name to the ballad "Ocala", in which Cook sings about the city of Ocala, Florida; the latter does not seem very clumsily worded to me. However, this is just a personal perference, and I think majority of editors are fine with "of the same name" wordings
  • The rest of the article looks great. I like the reference formats, very neat and easy to navigate.

— HĐ (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As all of my concerns have been addressed, I am happy to support this for promotion. Other issues such as source spotchecks and file review should be fine, I hope. Good luck with the FAC, and have a great week. HĐ (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Quite a long time since I reviewed an FAC, so hopefully my review is in line with current standards/expectations.....

  • The first two sentences are short and could be combined
  • "It was recorded in at Javeline Studios" - there's a stray word in there
  • "Media outlets reports reported" - again, I think there's a stray word in here
  • "Hey Y'all was recorded at Javeline Studios, the Hum Depot" - in the lead you capitalised the T on The Hum Depot, but not here?
  • "Hardie McGehee,[6][9] who she worked with" => "Hardie McGehee,[6][9] with whom she worked"
  • "wrote a song with her then-fiancé Tm Carroll" - Tm is an unusual first name ;-)
  • "to whom she dedicated a song to on Hey Y'all." - another stray word in there
  • "Patterson remarked that album's instrumentals" => "Patterson remarked that the album's instrumentals"
  • "coon classic weepers" - forgive my ignorance, but what does this mean? I have literally no idea. In my country, the first word is actually an offensive slang term for a person of colour, but I guess it means something else here.......?
  • "Flowers said it had a similar sound to The Whites" - wikilink The Whites
  • "singling out Everyday Sunshine"" - opening quote mark missing on the song title
  • Thank you for the review. You have helped to improve the article a lot so I greatly appreciate it. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

edit
  • was the first time its executive producer Richard Dodd worked in country music → was the first country music project which saw the involvement of its executive producer Richard Dodd
  • who shared a music publisher → who shared the same music published (that sounds better to me, but you can leave it your way too)
Whoops, there is a typing mistake going on here. I meant 'publisher'.
  • I think it can be assumed from the context of the sentence that it is the same music publisher. I think it would be somewhat redundant to say "the same publisher" when that can already be understood from the "shared" word choice. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • transferred to Warner Bros → isn't it "Warner Bros."?
  • as well as more sexual topics → as well as on...
  • who praised its traditional country → you should say "the album's" since you've talked about Dolly before
  • Despite positive reviews → you're repeating yourself, I think we don't need this bit (again)
  • had inspired the idea, and he produced all of the songs → had inspired the idea and produced all of the songs
  • like how she printed the cover herself at Kinko's → how is this a "movement is one which uses the people in a given district, region, or community as the basis for a political or economic movement"? Could you elaborate?
That is the definition of 'grassroot effort'. I don't quite understand how printing a cover by oneself matches with that definition.
  • Revised. She used the term "grassroot effort" to talk about how she did all of the work for that album including how she printed the covers herself. She was not using the phrase in a political context. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mama You Wanted To Be A Singer Too → Mama You Wanted to Be a Singer Too
  • "Making Believe" → Release year in brackets afterwards
  • Hey Y'all was recorded → you could add a "subsequently" for a better flow
  • to balance her artistic integrity with its potential commercial success → to create a sound that balanced her artistic integrity with commercial appeal
  • Cook recounted this time → that time
  • is a country music album that has twelve tracks → twelve-track country album
  • several genres throughout the album → hmm. This may be confusing since the main genre is country. Maybe say the following are solely influences?
  • which Paterson described as a "twangy, sexy soprano" → with Paterson attributing her vocal range to soprano
  • "Rainbows at Midnight" is about a break-up → "...delves on a break-up" would sound fancier
  • vocals from The Carol Lee Singers → ...the
  • sound to The Whites → same as above
  • in which Cook sings about the city of Ocala, Florida → in which Cook sings about the city of the same name
  • really grew up → factually
  • a mandolin, played by Darrell Scott → no need for the comma
  • questioned if the lack of airplay → I think "whether" would sound better here
  • was an instance that the album was more pop, but noted that Cook's accent still makes everything sound like country music → was significantly leaned towards a pop sound which, however, was overshadowed by Cook's accent
  • she introduced it by saying: "This one was allegedly a single." → this is so clever ahaha
  • focus on markets that we feel we can get traditional music played → there is a word missing at the end. I know it's incorrect to say "played on", but a preposition is missing here
  • as a "slowed-down" cover → stripped-down would be fine
  • in downtown Nashville → repetition of "Nashville" in the same sentence
  • Cook did an interview → was interviewed
  • Several reviewers enjoyed its traditional → the album's
  • liked that she released → applauded
  • instead of attempting to be crossover music → to release
  • Cook initially looks like an attempt → looked
  • the album's high points → highlights
  • with "Sometimes It Takes Balls To Be a Woman", a single from her fourth studio album Balls (2007) → interesting titles, aren't they? XD
  • Although the album received positive reviews → repeating yourself, I don't think we need this bit
  • contracts were "dissolved" → that's a regular word that doesn't need "s
  • No need to link Cook in the tracklist and credits sections
  • From my understanding the track listing and credits sections are treated separately so items are linked again there. That's why songs are linked again in a track listing section for instance even when they are linked in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: That's it from me. It's a really strong article, this is just some fine-tuning. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for explaining everything to me (some answers were entertaining lol ). I have left replies on some comments in green. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me. All my points have been addressed, very strong article. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tomica

edit

After carefully reading the article couple of times, I am confident to support this for featured article promotion. The prose reads great, the flow is amazing, grammar-wise absolutely no issues. The usage of media seems well regulated and the references are perfectly organized. All in all great! — Tom(T2ME) 15:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spot-check:

  • All Music writes: "her self-titled, independently released debut, The Blue Album". I read your footnote, but from the source, it would be more verifiable to say "her debut self-titled album, also known as The Blue Album". Otherwise, provide a source that indicate that All Music and the sources cited in the efn are incorrect.
  • Revised. A majority of the sources that I have seen refer to this album as The Blue Album, but I think it is better to put both titles in the prose to cover both sides. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Blue Album's release herself" → "her debut album's release" – since the Country Standard Time interview does not mention a Blue Album
  • "Five songs from The Blue Album" – "Five songs from the album" – same reason
  • The quote "sly wit topics such as her own quest for stardom" is misrepresented. What patterson means is taking on, "with sly wit, topics such as her own quest for stardom". Per MOS:CONFORM, go ahead and just add the comma but include "with". As currently written in the article "sly wit" appears to modify "topics" which it is not supposed to.

Citations:

  • Ulibas, Joseph (September 25, 2015) – link is broken
  • "Orlando Sentinel. August 25, 2002" – add |department=TV Time Plus or change to |work=TV Time Plus and move "Orlando Sentinel" to |publisher=.
  • In all Newspapers.com references, please provide a crop for easier verification when possible. Maybe there are other instances, but the only one I spotted was in the above Orlando Sentinel source which can be cropped like so. I understand this is nearly impossible with "Catching up with the cast of Life" so no complaints there.
  • A majority of the Newspaper sources have the clipped version as the link unless it is the entire page. I was uncertain on how to clip this one, but I have done so per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-crop "Cooper, Peter (December 29, 2002)" so it is legible. I do not think the photo is needed. Cropping as close as possible makes the snapshot more legible for people without access to Newspapers.com
  • Revised. I have also replaced another source with a different clipping for the same reason. I had thought the photo was important, but I agree that it is far more important to have the text legible for people without access to Newspapers.com. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS concerns I noticed along the way:

More |department=

  • "Elizabeth Cook: Hey Y'all". The Greenville News. August 30, 2002." – |department=Upstate Weekend
  • "Elizabeth Cook: Hey Y'all". National Post. September 5, 2002" – |department=Inside E, also change |p=108
  • "Elizabeth Cook to perform at Opry". The Jackson Sun. – |department=WeekendPlus
  • This one is tricky: "Knopper, Steve (July 8, 2011). "Country a career commitment for Elizabeth Cook". Chicago Tribune." – |department=On The Town and also needs |edition=NNW
  • You might have to double-check all the Newspapers.com refs. Ping me if you have trouble figuring out the insert's name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience and thoroughness. I am honestly not that familiar with newspapers so please forgive me for being dense in regards to this. For a majority of the sources, I have put in what I believe is the department, such as "Arts & Entertainment" for the Aydlette source. The Dayton Daily News articles appear to be published in some sort of insert titled Go! so I have tried to represent that information in the citation. Please let me know if this is incorrect as my knowledge on newspapers is rather limited, and I will try my best to learn and fix my errors. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, there is nothing to forgive. You have done a great job. I have checked your edits and made a few minor adjustments. Basically, all I was trying to do was make sure that even if the reader did not click on the link in the citations, they could find source by just the text in the reference section. (People sometimes print our articles on paper). It can be difficult to decide what that would entail. But generally, if the page number has a letter like 2J, then no further information is needed besides the name of the paper and the date. However, some newspapers do not use a letter to identify sections (what they call "inserts" and we call department). Some newspapers like the Chicago Tribune are so big that they publish a different set of inserts for the different areas they cover. For example, NNW means the edition of the paper printed specifically for "North/Northwest Suburban Chicago". This is why sometimes Newspapers.com has a lot of copies of the same insert for the same day with some pages being completely different. So that means the p. 2 would only help the reader find the article if you told them which edition. For a different edition of the newspaper from the same day, that article may not even appear or it might appear on a different page. They do this because advertisers buy slots on specific editions they want to target, causing the paper to reorganize the insert to fit the ads. The article about Cook may be on p. 2 of the NNW edition but on p. 4 of the South Central edition, or it might not even be in the Downtown edition, which does not have a large country fan base. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. I have wonder about why copies of the same article/insert appear on Newspapers.com so that clears it up for me. It is interesting to think about how this has either already changed or will continue to change with the transition from physical to digital publication. I actually never thought about readers that print out Wikipedia articles. I'd be interested in how their reading experienced is changed because of this. But, both of those things are conversations for another day. I would be more than happy to revise anything else that needs to be fixed. I hope you are having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further concerns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I think we need an image review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thank you for bringing this up. I have replaced it with a different image. I tried to look through the internet archive to get an archived version of the original image's source links as I personally prefer that picture, but I did not have any success. Aoba47 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Coffeeandcrumbs for changing the image. I think that one is much better, and I agree that it is better to have an image taken around the album's release. The images of Todd and Cook are apparently the original work of the uploader. The Cook image has been reviewed by an OTRS member. Thank you again to Nikkimaria for the review. Just wanted to bring this up here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [66].

Zebra

edit
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about zebras, African equines with one of the most recognizable patterns in nature. This article has been brought to GA status and had a copyedit. I now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
It says its from 1895
There isn't any source for the date. Also, it's unclear if that's the creation or publication date.
this shows that it was taken by 1902 which means it would be in the public domain now. LittleJerry (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am seeing some sandwiching in Ecology and behaviour, Social structure (2nd + 3rd pics), Reproduction and parenting, Conservation sections.
I'm don't see a problem, as long as the words are not completely sandwiched. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that's not what MOS:IMAGELOC says. Also, I am not convinced that all the images are adding encyclopedic value. Images should not be added just for decoration.
IMAGELOC states How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er;. none of the images in the article are facing each other. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be helpful, as I am not a FA reviewer, but there are three unlinked species in the taxobox. Is that an oversight? Even if there are no articles for those species, I believe they should still be linked.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit
  • Vilstrup, Seguin-Orlando, Stiller, Ginolhac, Raghavan and Nielsen,et al. – I think "Vilstrup and colleagues" is sufficient.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • V-shaped groove separating the metaconid and metastylid of the cusp – It is important to list diagnostic features, and I'm happy to see them here. But this one seems incorrect: Which cusp? (the metaconid itself is a cusp). Which tooth?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • well-rounded halves of the enamel wall. – not sure what is meant with "halves" here. The halves are rounded, but not the whole?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of motion dazzle for defense against mammalian predators has also been questioned. – The section is about the "confusion hypothesis", and "motion dazzle" is only one of several possibilities that are mentioned. Should this sentence refer to "confusion hypothesis" as a whole instead of only the "motion dazzle"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and may predict conditions months after their arrival. – Does not make much sense to me; when they are already at the locality, why should they predict its conditions? Is "after their departure" meant?
When they arrive at a place they can predict would it will be like in the next months. "....conditions considerably later than the arrival time are driving the zebra's migratory destination." LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zebras have been kept in captivity since at least the Roman Empire, and they were known throughout their territories, including Palestine. – "they" refers to the zebra. But I wonder if it should refer to the Romans instead?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I miss information on the former range of the zebra; how extensive was it before human intervention? Was it the whole of Africa? Any evidence for the occurrence of today's species outside of Africa? I think Zebras were present in northern Africa at least, but where extirpated there already in Antiquity, needs mention!
That is relevant for the articles on the individual species not here. The the evolution section clearly states that zebra evolved in Africa and mentions a fossil species in Algeria. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it belongs here. Not the individual distribution of the species but the former range of the zebra (i.e., the three living species) as a whole. Also because the historic accounts, especially those in Antiquity, may (I assume) not be referable to a particular species. But lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article already gives a very general description of each species range. General enough so that it includes current and former ranges. The mountain zebra for example likely never ranged outside southwestern Africa. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the problem is that the reader does not know that the general description applies to both current and former ranges. The reader has to assume that they just reflect the ranges shown in the distribution map, which – again he has to guess this – are the current ranges. I think something very general would help, such as "Originally, zebras were distributed over much of Africas southern Savannah, though they have been extirpated from many regions. The plains zebra is the most widely distributed species, while the mountain zebra is restricted to southwest Africa and the Grevy's zebra to Kenya and Ethiopia." Getting a basic idea about the former ranges is important because these are the natural ranges (without human interference). At the moment, the reader has no idea at all about these natural ranges. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added that their ranges have been fragmented. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppliers of zebra skins insist that the animals are hunted with a license, and they contribute to the conservation of the species. – A very dangerous statement. Is it really true for all those suppliers? This is sourced with the "Zebra hides website", which has a clear conflict of interest here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this vendor website a reliable source? Lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable for what they say as a zebra hide provider. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, I added a detail on fragmentation in the conservation subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, most important information is present, the article is very solid and a good read. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

I'm claiming a section here, I'll get to this in the next day or two. This will be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 15:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For starters
  • That Zebra hides sales site is not a reliable source for the information it's cited to. It has a COI in presenting a positive take on its practices. A better source needs to be found.
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of formatting inconsistencies here. For FA, the sources must be formatted in the same manner. Caro and Plumb & Shaw have long citations in the bibliographies, but the other books have long citations in the notes section. All of the books should be done in the style of Caro and Plumb & Shaw, and the journals probably should too.
No. The Caro and Plumb & Shaw are cited that way because they have several pages cited thoughout rather than a specific section or page range. I have done this before in other FA articles and I'm not changing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FACR #2c. Hog Farm Bacon 17:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LittleJerry on this one; this is standard in science articles, and is actually without a feasible alternative due to mixed sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of instances where p. is used when pp. should be used. If multiple pages are being cited, pp. should be used.
Jonesey95 can you please do this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources like Rubenstein and Churcher we need the exact page numbers for each statement, not just a range. This helps with WP:V.
I cited page ranges before and never had this problem. It is too tedious assigning each exact statement an exact page since much of the information is stated throughout. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1). So you need six pages of Rubenstein to support that Zebras are only only living member of the family Equus? And "it's a lot of work" isn't a reason not to point to the exact page number for an FA.
If I was using Rubenstein just for that for that specific statement, I would just cite the one page number were it is mentioned. But you should notice I am using it for multiple claims that are not on one page. Hence am using the page range. I have used page ranges before for FAs and I'm not changing it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 87 (the Folia Zool PDF) needs authors given, a publisher given, and the weird website syntax removed from the title. It also needs the date from the paper.
Jonesey95 can you please do this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do these external links contribute? External links should link to additional information, not just unused websites.
  • The titles are a mess. Some are in the format where only the First word and other proper nouns such as Zebra are capitalized, while others are in Title Case.
Jonesey95 can you please do this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. This will need to be done manually, with editorial decisions along the way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made the book titles and journal article titles consistent in regards to capitalization (capitalized for books, not for journals). LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just from a quick skim. More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 15:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: Okay. Sorry if I seemed prickly earlier, my RL job is catching shoplifters, and that attitude rubs off sometimes. The page range and Caro issues I guess are related to project standards, I work a lot with history articles, where my suggestions would fit the style guide there. I plan on spending more time at FAC in the future, do I hope this doesn't build any I'll will. Hog Farm Bacon 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Archive 218 of the reliable sources noticeboard, there is no clear consensus on the reliability of sciencealert. Since only the highest quality sources should be in FAs, is it possible to replace this source?
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources all appear to be reliable enough.
  • Be consistent with how author's first initials are presented. Sometimes you use a period in the manner of "Wales, J." other times you don't, like "Wales, J". Be consistent with this.
Jonesey95? LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found and fixed all of these (there were many). I don't see "Wales" in the page. Specific examples would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wiki's founder! LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: That string does not appear in the article. I was using Jimbo Wales as an example. Hog Farm Bacon 00:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks coming later. Hog Farm Bacon 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks (start with three)
  • "Mountain zebras are protected in Mountain Zebra National Park, Karoo National Park and Goegap Nature Reserve in South Africa as well as Etosha and Namib-Naukluft Park in Namibia" - Supported, although IUCN lists a bunch of other parks, although they are too numerous to effectively list.
  • "However, he did not ride on them as he realised that they were too small and aggressive." - Checks out
  • "By contrast, plains zebra stallions are generally intolerant of foals that are not theirs and may practice infanticide and feticide" - Checks out

I'm willing to pass the source review at this point. However, I'm not convinced that any of the external links pass WP:ELNO #1. Also, the Horse Tigers one is more about a TV special than zebras, so it's especially irrelevant. The ELs aren't part of the sourcing, but I'm not convinced they add anything to the article. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, replaced external links. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to show the quagga under conservation? Instead of the current image there, because I'm sure plenty of the other photos are also from natural reserves.
I wanted for there to be a Grévy's zebra image since there isn't in the rest of the section and the species is endangered. The quagga is mentioned in the taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The photos could just be swapped (the quagga is almost a symbol of extinction), but anyway, this point is not essential. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No predators and parasites section? There must be a lot.
Predators have a paragraph. Parasites are more relevant for the individual species. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its ultimate origin is uncertain, but it may have come from the Latin equiferus meaning "wild horse"; from equus ("horse") and ferus ("wild, untamed")." This seems like a stretch, how does the source put i?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The word may have entered into Portuguese as ezebro or zebro" What "word" is referred to here? Equiferus or zebra?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The zebra was previously called hippotigris ("horse tiger") by the Greeks and Romans." Prevous to what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link both equine and Equus, which has the same destination. Either equine should be unlinked, or does it actually refer to Equinae? Should be redirected there instead then.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the stripe function info is about ecology/behaviour, which should logically be discussed in that section.
I prefer it where it is. The formatting is better. The physical description of stripes more naturally leads to the debate over their function. I've wrote FA's where ecology and behavior are partially discussed in regards to the function of a physical characteristic, like bat, giraffe and elephant. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case, it is solely about their function in an ecological context. In quagga, we also put it under behaviour/ecology. I think it's quite misplaced where it is now, but if no one else has brought it up, I guess others didn't find it as jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the text in the Distribution columns under Extant species not begin with capital letters?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mule could be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk. Any more? LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, added some, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have chestnuts only on their front limbs" This could be explained in-text, like saying "chestnut"-calluses or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Primitive markings including a dorsal stripe and often leg striping and horizontal shoulder stripes reflect the wildtype coat of equines" I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of the source, zebras are wildtype equines, those terms mainly apply when used to describe domestic horses (when they have such stripes, they can be compared with those of wild types like zebras; a horse with stripes similar to a zebra or wild ass has "primitive markings"). But to be sure, pinging horse-experts Montanabw and Ealdgyth on this.
I actually got that from Montanabw who originally wrote this from the Equus article: "A dun-colored coat with primitive markings that include a dorsal stripe and often leg striping and transverse shoulder stripes reflect the wildtype coat and are observed in most wild extant equine species". LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source used talks specifically about non-zebra horses that have faint striping inherited from wild type ancestors, and even starts "the primitive markings in horses, the so called zebra markings". It is therefore moot to point this out in entirely striped animals like zebras, because in them, it is not a primitive throw back feature, because they are wild types themselves. So I don't think any reliable sources would use the term "primitive markings" in reference to the stripes of zebras. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link morph.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "predators has questioned." Has been?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, no correlations have been found between striping patterns and populations of mammal predators." I'm not sure what this means?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Caro and colleagues (2019) studied captive zebras" You have already given the date, I don't think you need it again.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why do those flies not lie stripes?
It already states that "A 2012 study concluded that the stripes polarise light in such a way that it discourages these insects in a manner not shown with other coat patterns". LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that only states they are discouraged, not why. What is it about this light they don't like? If we don't know why, it could be stated. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zebra eat primarily grasses" You should be consistent in whether you use the plural form zebras or zebra throughout.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "females are usually abducted by outside males" How?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the purpose of the dewlap in the mountain zebra, which seems to set it quite apart from its relatives?
Doesn't say. That's more important for the species article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As below, I'd also expect some mention of subspecies and numbers of them, at least in the "extant species" boxes. Just brief, "this species has the following subspecies".
That's more important for the species article. Plains zebra subspecies in particular are too complicated for this article.
You don't need to go into detail, just say something like "this species has been suggested to have 2-4 subspecies" for each in their boxes. Since another reviewer also brought it up too, other readers would probably consider it an oversight too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the flehmen response" State that this is by baring their teeth.
Its more complicated then that. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be explained, the MOS says "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[67] FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while imprinting their own striping pattern" So they do also have a function in recognition of individuals, I'd expect this to be mentioned under function then? And how is it even known they use stripes for this?
Zebra's being able to recognize each others striping patterns does not mean its their function. We can recognize individual human faces but that's not why we have faces. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if it is a function, this needs to be explained. Yes, we can recognise faces, and this is a secondary function, but do the sources specifically state this is also a function of zebra stripes? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source only states that the mother imprints her striping pattern on the foal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and feticide" How?
By causing the females to miscarry? LittleJerry (talk)
Yes, but how do they do that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article is effectively about Hippotigris, we need to know when and by who this was named. And was it ever considered a proper genus?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they were known as far as Palestine" this seems an odd statement, as Palestine is arguably closer to where zebras live than Europe.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the species was named in his honour" You could add "the species it belonged to" to avoid confusion.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The quagga was hunted by" I think you could repeat here "the quagga subspecies of the plains zebra", it is in the opposite end of the article from where you explain it was merely a subspecies.
The article mentions that it is either a subspecies or population. Recent genetic evidence suggests that their are no subspecies of plains zebra but clines. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whichever it is, I think it is good to reiterate there, all the way at the opposite end of the article, so the reader knows it is not a species. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention under conservbation that a subpopulation of Burchell's zebra was hunted to extinction, which was at one point thought to be a distinct taxon too.
Subpopulation not important for article. Not as iconic as the quagga. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • In the image caption it should be "plains zebras" (not zebra). See [68]].
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation of the taxonomy is confusing. If I understand correctly, zebras do not belong to the subgenus Hippotigris, rather zebra is the common name for the subgenus Hippotigris. This should be clarified at the start, and it would also be helpful to spell out that equines is used here in the sense of the plural of the genus equus.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not clarified this point. Human is the common name for Homo sapien and belongs to the tribe Hominini. Saying that zebras belong to the subgenus Hippotigris si unclear.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are the only living members of the family Equidae." "They" obviously refers to equus but it is grammatically ambiguous.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zebras have fairly good senses." This is too vague. Fairly good compared with what and which senses are best?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The researchers concluded that this could be used against mammalian predators or biting flies.[57] The use of the stripes for confusing against mammalian predators has also been questioned." Why "also"?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the longest land migration in Africa." longest of what? Zebras? Any animal?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Plains zebras are more water-dependent and live in more mesic environments than other species. They seldom wander 10–12 km (6.2–7.5 mi) from a water source.[24][26][76] Grévy's zebras can survive almost a week without water but will drink daily when it is plentiful and conserve water well.[77][21] Mountain zebras can be found at elevations of up to 2,000 m (6,600 ft)." I expected a comment on mountain zebras' water needs here.
Plains and Grevy's zebra are suppose to represent the extremes of water dependence. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Living in an arid environment, Grévy's zebras have longer nursing intervals and do not drink water until they are three months old." Why does an arid environment lead to drinking water later?
Because there isn't has much water available and have to spend longer times dependent on milk? LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected a brief section on sub-species. Is there a reason you do not have one?
That's important for the individual species not this article. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already had a source check review and they passed. They are reliable enough for the claims used. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Hog Farm did both a spotcheck of three sources and looked all the sources in terms of their reliability. They had no problem with the ones you pointed out. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles - TravelNewNamibia is used to cite specific national parks they are located in, so not really scientific information. PBS is used to cite some fairly basic stuff, and PBS is reliable enough for that. The second slate is used to cite information about Rothschild's attempted training, and Slate is reliable enough for a basic presentation of a historical fact. I can see the other Slate reference maybe being an issue, but PBS looks acceptable for the lower-level scientific statement, and two of the ones questioned aren't citing scientific information. We don't need Nature to tell us about Rothschild. Hog Farm Bacon 17:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [69].

2020 Tour Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second professional snooker event after the lockdown. The event features the best 8 players on the single season list. Stephen Maguire was indeed "on fire" after winning his first ranking event in years. Both Shaun Murphy and Maguire created new records for most century breaks in best-of-17 frames matches. Not bad, considering Magiure had not qualified to play, and only recieved a spot after Ding Junhui pulled out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

edit
  • I'm assuming the tournament was moved from Wales to England because Wales was under a stricter lockdown? This could be worth mentioning as the venue change isn't really explained.
    • No actual information other than it being more suitable. I did hear David Hendon suggest the move was actually more for TV (due to ITV being based in London), but I have no sources suggesting either way. The big reason is because the previous event was played there, and there's an onsite hotel for the players. - [70] - not sure how I'd word that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were checked for Covid-19", checked reads a little oddly and overly casual for the situation. Perhaps tested?
  • Was it a one-off test for COVID or a rolling test programme like some other sports?
  • "Prize money at this stage do not count towards prize" > does not count?
  • The quarter final stage uses "best of 17 frames" while other uses include the hyphens?
  • "The first match was held between Neil Robertson and Stephen Maguire", this sentence reads a little oddly I feel. If you're using held, I would suggest "The first match held was between..." Thoughts?
  • "for Ding Junhui who could not travel to the event from China", probably worth adding why he couldn't travel from China, especially as the lead does and this doesn't.
  • "performance was the "greatest performance", a little repetitive with performance here.
  • "surpas", typo here.
  • "Trump won the next two frames, and led 5–3 after the first session.[20] Trump won the first three frames", two successive sentences beginning with Trump. As the subject doesn't change, you could drop the second for "He".
  • There appears to be some variation in the use of digits or words when listing frame numbers under ten. For example, both frame 8 and frame eight and frame 9 and frame nine are used. Is there a reason for the difference?
  • "final quarter-final", the double use of final is a little jarring. Perhaps last quarter-final?
    • Agreed 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "three-time world champion Mark Selby", it seems a little strange to include the three-time world champion part when he's already been mentioned in the previous round. I would of thought this would be better placed at his first entry into the competition?

A few points I picked up from a run through. Nothing particularly troublesome, this is a nice article overall. Kosack (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by WA8MTWAYC

edit

Great article, Lee. I've some points.

Source Review - BennyOnTheLoose

edit
  • 0. Infobox and Lead
  • "Organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association," - reword as per amendment in article body. (I think it's OK to keep WPBSA in infobox, as it is the governing body)
  • "However, on the morning of 17 March the event was postponed.." - date not stated in the body of the article (but is supported by the source there)
  • "16th and penultimate ranking event" - source does not indicate which are ranking events, and includes some "possible" events, so does not verify this.
  • "organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" - I think it's more accurate to say "organised by World Snooker" (or ".. World Snooker Tour"). The WPBSA owns 26% of World Snooker, against 51% controlled by Hearn. Alternatively, reword to reflect the WPBSA's role as the governing (rather than organising) body.
  • "In the Tour Championship, every match was played over multiple sessions" needs a source. (Looks like the SnookerHQ source has probably been updated, and no archive link.)
      • The article says "Every encounter will be multi-session affairs, with the quarter-finals the first to nine, the semi-finals the first to ten, and the final taking place over a whopping 25 frames." - I think this covers the above? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final was played as a best-of-19 frames match" the archive of the source used wrongly states "best-of-27 frames final"
  • "The draw for the event was made on 15 March 2020." - not confirmed by source cited.
  • "It was the second professional tournament to be played after the season was halted due to the pandemic after the 2020 Championship League. " - archived source says "the first ranking event" not "the second professional tournament"
  • "The only difference from the money awarded in 2019 was a slightly increased prize for the highest break" needs a source.
  • "Highest break: £10,000" needs a source
  • "Total: £380,000" may need a source, I'll check whether simply adding the amounts is WP:OR or not.
  • Each match was played over two sessions in the same day." is not verified by the cited source.
  • "Ding Junhui who could not travel to the event from China due to the COVID-19 pandemic" - reason not stated in the cited source.
  • "The pair had met previously in the season at the Masters, where Maguire trailed 1–5, but won the match 6–5" - not in source, which has probably subsequently been updated.
  • "The pair had met in the final of the 2019 World Snooker Championship." needs a source.
  • "The semi-finals were also played as the best-of-17-frames matches over two sessions on 24 and 25 June." needs a source
  • "The final was played as the best-of-19-frames on 26 June 2020 over two sessions." needs a source
  • Linked archive copy, and live link, both have different amounts per player to what's shown in the table. Hopefully there is an archived version from a suitable date.
  • Source needed for winners of the World Grand Prix and Players Championship.
  • All info in the draw bracket is covered elsewhere in the article.
  • 5.1 Final
  • "Referee: Rob Spencer" needs a source.
    • Cited
  • Frame scores and breaks need a source.
  • No issues.
  • Assessment against criteria
    • (1c): well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate.
    • (2c): consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing.
Lee Vilenski please have a look at my comments so far when you have an opportunity. Thanks for all your good work on the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the changes (and having read the Snooker Scene article as mentioned above), I'm happy to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intending to claim WikiCup points for this review, and will probably do so after a couple of days. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Rodney Baggins

edit

Hi Lee, I've done quite a lot of copyediting while going through the article. Anything you don't agree with, please revert, I won't be offended :) There are a couple more tweaks I want to make, but here are my comments for you to consider at your leisure/pleasure...

Lead
  • "Stephen Maguire defeated Robertson and Judd Trump; whilst Mark Allen defeated Shaun Murphy and Mark Selby to reach the final." - sounds a bit awkward and not particularly clear, would suggest expanding to something like: "Stephen Maguire met Mark Allen in the final; Maguire had defeated Robertson and Judd Trump in the two earlier rounds, whilst Mark Allen had defeated Shaun Murphy and Mark Selby [to reach the final]." (not sure if those last 4 words are actually needed!)
Overview
  • The sentences at start of para 2 are chronologically out of place because they relate to the eventual broadcasting of the event, whereas the rest of para 2 talks about the original schedule, postponement, etc. Should probably move these 4 sentences ("The tournament was primarily broadcast... ...by sports betting company Coral.") to end of section as a separate para?
Quarter-finals
  • "The first round of the tournament was the quarter-finals..." - can we clarify that this is because there were only 8 entrants, e.g. "The first round of the tournament was held from 20 to 23 June, with matches played as best-of-17-frames over two sessions. As there were just eight competitors at the start of the event, the matches played in this round were effectively the quarter-finals."
    • ...I would, but it's not me who chose to call it the Quarter-finals, this is the round naming as per WST. I think they treat the rankings as their own qualification round. I've had some thoughts recently about how we should treat this in other articles, like the Masters, (and this years world championship), where the RSs use both "round 2", and "last/round of 16". The reason for not changing here, is that there isn't a source about this, it's just that they are denoted as being the quarter-finals.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pair had met earlier in the season..." - sounds like we're talking about Maguire and Ding because of the previous sentence, so might be best to specify "Robertson and Maguire had met earlier in the season..." ?
  • Michaela Tabb is rather prominent in the image and even though the caption says 2013 it might look at first glance as if she ref'd this match - there are plenty of other images from that 2013 event to choose from!
  • "between reigning world champion Judd Trump and John Higgins" - maybe balance this by mentioning Higgins' rank: "world number five John Higgins"? (but then I suppose we'd have to mention all the other players' world rankings!?) (...but maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing!?)
  • "fifth win in-a-row" > 'in-a-row' doesn't need hyphens but I wonder if "fifth successive win" OR "fifth straight win" would sound better anyway?
  • "Selby won the next two of the next three frames" > doesn't make sense, and shouldn't this actually be "three of the next four" (as the score jumps from 4–4 to 7–5)
  • "around the angles" doesn't link to glossary
Semi-finals
Final
  • I don't think we need to mention the year 2020 in the opening sentence (we didn't in the QF and SF sections). I'd suggest rewording this sentence to: "The final was played on 26 June as a best-of-19-frames match over two sessions."
  • I don't like the use of dashes in the highest break sentence, it looks a bit scrappy. Can't we just use commas: "...Maguire made the highest break of the tournament, a 139, in frame nine." It also might be worth clarifying that he actually won the frame (for the lay person), so "to win frame nine." or "in winning frame nine."
  • Suggested wording change: "Frame 16 was full of safety play" > "Frame 16 was dominated by safety play" ?
  • Maguire's prize breakdown is possibly a bit confusing. He won the Tour Championship title (£150K), the Coral Cup title (£100K) and the highest break prize (£10K), which gives a total of £260K ...but don't forget that back in March he also won the Players Championship prize of £30K, so his total prize haul for the Coral Cup was actually £290K. So should we mention that figure too? Would need to be sourced so it's not considered OR?
Seeding list / Coral Cup

As for today... Darn that Crucible curse eh? My guess is KW will win the title this year, but here's hoping it will be Selby's fourth! Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at these as soon as I can. I've been a big Maflin fan since his run in with Selby in 2015, so it's been great to see him do so well. I do have Kyren to win it down. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Selby's fourth - probably should have been. Wilson will win it one year, but he'll need to tidy up some of his game. O'Sullivan seems like he'll win the tournament without playing well. Thanks for your review, I've commented on the above.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee, I'll have a last look through this and sign it off for you today. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've gone through the article again in a bit more detail. The main thing that's occurred to me is this:

  • It says in the lead: "...on the one-year ranking list at the cut-off date." but there's no explanation of what that means. (1) What exactly do we mean by the "one-year ranking list"? (2) What was the cut-off date? Maybe this needs to be explained in the overview?

I also have a bunch of wording suggestions, listed below. Some of them are probably just down to personal preference but you might pick out some that you agree with. I do want to have a closer look at the sources and then I should be ready to support.

  • Would it be worth adding rough dates for the Gibraltar Open and World Championship in lead, for context, e.g. "...following the Gibraltar Open in March and preceding the World Championship in July/August."
    • To be honest, it seems a little bit overkill. It's not really about this article, and it's more to say where this event took place in the calendar. We do go into depth about where the event was held and postponed etc in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the current wording in lead re. postponement, would this make more sense... "...but on the morning of 17 March the event was postponed, following advice from the UK government that no spectators would be permitted at the event because of the COVID-19 pandemic."
  • Not happy about the order and wording in last para lead. Would it be better to mention Ding dropping out first and then talk about how Maguire got on, to make it read more logically, e.g. "China's Ding Junhui, fifth on the one-year ranking list, was unable to travel to the event because of the COVID-19 situation. His replacement was Stephen Maguire, ranked ninth, who reached the final after defeating Robertson and Judd Trump. His opponent in the final was Mark Allen, who defeated Shaun Murphy and Mark Selby in the two earlier rounds. Maguire won the final 10–6 to claim the sixth ranking title of his career, his first for seven years. In winning the tournament, Maguire also won the Coral Cup."
  • Overview: Suggest putting "a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" in brackets?
  • Overview: Should "The Tour Championship was set to take place..." be the start of a new paragraph?
  • Slight wording change/clarification: "and moved to the Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes, England." > "and moved to a different venue, the Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes, England."
  • Maybe expand slightly, for context: "...the first being the 2020 Championship League." > "...the first being the Championship League which had taken place earlier the same month."
  • Link "isolation" to Isolation (health care) at end of Overview? Or is that too healthcare specific?
  • Quarter-finals: "guaranteed to surpass £1 million in prize money" > would "exceed" be a better word than "surpass"?
  • Semi-finals: "ITV commentator and analyst Stephen Hendry commented..." Could this perhaps be a new paragraph to break the section up a bit?

Oh, and finally, do we know why Allen was promoted to fourth in the world rankings? Was this for getting to the final or just for being runner-up?

Cheers for now, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I've done a thorough review of the sources and made a few corrections and added some missing archives. Outstanding problems...

1. There are lots of duplicate refs:

2. Some sources have been updated since they were first added to the article. Do we need to state the updated date to prove that we're citing the updated version of the article?

  • Ref.18 (date has changed from 14 July > 16 July)
  • Ref.20 (date has changed from 14 June > 16 June)
  • Ref.23 (date has changed from 21 June > 22 June)
  • Ref.27 (date has changed from 21 June > 22 June)
  • Ref.28 (date has changed from 22 June > 23 June)

3. Archive problems:

4. Dynamic sources:

Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

edit

I just want to say that I am coming here looking for a review for my article, Tropical Storm Vicente (2018). If you would be willing to take a look, that would be fantastic! NoahTalk 14:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: We always fully spell out the date range in words in the body of the article, as we do in all snooker articles, and reserve the en dash format for infoboxes, tables, etc... "which took place from 20–26 June 2020" would disagree with MOS:DATERANGE which states "Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–1886); between June 1 and July 3 (not between June 1 – July 3)" I've reverted Lee's change accordingly. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably give a brief description of what a century break is since it is a technical term. I didn't know that one could not miss a shot, for example. NoahTalk 14:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do link to our article on both century break as well as break. I realise it's a reletavely jargonish term, but it's a break of over 100. I have reworded slightly.
Given the rather extensive reviewing above, I could not find a lot of issues to comment on. NoahTalk 14:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

edit

Hi Ian Rose - do I need to do anything further with the above? Four supports, image and source review done. Just want to check I don't need additional commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [77].

1986 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose and Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1986 edition of the World Snooker Championship. After Steve Davis lost the previous year's final on the final ball, the world number one reached the final in 1986 where hee played 500-1 outsider Joe Johnson. Johnson played some of the best snooker of his career to take Davis apart 18–12 and win his sole world championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC

edit

Great work, Benny and Lee. As someone who knows virtually nothing about this sport, I found it rather interesting and I've learned a lot of new things, such as a small bit of snooker history given in the "Overview" section. I've got a few comments, mostly to do with the links. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support from The Squirrel Conspiracy

edit

This is a QPQ review for Lee's review of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of major Super Smash Bros. for Wii U tournaments/archive1. It's also my first review at FAC that wasn't just dropping in comment on images that I thought violated the NFCC.

Your work is of a high standard, and BennyOnTheLoose has already given the prose a deep scrub, so I'm left with very little to comment on.

  • I am unconvinced that File:1986 World Snooker Championship programme.jpg meets WP:NFCC 8. While the community is generally willing to give a free pass to the infobox image, Featured Articles should be held to a higher standard. Can you please explain why the program booklet "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"?
    • I disagree. I did suggest a NFCC 8, which is similar to that of video game covers. I would have used a poster for the event, which has consensus for meeting this, but this was the closest I could find. I should note the image review picked up no such issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joe Davis won the first World Championship in 1927, the final match being held in Camkin's Hall, Birmingham, England." - I don't see what this adds to the article. Consider removing it.
  • "The 32 competitors in the main tournament were selected using a combination of the top players in the world snooker rankings and a pre-tournament qualification stage." - Can you specify how many come from each of those two methods?
  • The use of div col in the "Prize fund" section creates exceptionally weird formatting on wide screens. Consider removing div col, or forcing some sort of line break between Main Event and Qualifying.
  • Consider standardizing the widths of the five tables in the Qualifying section. Right now, on wider screens, the ones on the right don't align.
I have made these standard (or the best I could!) - let me know your thoughts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you need me to circle back. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Squirrel Conspiracy - I've addressed the above. Thanks for taking a look! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Regarding the image: Video game and album covers are used to identify the game across several mediums (storefronts, reviews, etc.). Is the event brochure program similarly used? A google search of "1986 World Snooker Championship" shows a lot of images of players and tables, and none of the program. That's not the case when you search a game or album, where the cover appears frequently. Therefore, I don't agree that the program cover counts as a primary means of identification, which is the rationale that other works use for having a non-free image in the infobox. Had we a freely licensed image of Joe Johnson, that would make for a good lead image, but as it stands, I feel it'd be better to leave that field blank. Everything else is fine at this point; the image remains my final concern. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case The Squirrel Conspiracy, I'm happy to remove the image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Ping me when you do and I'll change my comment to a support. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I already had The Squirrel Conspiracy, apologies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I've added this to the urgents list for hopefully a review from someone outside the topic area. Also to the source reviews list for one. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Ealdgyth:, this one is just missing a source review from the looks of it. Would there be any objection to firing up the next nom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's fine. --Ealdgyth (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

Here are my comments.

  • Looking at 2019 World Snooker Championship#Background, another FA of yours, I was wondering if you could standardize that text.
    • E.g. "professional tournament" (this article) vs "annual cue sport tournament" (2019 article).
    • Also, I wonder if you can link stuff like Birmingham.
  • A full breakdown of the prize money is shown below - any better way to phrase this?
  • against former world snooker championship promoter Mike Watterson - in this instance, is the "world snooker championship" supposed to be lowercase?
  • His wife Barbara Thorburn, gave birth to their second child in the couple's native Canada during the match. - I think you can get rid of the comma, or add another after "his wife"
  • A condensed version of the final was showcased on BBC Two on 22 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic. - should it be "which had been postponed"?

These are the prose comments I had. epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • What does "w.o.-scr." mean? The first part is linked to walkover, that's fine, but the "scr."?
  • Why in the references is The Times listed as Times, The and Sunday Times, The? And yet, The Daily Telegraph is listed as so.
  • There is also a location listed for The Times, but not for The Daily Telegraph.
  • Also note that the location should not be italicised: move it out of the work parameter, into the location parameter, which will format it properly.

That's it from me at the moment. (Not that I have not looked at the prose.) Harrias talk 07:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • I admit, I am not at all familiar with this subject. So if I say something stupid, please say so.

Spot check

  • "official" does not appear in the Matchroom Sport and even if it did how does a "promotions company" qualify as a reliable source to verify such a claim
  • OK, but you are not claiming that the World Snooker Championship is the "official" snooker championship of the WPBSA, you are claiming that it is "official world championship of the game of snooker". This I think requires an independent source. What makes it "official"? Perhaps, the best solution is a reorganization. Start with the founding of the sport in the late 19th century. Then use this source p. 278 to describe how in 1969 the WPBSA created the world championship for the sport. Mentioning the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association makes stating "official" unnecessary and superfluous. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • considering the above two sources and other published books, is Ref #3 really the best source for historical info?
  • "Since 1977" – wouldn't this be a much better source
  • "globalsnookercentre.co.uk" – why is this self-published source considered reliable
  • Pending.
  • "Robby Foldvari, who had won the World Billiards Championship in March 1986" – I could not verify any of this in the sources cited. Foldvari is not mentioned in either source
  • "Like John Spencer in 1978, Terry Griffiths in 1980, Cliff Thorburn in 1981, and Steve Davis in 1982" – if you going to mention the years, you should cite each source[78][79][80][81]
I am afraid not. While it confirms that they won the previous year, it does not note that they competed in the year after becoming champion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can add the individual references here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

  • "worldsnooker.com" – that is no longer the URL of the website; in any case the website has a name: "WST" or "World Snooker"
    • Ah yes, the world snooker rebranding. That brings its own issues (The World Snooker Tour organising events on the World Snooker Tour!)
  • "globalsnookercentre.co.uk" – the name of the website is Global Snooker Centre
  • "Danny Fowler | World Championship Results" → "Danny Fowler Player Profile"
Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "13". Snooker's World Champions: Masters of the Baize. — Do you mean "13. Joe Johnson: Ordinary Joe", the name of the chapter
  • "Kastner, Hugo" – add |page=2, move May 2011 to |date=, delete "update"
  • For all The Times references, can we add page numbers
  • (NewsBank doesn't include page numbers so I checked on The Times Digital Archive. Done with two exceptions. The Sunday Times is not on The Times Digital Archive, and the source from 13 May is on NewsBank (I checked again) but I couldn't find it in the digitised Times archive so I've left these as is (i.e. NewsBank links, no page number.) Presumably because of different editions, 3 and 6 May have different headlines in the different sources, so I've used the details from The Times archive instead and removed the NewsBank link. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to come back for another look. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski and BennyOnTheLoose, my only remaining concern is finding a source for "Billiards Association and Control Council". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There's a few offline sources that I know of, just checking with Benny if he might have access to them. Shouldn't be too long. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking on the review and for your observations, Coffeeandcrumbs. I've added a source for the BA&CC, let us know whether that looks OK. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have no further concerns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 1 September 2020 [82].

Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C.

edit
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather notorious football match that took place in 2002. I was there myself to watch Cardiff cause one of the biggest FA Cup upsets of the modern age. The win, along with the chaos that erupted at the end of the game, make this one of the most memorable moments in the club's recent history. I had this on my to do list for sometime before getting round to creating it and quickly moved it up to GA. I think it's in good shape for a run at FAC now, so I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC

edit

Great article about an interesting affair, Kosack. Your former chairman was certainly a nutter. As the GA Review concluded, the prose and article were already of high quality, so I've got a few minor comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the latter part in "He found teammate Mark Viduka who scored from 20 yards after shooting past Cardiff goalkeeper Neil Alexander." is redundant.
  • Ninian Park is linked in "...on fences surrounding the home fan enclosures at Ninian Park so..." but should be linked in "The match was switched to Cardiff's Ninian Park over safety concerns..."
  • Robert Earnshaw is overlinked in "...opponents quickly and Robert Earnshaw made several early..."
  • Neil Alexander too in "...after shooting past Cardiff goalkeeper Neil Alexander."
  • And Andy Legg in "Alan Smith fouled Andy Legg 22 yards from the Leeds goal."
  • BBC Sport should be linked in the first ref and not in the second.
  • The Independent in ref 10 and not in 24.
  • Reach plc (ref 26) has a wiki page.
  • As do TeessideLive (ref 31), Evening Standard (36), ESPN (37) and Yorkshire Post (48).
@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've amended the points above. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Good work, Kosack. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here . Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reworded slightly to avoid the opinion side of it. The ref included makes reference to the eccentricity but I've added another that actually uses the term to be doubly sure. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I saw from a first pass. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks very much Lee, I've amended the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just have three more:
  • There is a programme, but the only image I can find of it is obscured by other material. I've added a token "ground image" to the infobox to provide some sort of image. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards a year disambiguation myself for the title. The RM seems to be fading somewhat with no real outcome, so I may propose moving it along and adding the year. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: Hi Lee, the RM has closed as no consensus but I'm planning on adding the "(2002)" to the article anyway. I've asked Ian Rose about the best course of action and he has advised that it would be better to do this once the FAC has reached a conclusion. I hope this doesn't affect any potential support from yourself. Kosack (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No that's fine. Names aren't really covered by the MOS really, I just thought it be worth mentioning. I realise this would be the primary topic even if the other match was notable, but I think a disambiguator would help. I'll leave it to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Harrias

edit

Not much from me; I conduced the GA review, and the article has been improved since then.

That's about all from me. Harrias talk 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I've added this to the source and image review list to get some. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Quick comments –

  • Pre-match: "Apart from Gordon, Cork made one further change from the club's previous fixture, a 3–1 defeat to Bristol City on 29 December 2001, Jason Bowen was dropped to the substitutes bench with Paul Brayson starting in his place." This is a classic run-on sentence. Was the last comma meant to be a period? That seems to be the most logical break point, so I'd handle it that way.
  • Later: "before being eliminated from the FA Cup in the fourth round at the end January..." needs "of" before January. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for taking a look, both points addressed. Kosack (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass

edit
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_2020&oldid=980806136"