Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2023

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2023 [1].

George Washington

[edit]
Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about George Washington, the first President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of American forces during the American Revolutionary War. The article has been recently heavily edited and, in my opinion, is now much improved which is why I have nominated it as a candidate for "Featured Article" status. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I participated in some of the recent editing, and I agree it is now much improved. However, in my opinion it still would require significant work to meet the FA criteria. Specifically:

  • Multiple citations are missing page numbers, needed for verification
  • Many citations are inconsistently formatted
  • Some of the sources are of questionable reliability (eg WorldAtlas)
  • Previous reviews noted issues with material failing verification. Spotchecking indicates that remains an issue here. For example:
  • "The family moved to Little Hunting Creek in 1735. In 1738, they moved to Ferry Farm" does not appear to be supported by either of the cited sources
  • The pages cited for "In his pursuit of admiration, status, and power, his writing displayed little wit or humor" speak to his military career rather than his writing
  • "Washington contracted smallpox during that trip, which left his face slightly scarred": the given source supports that he got smallpox but doesn't mention scarring
  • "Meaning "town destroyer", the name had been given to his great-grandfather...". The given source mentions that nickname but not this translation

Given these issues, a more comprehensive edit focusing on verifiability and sourcing is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I did find some citation issues and changed them during editing, I was not aware that there were more issues with citations. I will take a closer look at it. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I went through it. I did change a few references - removed some as well - but I can't find any missing pages from books cited in the article. Can you guide me on that a bit? -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Examples as of this timestamp include footnotes 249, 254, 255, and 256. One of the references added (History.com) is also of questionable reliability - see WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll check it out. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

Given the call above for a more comprehensive edit re. verifiability and sourcing I think this nom is premature and further work should take place outside the FAC process, so I'll be archiving it shortly. An article like this really should go through Peer Review before coming to FAC and I strongly recommend that as the next stop before a future nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so. This was my first ever attempt at this so I wasn't entirely sure what to do. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [2].

Driving in Madagascar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) and Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) (UTC) 20:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about driving in the island nation of Madagascar. The article was peer reviewed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Driving in Madagascar/archive1. As a note of trivia, this article was the redlink example at WP:REDDEAL, between September 2015 and January 2023. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
  • Hi Red-tailed hawk and Tamzin, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as you are both first time nominators at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Madagascar_Transportation.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Seal_of_Madagascar.svg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • First fixed. Will defer to my Commons-admin coäuthor on handling the latter. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the second one, I'm going to need to do some digging if we're to keep that image in the template. It's very possible that the seal that is on Commons is an original design based upon the text of the law that authorized the seal (i.e. it's genuinely own work and granted to the public domain), but I'm not able to figure that out. I've changed the image in the underlying template to be that of Madagascar's flag, which is undoubtedly in the public domain due to its simplicity. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

Reserving a spot. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • In general, given the length of this article (12K bytes of prose), and given the shortness of each paragraph, I would suggest combining the lead paragraphs into two or three paragraphs total. Technically MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends only 1-2 paragraphs for an article of this size, but the article seems detailed enough that three paragraphs may be acceptable. But see my other comments below for paragraph-specific recommendations.
  • "The road network of Madagascar, comprising about 4,500 unique roads spanning 31,640 kilometers (19,660 mi), is designed around roads built to facilitate transportation to and from Antananarivo, the Malagasy capital." - This basically boils down to "the road network ... is designed around roads", which sounds awkward. I suggest "The road network ... is designed to facilitate transportation to and from Antananarivo"
  • "While most primary roads are in good condition, the World Food Program" - Our article spells the WFP the World Food Programme. Usually, WP:ENGVAR does not apply to proper names (see MOS:CONSISTENT). Is there a reason that we are using American English for this proper name?
  • "While most primary roads are in good condition, the World Food Programme has classified two-thirds of the roads as being in poor condition." - I would say "...the World Food Programme has classified two-thirds of the overall road network as being in poor condition." or something similar. Two-thirds of the roads sounds like you have a road where two lanes are in poor condition and one lane is in good condition.
  • The third paragraph of the lead reads like a mishmash of various facts: right-side driving, vehicle convoys, car collision fatalities, random police checkpoints.
  • "in order to deter attacks from dahalo" - "In order" does not seem necessary here.
  • "suggest that the rate of car collision fatalities is among the highest in the world" - Any specific figures?
  • "Human-powered vehicles, once the only means of road transport" - Do you know when this stopped being the case?
  • "vehicles involved are often overpacked with people" - As opposed to overpacked with animals? (I'm genuinely interested if you said "overpacked with people", as opposed to just "overpacked" or "overcrowded", because there may be a form of taxi-brousse that transports animals. I haven't read the entire article though.)
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In order:
  • I agree, though I think that restructuring the lead is probably the final thing to do after all requisite changes are to the body, so I'm going to defer on that at the moment. I've preliminarily merged par. 3 with par. 4 in the meantime.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • See bullet 1.
  • Done, though I've rearranged that sentence.
  • The body says "Madagascar has the 24th-highest fatality rate out of 175 countries or regions assessed", citing this report, which in turn cited this report. This was condensed for the lead, but I have no objection to adding the statistic in the lead. (CC: Tamzin).
  • Not later than 1902 (see: [3]), but I don't have a source that affirmatively gives a particular year for that specific fact. If I were a betting man, I'd say it's that year, but that would be original research.
  • Done. Pages 70 and 72 of the source in the body gives the phrase Regional and local services are typically systematically overloaded and characterizes the vehicles as person-transport, but I think removing the extraneous "with people" doesn't lose anything of value.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Red-tailed hawk. I would be grateful if you could have a quick re-read of the FAC instructions, especially the bit starting "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages." Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and fixed for the {{Done}} templates. With respect to the icons that display beside PDF links, I don't think that there's a way to remove them, but I hope the template fix suffices. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to avoid making the lede too much of a "number soup", as can often be the case with this kind of article. I'm not hard opposed to including "24th of 175 countries" in the lede, but I'm also not immediately seeing a reason to do so. I have thoughts on other lede improvements but likewise will defer until the body's sorted.
Tomorrow I can try to find a source on when animal-drawn vehicles arrived in the country, and for that matter when motorized ones did, but I'm not hugely optimistic I'll find anything. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead, sounds good. I think we can revisit these after I'm done reviewing the body, My approach is typically to review the article more or less from top to bottom, which is why I started with the lead. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did the promised dive. I found significantly more on the history of human-powered vehicles in Madagascar, and have added that to the article, but still came up totally blank on when animal-drawn vehicles began to replace them, and when cars began to replace them in turn. However, it appears the 1902 claim that animal-drawn vehicles were never used is incorrect, so I've clarified that and have just cut any reference to post-1902 developments (until the statistics from the '50s). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History:
  • "There were no roads in Madagascar as of the middle of the 19th century" - I suggest something like "through the mid-19th century". Otherwise, it sounds like you couldn't find anything more recent than the mid-19th century.
  • "Even as late as 1955, passenger and commercial motor vehicles in Madagascar numbered under 30,000." - Do you have any more-recent statistics regarding the number of motor vehicles?
  • In general, this paragraph is quite short. Do you have any info about the road network after 1958? You only mention the one road from Mahatsara to Antananarivo; are there any other major roads worth mentioning?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In order:

Comments from Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification. Welcome to FAC; this'll probably focus on prose and layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • First sentence is a bit odd. What, you can only go to and from the capital? If you want to drive from Ihosy to Marovoay via Mahabo and Besalampy, do you also have to stop off at Antananarivo?
  • Something's off about the taxi brousses sentence in the first paragraph—maybe it feels (to me) slightly WP:UNDUE. I think you're probably going for some sort of one-sentence summary of the means of transport section, and if that's the case, I would include a small clause stating "Only a small proportion of [Madagascar people noun] own private vehicles, so taxi brousses..." Or something like that anyway.
  • Nicely ingenious/readable use of notes in table/translation. Not really about the lead, just felt it was praiseworthy.
  • "While most primary roads are in good condition, the World Food Programme has classified nearly two-thirds of the overall road network as being in poor condition. These conditions ..." Two things:
  • "in good condition ... in poor condition. These conditions ..." I think a synonym can be used without compromising WP:ELEGANT.
  • The World Food Programme??? When did they get into the business of road classification? I guess logistics probably do play a major part in feeding the hungry. I remember reading about the 2021–2022 Madagascar famine a while back.
  • maybe link Banditry while dahalo is redlinked? idk
  • "Partial reporting of car collision fatalities and a World Health Organization approximation of a full number" this takes a bit too much care with attribution in the lead. Something like "The rate of car collision fatalities is estimated to be among the highest in the world." is perfectly fine IMO
  • That sentence anyway reads a bit odd in between sentences on bandit attacks and police checkpoints, which sound like they should flow into each other. Maybe move it to the previous paragraph with the rest about dangerous roads.
  • Maybe the bits about dahalo and police could also be moved to the previous section? Leaving the final paragraph near-entirely devoted to vehicle/transportation types sounds logical to me. It's a bit confused at the moment, as I see was mentioned above.
  • The "As of 2005" as written makes it sound liked the taxi brousses may not be overpacked by the present day. Clarify that the year only refers to the pricing.

A rather good lead, that. More to follow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In re "ingenious", thanks! I always feel like custom ref groups are underused. In re WFP, yes, a bit strange, but seems reliable enough with attribution; not sure if you had a concern there or just a side thought. In re banditry, y'know, I've wished there were a {{link if other article does not exist}} à l'{{ill}} (and maybe should just create it myself), but that aside, I'm not sure if that'd be overlinking or not. No strong feelings. In re lede flow, yes, gonna work on that once I've addressed all more micro concerns. All other concerns addressed in line with your suggestions (I think!). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments by CT55555

[edit]

A good article. Lots of mostly minor and mild suggestions, some borderline pedantic (but worth saying to avoid confusion, I hope) and two important ones:

  1. In the Road conditions section, say what year the World Food Program + Global Logistics Cluster assessments were done.
  2. In 2018, the World Bank predicted that climate change could worsen road connectivity. Since 5 years have passed, and this was a prediction, is there anything that could be added to confirm the prediction?
  3. Means of Transport: So there were 30,000 vehicles in 1955, that is clear. It is not clear when there was 800,000 vehicles. I think a year for the 800,000 number is needed.
  4. Vehicle ownership stats table. It talks about "trucks" I find the word "truck" to mean quite different things in different parts of the world. Can you do something to define "truck"?
  5. Taxi brousses. The section gives the 2005 price. That's OK, but could a more recent price be added?
  6. Same section. Are the words "although this is not universally true" superfluous? I'm unsure. Just a very mild suggestion.
  7. Same section: I am confused by the words "National lines". Is that the name of a company? A type of taxi? Something else? Can this be made clearer please?
  8. Same section, I think a word is missing from " most used on paved roads" should it maybe be "most vehicles used on paved roads"?
  9. Same section, use of "trucks" again I think is a confusing word, given the global geographic variations in the word's use.
  10. Maybe "capacity" should be defined. Is it the manufacturer's recommended capacity? A regulated capacity? Because literally speaking, if a vehicle has 10 people in it, that appears to be the capacity, i.e. the capacity is what it can hold.
  11. Cargo transport: "Ethnic asians"? Is Asia an ethnicity? It's a huge continent with very many ethnicities I think. I think this is a problematic (western centric) grouping.
  12. A translation of Alimentation en Eau dans le Sud would be helpful.
  13. I find the sentence "The blood alcohol content limit for drunk driving is..." weird. That's really the limit for sober driving, not the limit for drunk driving, right? Is there a better way to say this?
  14. "There is a seatbelt law". I think most people can deduce that there is a law that requires them to be worn. But it could be a law that requires them to be fitted, or manufactured to a certain standard. A little bit more detail on what the law requires (wearing, presumably) would be an improvement.
  15. It gets slightly strange for me when we are saying what the US government says is legal in Madagascar rather than local sources, especially when the implication is that the US got it wrong. Can we write this citing local and/or non contradictory sources?
  16. Change 10 for "ten"
  17. Change "Vehicles seek to travel at higher speeds" to "Drivers seek..." as vehicles don't seek anything themselves.
  18. Say who mans the checkpoints? Officials presumably?

Suggestions that I consider important are the ones around ethnicity comment and use of the word "truck".

Thank you for the comments. I'll take a look at some of these that Tamzin hasn't already hit on. With respect to "truck", we've bluelinked truck so as to provide the reader more context if they don't understand what is meant by truck. It's admittedly a bit of an WP:ENGVAR issue, but the article is written in American English, so "lorry" is probably not going to work. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Red-tailed hawk, have you finished addressing ((u|CT55555}}'s comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider point #11 to be addressed. While most comments were minor suggestions, this seems important. CT55555(talk) 17:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(non-nominator comment) I don't believe "ethnic Asians" means "people with an ethnicity named Asian" but rather "people with ethnicities from the continent of Asia"—in any case, this is what the source says CT55555 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bneu2013

[edit]

Will have comments soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "While most primary roads are in good condition" - this sounds like an opinion. Has some agency or organization declared them to be in good condition?
  • De-hyphen "moderate-to-high speeds".
  • Could you elaborate on what "dahalo" are?
  • I would remove the parentheses around "often narrow, one-lane structures", and reword the sentence to accommodate this as necessary.
  • As others have pointed out, is 2005 the most recent date that this price data is available from?
  • "Stops on their routes are generally not fixed"
History
  • "There were no roads in Madagascar through the mid-19th century" - Were there no roads until the mid-19th century or until after the mid-19th century? I would reword to clarify.
  • Did these pathways evolve into the road network of today?
  • What was the transportation system like under the Merina Kingdom?
  • "Even as late as 1955,"
  • If find it hard to believe that more people were traveling by airplane than by car. Can you elaborate on this?
  • Split run-on sentence at the end of second paragraph.
Roads
  • When you say the country has a small network, does this mean that the road density per land area is smaller than average?
  • Comma after "Toliara".
  • Unlink second "Toamasino" in this paragraph.
  • When did the toll highway begin construction, and when is it expected to be completed?
  • Unhyphenate "seven-in-ten".
  • Flip refs 13 and 10.
  • "The World Bank further linked poor connectivity" - replace "World Bank" with "report".
Means of transport
  • Is 2013 the most recent date that data about the number of vehicles is available?

Coord note

[edit]

At 4 weeks in and no supports, I would expect the nomination to be archived within a few days if there is no significant progress. (t · c) buidhe 01:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very busy in real life recently, though I can try to make progress this weekend. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the verge of timing out this nomination. Can I suggest that you address the comments of the various reviewers ASAP - where not already done - and ping them with a polite request to review your responses in turn ASAP? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Five weeks in and just the single general support. In the absence of any movement towards a consensus to promote I am timing out this nomination. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. I suggest that the time is used to address the comments above, and perhaps to communicate with the reviewers prior to any re-nomination.


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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [4].

Democratic Party (Serbia)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a political party in Serbia. It was a member of 5 governments of Serbia but has served in opposition for much of its existence. DS has a long history, with figures such as Dragoljub Mićunović, Zoran Đinđić, Boris Tadić, and Dragan Đilas serving as its presidents. So far, this is the largest Serbian political party article I've written, so I've decided to nominate it for a FAC. It was copy-edited by @Voorts: in May and I listed the article for a peer review in June but received no comments. This is my first FAC nomination. Vacant0 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
  • Hi Vacant0, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
working (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stevan Kragujevic, Dragoljub Micunovic Skupstina 90tih (cropped).jpg, File:Boris Tadić, 2004 (cropped).jpg - what's the evidence that the copyright holder released it? (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Бојан Пајтић (cropped).jpg is this own work or not? OTRS verified
File:Zoran Živković (cropped).jpg, File:Zoran Djindjic Cropped.jpg source link doesn't work. Is there an archived link to verify licensing
Flag and logo should be under the threshold of originality in the US, but I have no idea whether it is in Serbia and commons provides no info on that. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the original uploader of that photo of Mićunović. It is not listed on Kragujević's website so I don't know where the photo was originally obtained from. I've added the archived URL for Tadić's photo from 2004. It does not show the thumbnail but it confirms that it existed on the website. Both of these already have the proper permission attached to them.
I've added the author for Pajtić's photo. For Zoran Živković (cropped).jpg, I've added the URL that redirects to the archived website that confirms its existence though the photo itself has probably been removed (it cannot be accessed when clicked on the link) from the website for unknown reasons. You can also see that here: http://arhiva.mc.rs/pretraga-fotografija.1965.html?photoQS=zoran+%C5%BEivkovi%C4%87&od=&do=&submitted=true. For Đinđić's photo, I've added the source and permission.
I did not upload the logo and the flag on Commons but I could upload them here if they do not meet the criteria to stay on Commons. Vacant0 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? Where does it say that the Zivkovic file is uploaded with CC licensing? Same with the Tadic photo, on the website you link I don't see any mention of CC licensing. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Živković's photo, I assume that the OTRS license (2012011710005331) from Medija centar confirms this. For Tadić, this permission from DS (it is in the summary) allows the photos to be published under the GNU-FDL license. Vacant0 (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're relying on OTRS permissions, the appropriate message should be in the image description of the photo you are using—not just the original, non-cropped version. (t · c) buidhe 02:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. Vacant0 (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments

Coordinator comment

[edit]

After more than three weeks this nomination has attracted little interest and little movement towards a consensus to support. Unless this changes over the next two or three days, I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have commented so far and I have already addressed their issues. Is inviting editors to give their opinions allowed? Vacant0 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've ended up leaving comments on few user talk pages in hope of receiving some feedback for this nomination. There are no related FACs to this one so I do not know who to actually ask to leave feedback. Vacant0 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am regretfully going to archive this, as there seems to be no sign that a consensus to promote is forming. Given the limited feedback it has attracted, the usual two-week hiatus will not apply.
Some general advice which may help with your next FAC nomination: Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.
Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2023 [5].

Lever House

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a soap company's former headquarters in New York City. Designed by well-known modernist firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Lever House was built from 1950 to 1952. It was the city's second-ever skyscraper with a glass curtain wall, as well as an early example of a skyscraper in NYC that was designed as a rectangular slab, lacking the "wedding-cake" setbacks of earlier towers. After narrowly avoiding demolition in the early 1980s, it was protected as a New York City landmark. Though Lever House is now a regular office building, it has consistently received positive acclaim over the years for its innovative design.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • "would house the firm's subsidiaries upon its expected completion in late 1951." --> "housed the firm's subsidiaries" per WOULDCHUCK.
    • I understand what you mean. However, in this case, the building was still quite literally on the drawing board, so it's not a case of a past-tense phrase using "would"; thus, changing it to "housed the firm's subsidiaries upon its expected completion" would result in a grammatically inconsistent sentence. I have instead changed it to "was planned to house". Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would assist with the design" --> "assisted with the design"
  • Ditto all other places where not appropriate, such as non-hypothetical situations.
  • The second story is designed with -- not a huge fan of that wording. I feel that it could be more concise.
  • cellular-steel skeleton -- What does that mean? Is a link to Cellular beams appropriate?

Looks pretty good. More comments to come. ~ HAL333 17:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments HAL333. I've fixed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but at a little over three weeks in and with only a single general support, this nomination is in danger of archival in another couple days if significant movement towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With no further progress towards a consensus, I am reluctantly timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2023 [6].

Leo II (emperor)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC), User:Iazyges[reply]

This Eastern Roman Byzantine emperor died aged seven. The Byzantine world is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine, so working on Leo II was an opportunity for me to take a break from my larger projects and have some fun researching simply for the sake of researching. I have worked on this article for a while with Iazyges, its primary author, and we now believe it is ready for inspection at FAC. Have fun, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I have previously stated elsewhere, "Please keep in mind that I will be embarking on a month-long international trip on the 28th, so responses to queries after then will be met with a delayed response [from myself, at least]. Apologies for any inconveniences, and enjoy reviewing". Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I have never had these words uttered to me before. Thank you for the image review, Nikki. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Gave the article a read-through, here's what I've got:

  • The first sentence of the body reads with striking similarities to the start of the lead; could this be reworded (even slightly) to avoid this?
    I'll have to work this out; probably best done by expanding the lede, as the current start of the body is formatted as I like (small wonder why...). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "daughter of then emperor Leo I" → "daughter of then-emperor Leo I" (with hyphen)
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emperor" is lowercase through the lead and the first sentence of the body but switches to being capitalized with "He was the maternal grandson of Emperor Leo I"
    This is per MOS:JOBTITLE. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 10th century De Ceremoniis" → I could be wrong here, but I think "10th-century" should get a hyphen since it's a compound adjective
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was also appointed as the sole consul for 474 around this time" → I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it, and I had to read the corresponding article to get some background knowledge, so two questions (not super pressing, just background information that could be helpful to unfamiliar readers (such as myself)):
    • Why was he the sole consul when there were always supposed to be two?
      I'll have to look deeper, but my initial assumption would be a diplomatic move: when the East or West was trying to impress/court the other, they would only name one consul, and leave the slot open for the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this sentence be reworded just a bit and include a bit of information that consuls only ruled for one year, which makes the phrase "sole consul for 474" make a little more sense?
  • "as he was too young to sign official documents" → while it is fairly obvious who "he" refers to here, it might be helpful to change it to "Leo" since it could be argued that "he" is ambiguous here
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially when the high child mortality rate of the time is considered" → this does not sound as good as the rest of the sentence; I'd reword this to avoid the passive voice and repetition of "is considered" earlier in the sentence
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for 17 years, until his death on 9 April 491" → comma is not needed here
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note C, the phrase "This, however, would require to label the entire document as fake" reads as though there is a word missing ("require ___ to" or something like that)
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, well done with the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, PCN02WPS. I am at the airport right now, so I am unable to do much, but I have attempted to tackle some of your comments. I will try to get to more, but I am sure Iazyges can get back to you faster than I can. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges, have all of the comments been addressed? If so, could you ping the reviewer? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Not yet; I'm trying to do them as I can. I have a busy schedule with school until my final on Friday, after which I should be far more free. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...called "the Younger"... Why? I would mention this information after his grandfather was introduced.
  • ...and Ariadne, the daughter of then-emperor Leo I. He was the maternal grandson of Emperor Leo I... Repetition.
  • As the grandson of Leo I, Leo II had a strong claim to succeed his throne. Why? (Perhaps because Leo I had no sons, or Ariadne was Leo I's elder daughter.)
  • ...passed over his son-in-law... We are not informed that Zeno and Ariadne were married.
  • ...on account of his unpopularity This info is out of the blue. Treadgold gives a detailed explanation. He does not write of Zeno's unpopularity but his rivalry with Aspar, and also writes of the marriage of the Arian Aspar's son with Ariadne's younger sister in an attempt to seize a claim to the throne.
  • He was crowned at the Hippodrome of Constantinople, and the ceremony was presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch Acacius. The 10th-century De Ceremoniis gives a detailed account of his coronation as augustus, which is dated to 17 November 473. I think the sequence of the two sentences should be changed.
  • He was crowned at the Hippodrome of Constantinople, and the ceremony was presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch Acacius. Did the Patriarch only preside over the coronation without crowning the child emperor?
  • He was also appointed as the sole consul for 474 around this time. Some explanation? Who were the consuls or why was his appointment relevant?
  • When Leo I died of dysentery on 18 January 474, Leo II acceded to the throne as sole augustus. I assume he had already acceeded to the throne when he was crowned co-emperor.
  • I think the page in reference No. 7 is not correct.
  • ... with the approval of Empress Verina... Why was her approval necessary?
  • ... with the approval of Empress Verina... I think she was Dowager Empress at that time.
  • A wikilink to Nestorianos?
  • ...speculation among some modern scholars... Could you name some of them?
  • Zeno was vastly unpopular due to a lack of dynastic prestige,... Is this a general view or only the cited author's PoV?
  • ...Additionally, because he was an Isaurian, he was seen as a foreigner by the Byzantine elite... I think this info should be mentioned when introducing Zeno at the beginning of the section.
  • Do we need information about Zeno's reign after Leo II's death in this article?
  • Some modern authors, relying on a passage... Could you name some of them?
  • The writers of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire and other authors relied for the 473 date on the arguments of Otto Seeck .... However, modern scholars date the event to 472. When were the Prosopgraphy and other authors' works published? Could you name some of the modern scholars? (My problem is that you are contrasting the Prosopography with "modern scholars", although first published in 1971 the Prosopography is quite modern.)
  • Some authors have argued... Could you name some of them?
  • ...and contradictorily... Is this verified by any of the two cited sources? Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Just passing comments at the moment. Which may or may not develop into something more.

  • Do either of you have access to Kulikowski, 2019? If not, may I commend Imperial Tragedy to you; utterly magisterial.
I do not. Perhaps Iazyges does. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Accordingly, Leo II was made caesar (heir to the throne) around October 472, and was later promoted to augustus in November 473, making him co-emperor alongside his grandfather." I think it could be pointed out that both of those promotions were made by Leo I. Delete "later". Possibly mention that Leo I made our Leo co-emperor when he, Leo II, was seriously ill and expected to die? Which he did. Are you sure about "November 173"? I have an impeccable source which states October.
  • "When Leo I died of dysentery on 18 January 474, Leo II acceded to the throne as sole augustus." No mention of the three days of horse trading and politicking between the court and military factions - obviously including Zeno - before they agreed that Leo would succeed to the throne? Nor that, unusually, the consent for this of the (Constantinople) senate was sought.
  • "it was only through cunning and bribery that he managed to rule". Unlike any other Byzantine emperor ever then? Not an actionable comment.
Very funny, Gog :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And foreign language words should use lang templates - you know that.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carr, Croke, Meijer, and Jones don't have publisher locations.
And more:
  • "the Byzantine Senate, with the approval of Empress Verina, made his father Zeno co-augustus". Are you quite sure that's what your sources say? The Byzantine senate barely had the authority to adjourn itself for lunch. Since when did the eastern senate have the authority to appoint emperors? I have a source which mentions the senate's "token consent".
  • I can find in my sources only a single thing which Leo II - who is, after all, the subject of the article - is recorded to have done during his brief reign. Which is, as senior augustus, to physically crown his father as co-augustus, in front of a sell-out crowd in the Hippodrome, on 9 February.

It looks like I am going I will be doing that full review. I'll get on to it once your partner in crime is back from enjoying themself. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This partner-in-crime will unfortunately be missing in action until late July. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiking in Canada until late July! Gahn! Can you explain what is "unfortunate" about that? Please use short words. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate that I will be away from my beloved Wikipedia for so long. But other than that, the mountains have been treating me well Unlimitedlead (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead and Iazyges - wakey, wakey! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Hello, yes, sorry. I have been quite occupied and my responses will still be slow as I am still in the mountains, but I will try to knock out as much as I can today. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, been unexpectedly busy with life; will try to get working soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the unaddressed comments above are still waiting for attention from one of you? Give me a ping if I am wrong or once they have been addressed. Ta. Enjoy Canada. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom4U

[edit]

@Iazyges and Unlimitedlead: - where exactly does this nomination stand? Hog Farm Talk 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm and Buidhe (Gog being recused) it's unusual for both co-noms to be absent simultaneously but that's been the case for at least a week and given the age of the nom and it being far from consensus to promote I don't see an alternative to archiving at this point, WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this one needs archived at this point. Hog Farm Talk 12:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [7].

Built to Spill Plays the Songs of Daniel Johnston

[edit]
Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FAC nomination. The subject of the article is a tribute album of Daniel Johnston songs by the indie rock band Built to Spill. The article is short, but I think it sufficiently captures all relevant facts about the album and summarizes reviews from reliable sources. 7szz also contributed significantly to this article, but he has been inactive for a month, so they should receive credit as well if this passes, but I don't want to make them a co-nominator without their permission. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]

Media review

[edit]

Heartfox

[edit]

indopug

[edit]

Oppose sorry this is clearly not ready. It's less than 600 words long and even those haven't been copyedited; for example, the lede ends with "The album received positive reviews, with critics praising the band for".—indopug (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: Fixed the issue in the lede; I did a copy edit recently but can do one again. Any other feedback? I know it's short, but there aren't many reviews or other sources about the album. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Oppose per Indopug. This is not comprehensive. A source that goes into detail about the band's experience with Johnston is summarized as band member Doug Martsch described the two shows as "good" and "weird". As Heartfox notes, no analysis of the music -- the thing most of interest to readers -- is present. Yes, it's a cover album, but cover albums are noteworthy because they are reinterpretations, and multiple sources explicitly discuss the band's interpretation of several songs. Despite the presence of these sources in the article, they're only used for general reception quotes. The reception remains too quote-heavy, though it's better organized than it was. Reviews disagree on how straightforward the band's interpretation of Johnston is -- this can be expanded on quite a bit. It makes significantly more sense to present the reception as 'thematic' (e.g. on this subject, on the choice of what to include, etc) than as straightforwardly 'positive' or 'negative'. Similarly, NPOV is a concern -- reviews are broadly summarized as 'positive' in a way that doesn't seem to fit the more mixed reception in the quotes, rating numbers, or articles themselves. Vaticidalprophet 22:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving per comments above. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2023&oldid=1173112215"