Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2021

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) 28 March 2021 [1].

Cups (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Anna Kendrick. It became huge in the United States back in 2013. After the last nomination, I fixed all the issues editors pointed out on the article. I replaced all the Billboard charts with archive links because billboard got rid of Kendrick's chart performances page for no reason. I have entirely re-written the lead and used inspiration for other FA music articles. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

[edit]

Sorry, but some of my PR and previous FAC comments remain unaddressed. Given that the third nom ended in December 2020 after you asked for it to be closed and the fourth nom was closed in January after you requested to be blocked, I honestly don't think that it's a great idea that you've opened this fifth FAC, especially so soon. With the greatest of respect, I'd suggest that you work on other articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the comments here for accessibility (From Panini🥪 13:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC) on behalf of Nick-D):[reply]

  • The article still doesn't introduce Anna Kendrick by providing any background about her, including how this song fitted into her career
done Ceoil (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the video clip still seems much too lengthy and detailed
    Could do with trimming yet, but as the song is so sight, I think (guess) the video is more why the track became viral Ceoil (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anna Kendrick first performed her version of the song as a part of the 2012 American musical comedy film Pitch Perfect" - the last sentence of the para where this appears to contradict this sentence.
  • "Kendrick said she had no idea the song would be used for Pitch Perfect." - it is still unclear what this means
  • " on the song's popularity and teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloch to produce a new, longer version with new instrumentation" - this is also unclear - what does the president of the music and publishing arm do? (did he produce the single himself?)
  • "Salt Lake City radio station KZHT played it 48 times from March 4 to March 10, 2013" - seems like trivia
  • " Nielsen BDS started tracking the song while being followed by Indianapolis station WZPL and satellite radio station Sirius XM Hits 1." - this sentence is hard to follow - why were these radio stations following Nielsen BDS?
    Claim has been removed Ceoil (talk)
  • "Republic Records and Universal Music Enterprises released a remix of Kendrick's version of "Cups", titled "Cups (When I'm Gone)", for downloading and streaming as More from Pitch Perfect's lead single on March 26, 2013, on mainstream radio.[16][17][18][19][20]" - it it was released for internet sales, how was it published on radio? The wording here doesn't work well (and does this need 5 citations?).
  • The first para of the 'Critical reception' section needs an introductory sentance
  • "He also said the song "cemented Kendrick as a leading lady and set the foundation for Pitch Perfect to become a surprisingly bankable film franchise"" - given that the song seems to have been prominent in this series of movies, it would be good to discuss this more if possible
  • "Around the same time, Republic senior VP and head of radio and video promotion David Nathan promoted the track by saying, "Anyone that has a preteen knows 'Cups'. Pitch Perfect is a cultural phenomenon and we're very happy to be a part of it."" - this is unclear. Did he really have much influence by saying that? (and where did he say it?). Surely the music company did stuff to encourage radio stations to play the song and promoted it online, etc, which would likely have been more effective.
  • "The song was moderately successful outside the US. "Cups (When I'm Gone)" experienced similar success in Canada," - seems contraditory
Has been sorted Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her post showed a photograph of an overturned cup in the midst of flour and dough; she tagged it with "#coveredinflour"" - trivia
Removed Ceoil (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 2016, 11-year-old Cruz Beckham covered the track in an Instagram video" - relevance?
Had been Removed Ceoil (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • People covered her version of the song because it is the most popular version
  • David Nathan promoted the song's remix because he wanted it to be more popular than the movie version.
Nick-D, All of these issues have been removed or fixed. I looked all over the internet on how the song helped Anna Kendrick in her career and could not find anything. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D Are you still opposed? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - please see my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, here I the comments that have not been answered by me in the past. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Where people covering Kendrick's version of the song, or the version Kendrick was herself covering? (and how can we tell!)"
    • It's people covering Kendrick's version since hers is the most popular.
  • "on the song's popularity and teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloch to produce a new, longer version with new instrumentation" - this is also unclear - what does the president of the music and publishing arm do? (did he produce the single himself?)"
    • I'm pretty sure he helped promote the remix back in 2013.
  • "Around the same time, Republic senior VP and head of radio and video promotion David Nathan promoted the track by saying, "Anyone that has a preteen knows 'Cups'. Pitch Perfect is a cultural phenomenon and we're very happy to be a part of it."" - this is unclear. Did he really have much influence by saying that? (and where did he say it?)."
    • I have removed the quote entirely from the article.
  • "Republic Records and Universal Music Enterprises released a remix of Kendrick's version of "Cups", titled "Cups (When I'm Gone)", for downloading and streaming as More from Pitch Perfect's lead single on March 26, 2013, on mainstream radio."
    • I removed the mumbo jumbo about "Indianapolis station WZPL and satellite radio station Sirius XM Hits 1". It should make more sense now about it being sent to radio. I also got rid of a bunch of the sources that supported that.
  • I also trimmed some of the info on the music video section.
Nick-D It looks like you are still opposed. Any comments about the changes? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my comments above are addressed, and as you state the article has changed considerably, I'll now read it through again:

  • "On March 26, 2013, Republic Records released..." - the exact date of the original release isn't given in the lead
  • " J. E. Mainer's Mountaineer" - not sure what this means
Changed
  • The para starting with "Anna Kendrick first performed her version" is still confusing. It's not entirely clear to me whether the performance was for Kendrick's audition for the movie, or the audition she played in the movie, and the last sentence still contradicts the first sentence (e.g. did Kendrick first perform this in her audition for the role, or during filming of the movie?)
It was the audition she played in the movie. The movie is a musical, and when they asked to hear her sing, she performed "Cups".
Still not addressed. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song was originally written by A. P. Carter and British musicians Heloise Tunstall-Behrens and Luisa Gerstein." - also confusing, as the song is credited to other musicians in the first para and this version to Kendrick herself in the second para.
A. P. Carter wrote the song for his band The Carter Family. Heloise Tunstall-Behrens and Luisa Gerstein reworked the song for their group Lulu and the Lampshades, and added the famous cup percussion. Kendrick covered Lulu and the Lampshades version, which became famous thanks to her.
  • Despite me having raised this multiple times, the 'background' section still does not have any background on how this song and the movie fits into Kenrick's career. Assume readers know nothing about her.
I have looked for hours and can't find anything on how the song helped Kendrick with her career.
I have zero idea who Kendrick is, and the article needs to provide some background on her and her career up to this point. Is she an actor, had she had any previous commercial musical success? etc, etc. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Republic Records sought to capitalize on the song's popularity" - how did they know it was popular?
Back in 2013, I was in elementary school and EVERYONE would play the cup song. It was a huge trend in the United States. Here is an article to prove it. [2]
The article needs to note this - it's just asserted out of the blue that it was popular. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloc" - not clear what this means - what was his role? It's a bit odd that Kenrick isn't given any credit here - surely she was involved?
He helped promote the remix. Kendrick I am pretty sure did not know how to promote the song.
The text says he produced the song, not promoted it, and surely if a longer version was produced Kendrick had a hand in recording it, etc? Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it made the Hot 100 a much more interesting place" - I don't understand what this means - what's the 'Hot 100', and why is it a locality?
I have removed it.
  • "Marcus Jones of Entertainment Weekly put "Cups" at number nine on his The best songs from movies of the 2010s list, which she believed would help Kendrick as a singer and set the foundation for Pitch Perfect to become a profitable film franchise" - did the writer think that listing the song would help Kendrick and the movie as this suggests? That doesn't seem right.
The writer wrote that "Cups" made Kendrick and Pitch Perfect even more known around the world.
But the wording of the sentence doesn't say that. It reads as the reviewer crediting herself with this - please review per my comment above. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "directed by Moore and choreographed by Aakomon Jones.[24][60] Because of the track's success, record company executives asked Kendrick to make its music video" - confusing: did Moore, Jones or Kendrick make the video?
Jason Moore directed the video. Aakomon Jones choreographed it.
  • "Kendrick hinted at its direction in an Instagram post that showed a photograph of an overturned cup in the midst of flour and dough"

- as noted previously, this is trivia Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that section.
Nick-D I have replied to all of your comments. How does it look like now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments Nick-D? I don't want the FAC to close. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D I hope you can change to support now. I have gotten rid of Republic Records knowing the song was popular and the "teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloc" part. I have also removed the part "which she believed would help Kendrick as a singer and set the foundation for Pitch Perfect to become a profitable film franchise". I completely reworded the second para of the "background" section. How does it look? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D The FAC will close in a day or two. Are you still opposed even with me rewording and adding more background to the second para? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you still haven't addressed all of my comments. I am sick of reiterating them, given that they then get ignored. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro

[edit]

My apologies for being a bit delayed:

  • "While being interviewed on the Late Show with David Letterman in October 2012, Kendrick stated she taught herself to play the cup song after watching someone perform it on Reddit.[9] When she appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Kendrick said she came up with her character's "Cups" audition scene.[10]" I don't thinking bringing up the talk shows she was interview are relevant to this section and adds more needlesss fluff. Here's something more to-the-point: "Kendrick came up with her character's "Cups" audition scene,[10] having taught herself to play the cup song after watching someone perform it on Reddit.[9]" HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed
  • "It reached the top-30 in [...] both the Belgium Flanders and Wallonia charts.[58][59]" Nope. It was number 2 and 11 on the Ultratip chart, which is basically the Bubbling Under charts of Belgium's Ultratop 50. To simply put it, it wasn't a top 30 hit of Belgium. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed
  • "Stacy Lambe of Entertainment Tonight noted how the track only became a hit after Kendrick performed it for Beca Mitchell's audition to be a Barden Bella.[54]" I think this is a more creative way of stating the song was successful due to the film, but it needs to be presented more formally. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it since it didn't really add that much to the article.
HumanxAnthro thanks for the comments. Let me know if you have any other concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro Any comments? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I got hooked up in a sugar detox, working on a GA nomination, and working on a Themes article for another film. I think the other comments reveal enough about the article, and it is getting attention from other users, so I'll leave it up to them. HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this: " Kelly Lawler from USA Today stated Kendrick's performance of "Cups" in Pitch Perfect is "cute and all" but that it was really not all that special.[33] She commended Kendrick's "spontaneous performance" of the song on the Late Show with David Letterman.[33]" I think this sentence would be more engaging if it had a contrast adverb in the middle: However, although, but HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro thanks a lot for the comments. Do you support? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro I don't want this FAC to close; do you support or oppose? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Comments from K. Peake

[edit]
Kyle Peake Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ultimate Boss You still need to change "released a the" to "released as the", plus I take issue with the title not being mentioned directly in the second para especially when you mention "When I'm Gone" there – this could lead to confusion so both titles should be written. For FAC quality, I'd also recommend using the title once in the third para too. --K. Peake 11:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • Don't have time right now to do a full review, but one thing that jumped out at me: "The song was originally written by A. P. Carter and British musicians Heloise Tunstall-Behrens and Luisa Gerstein" - this gives the impression that the three wrote the song together, but as Carter died in November 1960, roughly 25 years before the other two were even born, this cannot possibly be true. Presumably the other two re-worked Carter's original song? This needs to be clarified..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude I have changed it. How does it look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, this FAC is currently stalling. Would you be willing to support or leave further comments? Panini🥪 12:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini

[edit]

I will get to this one in the near future. Panini🥪 17:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LOVI33

[edit]

Overall I would say this article could defiantly become FA in the future. Here are just a few concerns I have:

  • Are you sure pop should be included as a genre since it is a subgenre of Folk-pop?
Some of the sources I looked up called the song pop.
  • Remove mentions that the song has received positive reviews as that is considered WP:SYNTH
Reworded
  • Only American charts are included in the lead. I would mention other charts too. For example it entered the top 40 of charts in Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand. I would also say that airplay charts aren't notable for the lead
Changed to top 30 instead of top 40
  • Retitle the "Release" section to "Release and promotion" as it mentions remixes and live performances
Changed
  • In Commercial performance, there is definitely too much prose about the American market and not enough about International markets. Try to balance it out.
It mostly only did well in the United States. The song was a huge trend in the United States, and only American kids and teens (like myself) listened to the song back in 2013.
  • In Track listings, only the "Freedom! '90 x Cups (From Pitch Perfect 3)" version should be included as all the rest were released as part of an album, not standalone.
  • Also in that section, change "Digital download and Streaming" to "Digital download and streaming – Freedom! '90 mashup" or whatever you would call this version
I removed the Track listings section because "Freedom! '90 x Cups (From Pitch Perfect 3)" was part of Pitch Perfect 3's soundtrack album.

Thats it from me. Best of luck getting this to FA. LOVI33 18:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33, Thanks a lot for the comments. Lmk if anything else needs to be changed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I would say it was unnecessary to remove Track listings as the mashup version was still released as a single, but not all articles include as section like that so I guess its okay. As for the Commercial performance section, the song seemed to have performed well in both Canada and the Netherlands as well as their respective airplay charts. You could mention that as well as how long it lasted on the charts and I'm sure there are other items. The section having so much prose on the American market when it also had decent performance worldwide isn't broad enough. You additionally haven't removed all instances of the song receiving positive reviews and there doesn't appear to be a source to back it up so please remove it. You could however mention that several critics praised/complimented/commented on/criticized some aspect of the song. Just looking over the article again, I have noticed several issues with the charts. The Australian, Austrian, Belgian (Flanders and Wallonia), Dutch (Single), and New Zealand refs are not working. All Canadian and American refs cite an archive-url as its url, please fix this. Additionally, the Irish ref doesn't back up it's peak and it appears the peak in Belgium Flanders is on its Ultratop chart, not Ultratip. For the refs in general, make sure all are archived. Also, I see inconsistent linking of works/websites. Either link a work/website on ref in its first instance or link it on every instance per guidelines at WP:OVERLINK. After having another in depth look at this article and finding all these issues, I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. However, if you fix all these issues you might convince me to think otherwise. Nevertheless, good luck with this article. LOVI33 21:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOVI33 Ok. I have fixed all the charts for countries outside North America. Sadly, only archive links will work for American and Canadian charts as Billboard got rid of Anna Kendrick's chart performance page. If you just put the regular link, it'll say there is an error. I have also removed all instances of the song receiving positive reviews and added more prose about the song charting outside the United States. Does it look good to changed to support now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, yes. For one, you spelled Flanders wrong: it should be Flanders not Flander. Most of these you can use {{Template:single chart}} for, which I highly recommend. You didn't need to remove the Irish chart, I found it here (which you can also use the template for). For the Canadian and American charts, you need to set the current urls as archive-urls and set the url-status as dead. LOVI33 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOVI33 I can't use the {{Template:single chart}} as the single title "Cups (Pitch Perfect's "When I'm Gone)" has quotes in the title. When I put that title it just redirects me to the search bar. I also added archive-urls and set the url-status as dead for the Canadian and American charts. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I can now see that the template cannot be used. However I think it should be mimicked as best as possible. Please make these changes:
I have also noticed that both the French and British chart refs aren't working. Please fix this. LOVI33 17:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr rnddude

[edit]

I don't know if I'll be doing a detailed review for the article, but I notice on skim read that there are a fair quanitity of short choppy sentences, some of which could be merged to improve the flow of the writing. I'll give a couple examples below:

  • " "Cups" incorporates lyrics from the 1931 song "When I'm Gone" by the Carter Family. It was originally written by A. P. Carter." - The second sentence could be incorporated into the former, along the lines of: " ... from the 1931 song "When I'm Gone" written by A. P. Carter for the Carter Family".
  • " British musicians Heloise Tunstall-Behrens and Luisa Gerstein, who performed under the group name Lulu and the Lampshades, reworked the Carter Family's version. They were the first musical act to use the cup game as the song's percussion.[a] " - These two sentences aren't exactly short, but the significance of the first sentence is contained within the second. There are likely finer ways to rewrite this, but a simple example would be: " British musicians Heloise Tunstall-Behrens and Luisa Gerstein, who performed under the group name Lulu and the Lampshades, reworked the Carter Family's version and introduced the cup game as the song's percussion.[a] "

Some other comments:

  • " In 2011, Anna Burden covered Lulu and the Lampshades' rendition of "Cups" and uploaded it to YouTube " - Lulu and the Lampshades' did not make a rendition of "Cups", they made a rendition of "When I'm Gone".
Changed
  • " American actress and singer Anna Kendrick first discovered "Cups" " - You don't need to say 'first' here, she didn't make a second or third 'discovery' of the same thing. She also did not discover "Cups" as that is not a title the song had prior to her adaptation. Unlike Vulture, Glamour does not replicate this mistake: "Kendrick's character, Beca, decides to audition for her college's all-female a cappella group (the Barden Bellas) by randomly hitting cups on the floor and singing "When I'm Gone" with no background music ... Way before Pitch Perfect happened, she actually found people on the Internet who had performed the song a cappella with cups and learned it secondhand—just for fun." Also, the Glamour article is non-specific about where she found the song, is it some other article which states she found it on Reddit? I looked at the Vulture article as well, and it isn't direct in saying she saw it on Reddit, and the video itself was uploaded to YouTube, so how do you know where Kendrick came across it?
I have changed "Cups" to "the song". Also, In an interview with David Letterman, Kendrick said: "I saw this viral video on Reddit, and it's just this girl doing this thing with the cups and, again, because I'm a huge loser, I thought the best way to spend an entire afternoon would be like watching this video 50 times and teaching myself how to do it." [3]
  • " for an audition scene where Mitchell tries out for a college a cappella singing group, the Barden Bellas " - An audition, by definition, is 'trying out for' something. Rephrase this to cut out the repetition: "for a scene in which Mitchell auditions for a college a cappella singing group, the Barden Bellas".
Changed
  • " The remix version has a new bridge section and a folk pop string arrangement, and features guitar and xylophone. It was produced by Pitch Perfect director Jason Moore, Julia Michels, Julianne Jordan, and the Underdogs, and was extended by an additional minute. " - The first sentence tells us what's different about the remix to the original, the second tells us who produced it... and then tells us another thing that is different between the remix and original. That should have been done in the first sentence: "The remix features a new bridge section, a folk pop string arrangement, guitar and xylophone, and has been extended by a minute."
Changed
  • " Kendrick uses a plastic cup to play the song and claps the rhythm. " - In her audition for the role, or in the movie?
Added that she used it for her characters audition scene.
  • Also, is it necessary to state that " "Cups" is a folk pop and pop song ". Folk pop is (presumably) a branch of pop, it's included in the name 'folk pop' so why repeat yourself. It seems to be like saying 'the Subaru XV is a sport-utility and utility vehicle'.
Removed Pop

Those are my comments on a skim read of the 'Background and composition' section of the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude How does the article look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This nomination has a well-reasoned oppose, which has been outstanding since the day it opened, and no supports. I can see that you have been working on this above, but unless there are significant changes to the level of support for promotion over the next day or two this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be fair for this to be closed, with no prejudice against Ultimate Boss - whose blind eyed perseverance I quite respect, as I was like that too when at a similar age. Boss has gotten good feedback, but friend, please.please.please absorb it this time, act to resolve, and we may see you back with a successful nom at a later date. As a side note, I sort of dislike the song but think the article has potential. I promised before, but commit here and now that will sign off before (as best I can) any further nom, as to be fair to Ultimate, I gave false hope before. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is disappointing that this article is being frequently renominated with comments left in previous reviews being still unaddressed. At best this is sloppy editing, but it's also starting to feel like an attempt to game the system by hoping that a different combination of editors will turn up and not notice the problems other editors have pointed out. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's pretty clear consensus to close this now, work on outstanding issues from this and earlier reviews, and return in due course -- preferably, in my view, after another PR, formal or informal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2021 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2021 [4].

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

[edit]
Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a notable game in the 2019–20 Football Association Women's Super League. I'm bringing this back here at FAC for a second try. Here is a comparison of difference between first and second try: [5]. I have followed the advise reviewers gave at the first attempt and have expanded the article, put it through a peer review and then brought it to the Guild of Copy Editors. I am grateful to the editors who helped improve things. I tried to get consensus at Project Footy on the article's title but didn't get one. Some reviewers have argued it should have "W.F.C." after each club's name ("Arsenal W.F.C. 11–1 Bristol City W.F.C."), to ensure readers know this is a football article and not some other sport. I can surely see their point but I'm not convinced that that is sufficient to convey that this is a women's game. Others have argued that adding WFC twice adds too much clutter. There seems to be no precedent of a women's club match, and notable men's club matches do not seem to have an established rule. I think the current title works fine. This matches how the BBC and the Guardian describe fixtures in their fixtures lists. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review I'll get to this soon. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've suffered a concussion, so this isn't happening any time soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, sorry to hear that, Hog Farm. I wish you a speedy recovery. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I recovered a lot quicker than I thought I might, so I'll be claiming this source review again.

Source review

[edit]

As above, might claim for wikicup points. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend standardization between sentence case title and title case titles. It's not a big deal, but some like to see that.
    I think there are no title case titles.
  • I notice you're not very consistent with how you format the references to The Football Association. Sometimes it's linked, sometimes it's not, sometimes it's the publisher, sometimes it's in the |work= parameter. I'd recommend consistency here.
    Well spotted. Fixed.
  • Likewise, sometimes BBC Sport is linked, and sometimes it isn't.
    Fixed.

The above are pretty picky, but that's about all I can see from glancing at the formatting. I will be doing spot checks for text-source integrity and close paraphrasing later. Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks are at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/ArsenalBristol. No close paraphrasing issues, although there are some minor detail support issues that may be my lack of comprehension. One link now goes to the current season instead of the season it is cited, so there may be a workaround needed there. Hog Farm Talk 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "win set a new league record scoreline". I am not sure about that. Didn't it 'win set a new league record margin of victory'? What do the RSs say?
    RSs: BBC says biggest victory and biggest WSL score. The Guardian says highest-scoring game (4 Dec) and Margin of victory is biggest (1 Dec). Telegraph says biggest victory. ESPN says margin of victory. Arsenal.com says highest-ever winning margin. The FA says FA WSL record score. I think we have 4 possible records here: 1) most goals by one team, 2) most goals combined, 3) biggest delta, 4) first time 10+. Some of these RS statements are ambiguous and do not clearly map onto 1) 2) or 3). But from that set of statements we have 3) and 4) covered, and it seems clear to me the BBC and the Guardian (4 Dec) are taking about 2). So I changed the wording from "record scoreline" to "highest-scoring game" and changed the source from BBC to Guardian (4 Dec). Do you think we could use any of these RSs to unambiguously support record 1)? If so we could add a 7th record.
It seems to me that that is the case, but I struggle to see it unambiguouslt stated, which is irritating.
  • "and left Bristol in eleventh place." It may be helpful to specify the total number of places. Eg 'in eleventh place of twelve.' or whatever the case was? Similarly but more so in the main article.
    Done both in lead and in body
  • "gave them eighteen points from seven games". A brief footnote explaining how points are allocated would seem to be in order.
    Done
  • "but behind on goal difference". Similarly.
    Done
  • "Bristol began the 2019–20 season in September". No need to repeat when the season began.
    Done
  • Somewhere in there it should state how many teams there were in the division.
    Done
  • "were at full strength before the game". This suggests that they weren't afterwards. Perhaps "Before" → 'for'?
    Done
  • "Arsenal began the game in a 3–4–3 formation". Again an explanatory footnote for X-Y-Z formations would seem to be in order. (Note that when ever I suggest a footnote, an in line explanation would be an even better solution.)
    Perhaps we drop this altogether? I checked to see how other FAs have handled this and noticed that Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) and FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993) do not mention formation at all. Perhaps I have gone overboard on detail?
I would have no objection to this information being dropped. When one has a lot of information on a topic, there is always a temptation to try and include all of it. Equally, it could go in, but it would need an explanation either in line or as a footnote and I suspect that it would be difficult to make this suscinct. Your call.
I removed it.
  • "The assist-maker". Really? It may read better in less succinct but more standard English.
    Done. I thought it looked odd but the BBC used it in their match review so I thought it was just me being foreign. I have rephrased both instances of assist maker.
  • What's an "assist".
    I thought this was quite a common concept (the Independent uses it in the title of their article), but I see that neither Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. nor Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) use the noun assist. So I have now linked the verb and replaced the noun with pass.
It is. You and me know what an assist is. But we are writing an encyclopedia rather than a match report, so the more we can explain what is happening to non-football (or "soccer"!) fans, the better. "Assist" is fine, so long s there is a brief in line explanation at first mention. Of course, this is just one editor's opinion, so feel free to come back at me.
I think by having used the verb assisted first, which is a known concept, it suffices to have the noun linked.
Umm. That seems borderline to me. But you make a reasonable case, so ok.
  • "Miedema's first hat-trick". An in line explanation of "hat-trick" please. Eg 'Miedema's first hat-trick (three goals in one match)' or similar.
    Done. I had looked at FA Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and there is no explanation of hat-trick there, so I thought that level of understanding was allright, but anyway I have removed hat-trick from the lead and explained it as you suggested at first instance, which is actually in the Background section.
  • "to the top right corner". Could we add 'of the goal' for non-aficionados?
    Done. Twice.
  • "the fourth goalscorer of the game to make the score" → 'the fourth goalscorer of the game, making the score'.
    Done
  • "scored the 8–0 from the centre of the box". A typo I assume?
    Are you referring to centre? The article is in British English, so centre instead of center, right? I actually have now replaced the word box with penalty area, to mimick Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.
You can't say "scored the 8–0". Possibly you mean 'scored the eighth goal' or 'scored from the centre of the box to make the score 8–0'?
Ah, sorry. English is not my first language. Rephrased.
  • "subbed her off the pitch". This is jargon. "subbed" should be in full, with a brief explanation of what it means/why it is permitted/done. What does "off the pitch" add?
    I rephrased it to avoid having to explain the concept of substitution. I had hoped to get that explanation from other FA match articles but could not find it, I checked at least 5. The FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993) and Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. do not even link to Substitute (association football). I am happy to try and write something but I do find it a bit odd that it seems that none of the editors of other football FAs seem to have felt the need to explain the concept. So I removed the "subbed" and "off the pitch" but I kept the bit that follows: Her substitute, Emma Mitchell, scored ...
That seems reasonable. "Substitute" is a normal English word, so a non-footy reader should be able to work out what happened. "subbed" is jargon and would leave many Wikipedia readers baffled.
  • "Arsenal's goalkeeper Zinsberger brought down their Belgian international striker". "their → 'Bristol's'.
    Done
  • "on the rebound of her own penalty kick". What did it rebound off?
    I rephrased it.
  • "So-yun's goal tally at the time stood at thirty-three." What was Miedema's?
    Do you want her tally before the game or after? Ideally we have both I think, but there is a slight problem. I remember trying to find a reliable source for the post game number but failed. I asked on the Talk:Vivianne_Miedema page for help but no one seems to have noticed and/or tried.
After. If you have a source for her pre-game tally and for the six during the game that, IMO, is adequete.
Found a source that, with a little bit of counting, allows us to use both. Added.
  • "the FA named Goal of the Match." Why the upper case G and M? And do the RSs say that it was "named" the GotM? It seems an odd description; 'awarded the appellation of' or similar seems more likely.
    The FA simply uses GotM as a header in their match template, no verb used. I changed it into "and which the FA considered the best goal of the match."
  • "she further proved her credentials as a nominee for the Ballon d'Or Féminin". Which is?
    I added an explanation
  • "Reactions" section: the quote in the second paragraph should be a block quote.
    Done. It does make the layout look odd though, with the orphan sentence about her looking back. Any suggestions how we might improve this? Maybe we should drop the whole blockquote altogether?
It looks fine to me. That is just how Wikipedia sometimes turns out. I would leave it it. Or, possibly, paraphrase the whole thing into Wikipedia's voice?
OK, if it is good enough elsewhere, we'll just leave it like it is.
  • "In the following rounds". "Rounds" is usually only used of cup and/or knock out competitions.
    Done. Replaced with weeks.
  • "After 23 February, no more of the 2019–20 season's matches were played." I think that the Covid explanation needs to come immediately after this.
    Done
  • Red link Golden Boot.
    Done. As soon as I have time I will create the article.
  • "Golden Boot" Who awards it?
    Done
  • You link to "the Professional Footballers' Association Fans' Player of the Year." But the target article only mentions the men's version.
    Link removed for the time being. When I have time I will edit the men-only article PFA Fans' Player of the Year to include the women, and then link it again. Is that ok?
That's fine.
  • "narrowly avoiding relegation." How narrowly?
    Done

That is an excellent piece of writing and a very good article, my nit picking above notwithstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed review, much appreciated. And thank you for your kind words but I owe other reviewers, a peer reviewer and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, much. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are an admirable lot at GoCE, aren't they?
  • I have done a little light copy editing. Come back to me here if you are unhappy with any of it, or don't understand why I have changed something.
  • "assisted by Miedema with a cross." I would like to give a reader a little more context as to what "assisted" and, especially, "cross" mean. How would you feel about something like 'assisted by Miedema, who crossed the ball to her from the left/right side of the pitch'? Just a suggestion. And link cross/crossed to Cross (association football).
Link done. And rephrase done. I added the YouTube highlights as a primary source, allowing for a bit more detail in the match report. All we had was the computer-generated BBC live text. So quite a few sentences got tweaked in that section, also addressing the issue RTM had with the many short sentences.
Done
Thanks. I have added a few more.
  • "after Arsenal's goalkeeper Zinsberger brought down Bristol's Belgian international striker". Is there a way of making it a little clearer what happened here? At the moment I get the impression of a rugby tackle!
Having seen it on the highlights on YouTube, it was far from a rugby tackle. Just clumsy. I rephrased it.
  • "Miedema became the first player". I assume → 'Miedema became the first WSL player'?
Yes. Technically the first sentence already restricts the scope to the league, but I added WSL for the avoidance of doubt
  • "They thought her fourth goal was the best of the match, a goal The Independent described as "wonderful" and which the FA considered the best goal of the match". "the best of the match ... the best goal of the match". Is a little variation possible?
Yes, that doesn't read so well. I changed it.

And that's it. Nearly there I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you think we are nearly there. I want to research the topics of "understandable" and "nearly self-contained" as described on WP:PERFECT a bit more so I can make a more informed opinion about inline explanations and footnotes. In my previous FACs, all on other topics (art, psychology, zoology), I had not encountered this issue, so I want to understand it. I'll report back in a day or so. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good essay, although it is only an essay. Few things in this life are perfect, but it is a good target. Thanks for checking in, and feel free to take your time. There is no rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I have addressed your points, but let me know if not or if there is more. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
[edit]

I have completed my mini research project into what WP:PERFECT calls 'understandable' and 'nearly self-contained'. I am disappointed to find so little guidance. Anyway, I can see that one school of thought could take a strict interpretation of the word 'nearly'. In this line of thinking an article about a football match would explain the rules and basic concepts of football. And on the opposite side of the spectrum, a more relaxed interpretation in which everything that pertains to the match itself should be in the article, but not the rules and concepts, as they impact readability, stopping the reader to see the forest for the trees. And then there are probably a few schools in between these extremes.

I used a few sources to form my own opinion:

  • the WP guidance on MOS:LINKEXAMPLES, WP:BECONCISE, and a few more
  • other football FAs. (Although I have not found explicit WP guidance of inter-article consistency, that seems an obvious goal for an encyclopedia)
  • FAs in other topics (I believe that internal consistency increases overall trust in WP)
  • mainstream media headlines (not from football-specific publications but from outlets like the Guardian)

Just from WP guidance alone I think I find myself to subscribe to the relaxed interpretation of 'nearly'. Editors and reviewers of other football FAs seem to subscribe to the same school: I looked at a dozen or so and none explain basic concepts in article. Then I looked at a few non-football FAs and FACs. Looking at some biology topic, say some dinosaur, I would not expect there to be an explanation of paleontology or evolution. I would expect to see just links. Indeed, there were just links. And some music album article to just contain links to its genre, but not explain the genre and what music actually is. Indeed it did. This strongly influenced me.

In my humble opinion this amounts to the following in football match articles for me:

  1. common words that should not be linked or explained: ball, goal, pitch, match
  2. common words that may be linked provided it doesn't not lead to overlinking: defender, substitute (they mean in football what they mean elsewhere)
  3. words that should be linked provided it doesn't not lead to overlinking: penalty area, assist, 3-4-3 formation (one can infer their meaning reasonably easily)
  4. words that should be linked: hat-trick, offside (common football terms yet no way of telling what it means directly from the word)
  5. words that require an inline explanation and a link: 'expected goals' (anything that is a specialist football term, somethat that the casual football fan does not know. There are very few of these so explaining won't hinder overall readability)
  6. words that require a footnote: none. A footnote is a mechanism for the expert reader, not the non-expert reader.

This to me is in line with other FAs. Thoughts? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Bear in mind that WP:PERFECT is (only) an essay. A good essay, but to be treated with circumspection. Regarding links I tend to lean on the MoS policy at MOS:LINKSTYLE, especially:

  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links ...
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links...

All guidance depends on context, so I am loath to agree that a specific word does or does not need in line explanation without seeing the context is is used in. I prefer to read it in context and then apply the MoS. That said, broadly I:

1 & 2. Agree agree with your first two points

3. Disagree with your third - how can one infer, out of context, what they mean at all, much less "reasonably easily"?

4. Agree with point four and your comment "no way of telling what it means directly from the word" which would seem to mean that the three MoS policy points above require an in line explanation, or, possibly, context which makes it clear in line what is mean to non-football followers.


5. Don't understand your distinction between 4 and 5 - is it based on policy? - and would not agree that we are writing for "the casual football fan".

6. Disagree regarding footnotes - they can be helpful for all levels of readers, especially (IMO) non-expert ones, although in many, possibly most, cases they can be replaced with in line explanations, which I tend to prefer, and which arguably the MoS requires. As always, context is important here.

I am not convinced of the utility of this discussion, as so much depends on context and policy seems clear. I would much rather discuss specific cases from the article, where context is known and we "only" have to discuss the applicability of policy to a non-hypothetical case. Was your research sparked by disagreement with any of my comments above in particular? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair point. I was just trying to establish my thinking, given that you suggested explanations for goal difference and X-Y-Z formation, but not for match, goal, table, etc.
Yeah, these sorts of discussions can be interesting and help to both communicate each other's viewpoints and clarify ones own thinking, but I didn't want you think that it was the same as addressing my comments one by one. Speaking of which, they all seem to have been satisfactorily dealt with. A lot has happened to this article since I made the first of them, so I am going to give it another full read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his broke her FA WSL record, set at five against Liverpool". I am unclear whether she broke her record, or the record. Perhaps 'his broke the FA WSL record, which she had set herself with five against Liverpool' or similar?
  • "This broke her FA WSL record, set at five against Liverpool in September 2018. She scored six goals, a first in the league, and assisted with four further goals." To my eye this would read better - in context - if the two sentences were juxtaposed.
I am not quite sure what you mean but I have changed things around, starting now with goals and then introducing the ten goal involvements. See if this is ok.
  • "did not deal well with a ball from Evans, allowing her to score again." Replace "her" with 'Miedema'.
  • "First, Evans assisted Miedema who, after a short run, scored from the centre of the penalty area". This is the first mention of "assist", and I am not really happy with it. Would it be possible to give a little more context/detail? Eg 'First, Evans assisted Miedema by passing the ball to her from the edge of the penalty area [or whatever the case was]; Miedema then, after a short run, scored from the centre of the penalty area' or similar.
  • "jumping from thirty to thirty-six goals". Possibly a synonym for "jumping"? (I don't insist.) Eg 'Increasing her total'.
  • Block quote: Optional: As the paragraph starts "In a post-match interview, Miedema said ...", do we really need the attribution "-Vivianne Miedema" after it?
I don't think we can rely on all people reading the text top to bottom. Some readers who just scan the page might find it useful to see whose quote this is.
  • "In the following weeks, Arsenal kept their top league position with subsequent wins". You don't need both "In the following weeks" and "subsequent". Suggest deleting "subsequent".
  • "Miedema became the first WSL". "WSL" should be 'FA WSL'.
  • "was postponed as on 13 March the FA". Comma after "postponed"?
  • "Bristol finished the terminated season in tenth position". "terminated" just means "ended". Do you mean 'abbreviated'? (Or, possibly, 'shortened'?)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another close look. I believe I have addressed the issues, but please do take a look at my changes in the lead about the records. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. This is now, IMO, entirely FA-worthy and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

[edit]
  • Oppose there's a lot to be done here I'm afraid, some basic issues with the writing style in terms of repetition and ambiguity, the match report is far from engaging (prose is jarring with multiple very short sentences, no flow to it at all) and there are several other less significant problems (MOS issues, duplicate links, reference formatting etc) all of which must be fixed. There are also many phrases which, to a non-expert, make no sense without clicking on the link (e.g. allowing Arsenal's Dutch international striker Vivianne Miedema to score a hat-trick, Two corners for the home team quickly followed., centre of the box ... there has even been suggestion that playing positions like defender, striker, goalkeeper should be linked. Not seeing some of the claims in the match report in the sources either, e.g. "she scored another goal at close range" doesn't seem to be mentioned in the BBC report, and the BBC report isn't brilliant, (for example) "had 32 shots during Sunday's game, 17 of them on target" and then contradicts itself in the statistics table). Other statements like "Her six goals made her the highest-scoring non-British player in FA WSL history, overtaking South-Korean Ji So-yun" are dubious, it wasn't the six goals that did that, it was the six goals that allowed her to surpass the existing record, for example. I would suggest this is peer reviewed to iron out some of these fundamental issues. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, thank you for taking the time to review, and also for your Feb 8 edits. I must admit your oppose surprises me as I had hoped that the peer review it went through earlier this year, followed by the copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, would fix basic issues with the writing. Before addressing the oppose, please allow me to go through a few of the "less significant problems" you mention specifically:
  • Not seeing some of the claims in the match report in the sources
It is a bit tricky to find but they are on the page. Source reviewer Hog Farm could not find it either but if you scroll down, halfway down the page there is a tab called "Live text". If you click it you can see the sources for all these detailed claims.
  • MOS issues
Any specific ones?
  • duplicate links
I'm using the tool Highlight duplicate links and it comes back with "No duplicate links". What am I missing?
  • Reference formatting
Anything specific not right? A couple of people have looked at this now and have all missed what you are seeing, so a bit of guidance would be much appreciated.
  • many phrases which, to a non-expert, make no sense without clicking on the link
Gog the Mild in his review pointed out a few that I have fixed (hat-trick, 3 points per game for example). I do not find it easy to determine what needs explained and what can be assumed to be understood. For instance, from the FA Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. I inferred that hat-trick is an established term, which has to be linked but does not require an inline explanation. Your highlighting of "Two corners for the home team quickly followed." suggests to me that there is something not right with corner. Should this just be corner kicks? Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. simply uses corner kicks with no further explanation at first, and then later on just uses the word corner. Same with substitute. I have replaced the word box with penalty area. Like on Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. I have linked it but not explained it. Am I comparing this article to the wrong FAs? Which FAs are the right ones?
  • there has even been suggestion that playing positions like defender, striker, goalkeeper should be linked
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Who made this suggestion and where? Are you saying that all these should be linked or should they all be explained (and linked)? Looking at Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. again, what we have in the article here seems to me the same. Neither explain or link defender.
  • the BBC report isn't brilliant .. and then contradicts itself in the statistics table
What is best practice here to deal with an internal inconsistency in an otherwise reliable source?
  • Now the Oppose. I have asked the same person who helped me with prose in my first 4 successful FACs to have a go at improving this article. Which football match articles should she look at to get a sense of what is desired, both in terms of tone and assumed level of understanding? Edwininlondon (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realise it's disappointing to see an oppose here but I'm strictly applying the same approach that I was afforded earlier this year. It's interesting to see that some of the phrases which are clearly technical and simply liked are fine in this FAC but not in others. I'd be delighted to help with your specific queries, but my reviews have been criticised for being some kind of nitpick list which shouldn't be addressed at the nomination itself. One word of advice: definitely do not compare what is expected with previous FAs. We have some reviewers who quite literally about-face within six weeks of separate reviews so you cannot assume what was just fine two months ago is just fine now. Assuming terms like "hat-trick" or "corner" or "penalty area" are clear to a non-expert reader (I think the acid test these days is a 7-year-old American child) is a mistake and even though you link them, that is no longer considered sufficient (although it was in late-2020). When I get more time to spend on this, we can go over more specifics, hopefully in the next week or so, as I have other priorities at the moment. I'd still find a copyeditor, e.g. "When two teams have an equal amount of points, the team with the bigger number of goals scored minus goals conceded ranks higher." needs a complete re-write for example: "When two teams have equal points, the team with the highest net difference between goals scored and goals conceded ranks higher." This, in a nutshell, is a perfect example of why footnotes or inline explanations of terms is a really bad idea because every article will explain it slightly differently and that is really poor from an encyclopedic perspective. We have specific articles (e.g. goal difference) or the Glossary of association football terms for precisely that purpose. But we have to be consistent now, so all such technical terms will need to be expertly and correctly defined within the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My copy-edit contact is willing to look at the style issues in the match report, trying to get it to flow better. I hope to report back soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I note your reference to WP:PERFECT above, I'm afraid as the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good and what is now expected (mandated against consensus indeed) at FAC is very much geared up to subjective but relentless adherence to aspects of MOS which are entirely detrimental to the target audience of some specific genres of articles yet not others. I wish you luck with your endeavour on that aspect, in the meantime good luck with the copyedit. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes to the copy of the match report, as suggested by my copy-edit contact. I also have added the YouTube video of the match highlights as primary source, providing more facts and allowing the prose to be less robotic. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's better but there are still those many phrases which rely on wikilinks alone and, these days, that's not considered sufficient for a football FA. You need to imagine you're explaining to a 7-year-old child and if they don't understand the entire article without having to click away, that's a fail. It's not what I consider an FA should be but sadly the FA co-ords and others have set their stall out that way (within the last two months) so we all should comply with that. What I do know is that the new demand is going to make (a) sports FAs practically unreadable to the intended audience and (b) things like cricket and baseball FAs practically impossible because of the intricacies of the rules etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand who told you to remove details of the formations per this edit as it's a key piece of information for the article. I understand that means you'll need to explain it in very basic terms for it to be understood by all readers, and that will make it less enjoyable to the target audience, but removing it entirely is not appropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked to see how other FAs have handled this and noticed that Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) and FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993) do not mention formation at all. But we could bring it back in with something like this: Arsenal began the game in a 3–4–3 formation, with 3 defenders, 4 midfielders and 3 forwards; Bristol used a 4–2–3–1 formation, with 4 defenders, 2 defensive midfielders, 3 attacking midfielders, and 1 forward. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, things have changed here quite substantially lately so it's unwise to rely on other FAs to draw your standards. The formation information should definitely be there, just because it's deemed too difficult to explain it succinctly and a link to the comprehensive article is deemed insufficient (suddenly) that should not mean we start removing details which are perfectly relevant. I think your explanation will satisfy those who are deeming links to complex topics to no longer be adequate, of course it will be completely over the top for the majority of the intended audience of the article who will find it patronising and unnecessary. But in any case, the information should be there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I look at the only other football article currently at FAC, the 1987 FA Cup Final, I can see that so far the reviewers there don't seem to demand explanations of basic football concepts. My hope is those reviewers will review this article as well, so we can get more views on this topic. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a matter of time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RTM, for continuing to watch this article. It's not unusual for an opening sentence of a match FA to mention the same word 3 times, see for instance Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. which mentions Manchester 3 times. I would say that the article has had minor tweaks only, there have been no structural changes. But I leave it to others to judge if the article is still by and large the same. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but you have to stop relying on what was considered acceptable in FAs, even those which passed in 2020. What was deemed acceptable then is by no means what is acceptable now, standards and reviewers' expectations change from review to review on the same subject matter in a matter of weeks. I would say anything with the same word three times in a single sentence needs work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

Comments soon! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the effort to review this.

Lead

  • I don't think this is the type of article where the article title would be bolded in the lead opening sentence. (see examples of similar matches where the title is a score, or MOS:AVOIDBOLD)
Agreed. Rephrased sentence along the lines of Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.
  • Should clarify the match was on Arsenal's home ground
Done
  • in the league's history <<<=== you don't need to link the league again
This one links to the league page, the previous one to the season. I think the link labels clearly signal the difference and both are useful destinations in this context, I would say
Okay, I didn't realize. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • , a first in the league. ===>>> , a league record.
Done
  • Her tally in the game meant she overtook ===>>> With her goal tally, she overtook (avoid "meaning" / "meant")
Done
  • She also assisted with four further goals, meaning she was involved in ten goals altogether. ===>>> She was involved in all of Arsenal's first ten goals, having also assisted on four further goals.
Done
  • This broke the FA WSL record, which she had set herself with involvement in five goals ===>>> This broke her own FA WSL record of five goal involvements that she had set
Done
  • eleventh place of twelve ===>>> eleventh place out of twelve clubs
Done
  • the Football Writers' Association named her Women's Footballer of Year. ===>>> and was named Women's Footballer of Year by the Football Writers' Association.
Done
  • Somewhere (probably early) in the lead, add "Arsenal were the reigning (or defending?) champions and entered the match third in the league. Bristol were in tenth position, having not yet won a game."
Done

Background

  • The background seems to start out of nowhere. It should be something more like: "The match was played in this league. This league is..."
  • Suggesting as a first sentence: "The 1 December 2019 match between Arsenal Women and Bristol City Women took place in the eighth round of the 2019–20 FA Women's Super League (FA WSL) season."
  • And then continue: "The FA WSL is a professional association football league of twelve clubs that was launched in 2011 by The Football Association (the FA) to replace the FA Women's Premier League National Division as the highest level of women's football in England."
  • That above sentence also fixes these two issues:
the FA Women's Super League (FA WSL), a semi-professional league of eight clubs <<<=== This is wrong and/or misleading. The league is fully professional and has 12 clubs. You can mention how many clubs the league had originally if you want, but I don't see the point.
It wasn't mentioned that this is an association football league and not some other code of football.
OK, all of the above done. With one proposed change: I mention right away that this an association football match. It seems a bit too late to do that in the second sentence.
Okay, sounds good. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2019 they became league champions again, under their new name of Arsenal Women, when they defeated Brighton & Hove Albion in their penultimate game of the 2018–19 FA WSL season <<<=== I'd suggest rephrasing to: "The Arsenal Women entered the season as the reigning league champions, having finished first in the 2018–19 FA WSL season by seven points." (Mentioning the game against Brighton & Hove Albion doesn't seem necessary, and seems to imply they only won the league by a small margin even though they didn't.)
Done. With 2 changes: I added a footnote to account for the name change Arsenal Ladies to Arsenal Women, and I avoided 2 sentences starting with Arsenal by using They.
  • to score a hat-trick (three goals in one match) ===>>> to score three goals for a hat-trick.
Done
  • In the 2017–18 season, Bristol drew their away game with Arsenal 1–1.[7] In the 2018–19 season they lost the fixture at Arsenal's home venue Meadow Park 4–0, allowing Arsenal's Dutch international striker Vivianne Miedema to score a hat-trick (three goals in one match).[8] <<<=== This seems incomplete or unclear. Why do you mention these two match results as opposed to all four from the previous two seasons, or only the two from the previous season?
These 2 are the matches that match exactly the fixture. The reverse fixture is less relevant I would say, and I left them out to avoid clutter.
  • I would put the cup result after those sentences instead of at the end of the section.
I think that messes up the timing. Everything described now is in chronological order.
Okay, that's fair. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can merge the first two paragraphs.
Done
  • The 2019–20 season started in September and featured twelve teams <<<=== Assuming you change the background to mention "twelve teams" earlier, you don't need to mention it again.
Done
  • Arsenal were level with Manchester City on points, but behind on goal difference by seven, putting them in third position in the table ===>>> Arsenal were level with Manchester City with the second-most points, but were in third position in the table by virtue of having a worse goal difference. (Also, you don't need the note.)
Done. I agree we don't need the note, but another FAC reviewer wanted it. Are you ok with keeping it or do you want it removed?
It's fine if you leave it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two paragraphs don't synthesize the season results up to that point pretty well. Instead of listing the match results, I would suggest stating the teams' records and highlighting only each team's most important matches. Also, the new players for both teams are general points that you can state at the beginning of each paragraph; they shouldn't be tied to only the first match of the season.
That sounds reasonable. I will synthesize the results better. I just need to look up what sources are available. On the second point: I have moved the new signings.
Done.

Summary

  • Why did you remove the formations? Relatedly, if possible, you should probably explain the reason for using each formation, albeit with women's football, it may not be possible to find a source explaining that.
I removed it because it is not present in a few other FAs I looked at and another FAC reviewer, Gog the Mild, wanted a detailed explanation. A 2nd reviewer also thinks it is better to bring it back, so I now have brought it back. Will try to find something about why.
I can't find any sources explaining the why of specific formations. I checked other match FAs and didn't see any.
I think just the formations is fine. Nothing else really depends on it. It's just for completeness. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the edge ===>>> from the left edge
Done
  • turned goalscorer ===>>> became a goalscorer
Done
  • , following a pass from Lia Wälti ===>>> off a pass from Lia Wälti (and note: no comma)
Done
  • Miedema's first hat-trick of the day came in the thirty-sixth minute, when ===>>> Miedema completed a hat-trick of the day came in the thirty-sixth minute when (I don't think two hat tricks or double hat trick is a real term for six goals. She had a hat trick in that she scored three goals, but six goals doesn't mean two hat tricks. Happy to be convinced otherwise if you have a good source.)
If I Google site:bbc.co.uk "double hat-trick" I can see quite a few times the BBC has used the term. Just for this game there are quite a few as well, searching for "Miedema double hat-trick", and some of those are even a reliable source.
Okay, I checked that link, and I think that suffices. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which landed just inside the goal, ===>>> that landed just inside the goal,
Done
  • by passing the ball to her from the edge ===>>> with a pass from the edge
Done
  • When she left the game after seventy minutes ===>>> When she was substituted out of the game after seventy minutes
Done
  • after Mead passed her the ball ===>>> off a pass from Mead
Done
  • after Bristol's Belgian international striker Daniëls dispossessed the hesitating Zinsberger and was fouled in the penalty area. ===>>> after Bristol's Belgian international striker Yana Daniëls was fouled by Arsenal's goalkeeper Zinsberger in the penalty area. Zinsberger had been dispossessed by Daniëls while she was trying to pass the ball away.
Done
  • but the ball bounced back to the Bristol forward, who scored the last goal of the match, giving Bristol a consolation goal ===>>> but Daniëls was able to get to the rebound first and immediately scored a consolation goal (I watched the highlights. I don't think the ball bounced back to her. She had to go and get it.)
I agree she had to make the effort, so I used the first bit of your suggestion. But I do think we need to say it's the last goal of the match, just using consolation goal may not be sufficiently clear.
Okay. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to BBC Sport, <<<=== you don't need this.
Removed
  • an average of one every three minutes ===>>> an average of one about every three minutes
Done

Records

  • The match resulted in multiple league records. ===>>> The match set multiple league records.
Done
  • It was the highest winning margin in league history,[38][39] and ===>>> It had the highest winning margin in league history,[38][39] and was
Done
Oh dear. Replaced it with the ESPN source.
  • Still skeptical that "double hat trick" is a real term for six goals.
I welcome skepticism at all times. BTW, Telegraph and Guardian use it as well
Cleared, as stated above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which she set in September 2018 ===>>> which she had set in September 2018
Done
  • Miedema surpassed South-Korean Ji So-yun as the highest-scoring non-British player in league history, increasing her total from thirty to thirty-six goals; So-yun's goal tally at the time stood at thirty-three ===>>> With her fourth goal, Miedema surpassed South-Korean Ji So-yun as the highest-scoring non-British player in league history, ultimately extending the record to thirty-six goals by the end of the match.
Done

Reactions

  • Ballon d'Or Féminin, a football award ===>>> Ballon d'Or Féminin, an award
Done
  • France Football, honouring ===>>> France Football honouring
Done

Aftermath

  • Bristol dropped from tenth place to eleventh of twelve ===>>> Bristol dropped from tenth place out of twelve to eleventh
Done
  • she also remained in first place on the table of players who assisted others to score. ===>>> She also kept her position as the league leader in assists with (how many?)
Done
  • Her double hat-trick <<<=== same comment
Same reply :)
  • Listing the results match-by-match is okay for Arsenal since their week-by-week position in the table matters. But I would suggest doing a better job of synthesizing Bristol's results after this match instead of just listing them in order.
Okay I will do that. Something along the lines of how many wins and draws, and thus points?
Done
  • The Football Writers' Association named her Women's Footballer of Year,[60] and she won the Professional Footballers' Association's WSL PFA Fans' Player of the Year. ===>>> The Football Writers' Association named her Women's Footballer of Year,[60] and the Professional Footballers' Association named her the WSL PFA Fans' Player of the Year. (parallelism)
Done
  • having earned 0.6 points per game versus Liverpool's 0.4 and Birmingham's 0.5 <<<=== Just put the points and number of games
I don't think that is right since the decision was made on points per game. I don't think we should make the reader do the maths.

Overall

  • Was the match broadcast?
I need to research that.
I added something, right after the crowd size, which seems related. No viewing numbers unfortunately.
Sure, whatever is available. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the main comment is to improve the organization of the background, and also part of the aftermath for a similar reason. The comments on the lead are also a little bit more than minor. The rest is minor. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the effort to review this and make constructive suggestions. I believe I have addressed most if not all of the mior points and have some homework to do before being able to address the remaining points. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all points now. I expect I have made mistakes in my edits, I hope you can find the time to find them. Please feel free to edit directly if you find that easier. Thx. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New comments

  • The background is better now!
  • Replies that are resolved are above.
  • In the 2017–18 season, Bristol drew their away game with Arsenal 1–1.[8] In the 2018–19 season they lost the fixture at Arsenal's home venue Meadow Park 4–0, <<<=== Ah, I hadn't realized they were both away games because the second sentence uses "home". I would re-use "away" in the second sentence. How about: "In the 2017–18 season, Bristol drew their away game with Arsenal at Meadow Park 1–1. In the 2018–19 season they lost the away fixture 4–0, "
  • You could probably footnote the breakdown by position for each formation.
  • with a right-footed shot from the centre of the penalty area that landed just inside the goal, following a pass from Daniëlle van de Donk. ===>>> with a right-footed shot from the centre of the penalty area that landed just inside the goal, having received the ball from Daniëlle van de Donk.
  • I was wondering why there was no field diagram in the middle of the lineups? (The BBC report includes the diagrams under the line-ups tab.)
  • The YouTube links don't go to the correct YouTube video (i.e. the external video).
  • having earned 0.6 points per game versus Liverpool's 0.4 and Birmingham's 0.5 <<<=== How about all three: "nine points in fourteen games (0.64 points per game) versus Liverpool's six points in fourteen games (0.43) and Birmingham's seven points in thirteen games (0.54)". The raw point totals are still more what actually mattered. Taking the points per game instead of the usual total points didn't actually change the standings in this case.
  • And if you make that change above, then the last sentence: "climbing from the bottom of the table to tenth position with nine points from fourteen games" ===>>> "climbing from the bottom of the table with six points to tenth position with nine points" (assuming you already stated the number of games)
  • Relatedly, seeing as taking the points per game did change the standings for first place: "On 5 June, the FA declared Chelsea champions, based on a points per game basis, ahead of Manchester City and Arsenal" ===>>> On 5 June, the FA declared Chelsea champions, based on them having 2.60 points per game, ahead of Manchester City's 2.50 and Arsenal's 2.40.

Some new comments / replies. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I believe I have addressed your points, except for the lineup diagram. I have not been able to find out how these are made. I did manage to locate a template that puts 1 team on the pitch, but not 2. Do you happen to know how I can make one? Edwininlondon (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize before, but apparently someone was making these. I think if you just ask PeeJay to make one, they will do it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting, if that wasn't clear! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, I realise there's active reviews but this is getting close to two months old and we're nowhere near consensus to promote so can we pls continue the improvements outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2021 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2021 [6].

Marjorie Paxson

[edit]
Nominator(s): —valereee (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An influential women's page journalist and editor; women's page journalism was until very recently denigrated and unstudied, and many of even the most influential editors weren't even redlinked anywhere. This is my first attempt at an FA; the article was GA reviewed by Vanamonde93 and DYK reviewed by Sionk, other contributors include Vycl1994 and Ruth Truong. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "Boise, Idaho, as a women's page editor" - source?
  • Why the different formatting between FNs 2 and 3?
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed last or first name first
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Be consistent in when you use sentence vs title case
  • Is "5:33:205" meant to represent three different pages?
  • I can't find any information about R.J. Berg/Destinations Press - what sort of publisher is this?
  • FN9: don't repeat website title in title field. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed 1, 2, 3. I've reordered the book that don't have locations, some are interlibrary loans so it might be a couple weeks. Re sentence vs. title case...I think you mean the capitalization of the article titles? Yes, IIRC, 5:33:205 was information from multiple pages, but that's one of the books I've ordered so I'll recheck. Is there a better way to communicate that information? I've ordered the R.J. Berg book, will see if it gives me any more information on who it is. :) —valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got the R.J.Berg book. It's a small publisher, certainly, and much of the content is self-sourced. I do remember that the stuff I sourced to it was mentioned in other places, so if anyone wants to eliminate this source, I can probably find a source for that content in another source. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's more to suggest it would be considered high-quality, I would definitely say we should replace it. For the page numbers, would suggest comma separation rather than colon - colon to me suggests chapter/verse or something of that sort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have comma separated. The coding for colon seems to have come from the RP template. —valereee (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, I found the quotes that were sourced to Clabes also in Whitt. Whitt sources it to Clabes but doesn't provide the date; the Clabes book was published in 1983 and consists of a series of profiles of US women newspaper editors, each an introductory few paragraphs followed by purpose-written essays by the subject of the profile. Shall I keep the Clabes to support the dates Paxson wrote these things? To me it feels important to know when in her career she was writing this stuff. —valereee (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod

[edit]
  • Pretty short, & somehow a bit thin - maybe the sources aren't there. But perhaps the key point arising from her career is clearly expressed in the (also rather short) lead.
  • Her last 2 jobs were as "publisher" at newspapers. There's a link (not at 1st use) use to publisher, but I doubt that helps readers at all. It should be explained (in both articles) that in newspaper & magazines the publisher (as a job title) is the person in charge of the business side, as opposed to anything editorial.

Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's short and thin. Many of these women weren't really considered very important in their lifetimes. I believe there are sources available at the State Historical Society of Missouri that could possibly be useful, but a lot of them would be primary and that's a 7 hour drive. :) I've changed the pipe for publisher to first mention and to something more helpful, I think. —valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lawrence Khoo

[edit]

A bit thinly sourced – relying on a handful of sources, but then, that could be the nature of the subject.

The lead section needs a lead paragraph that succinctly describes and summarizes why the subject is notable. See MOS:OPENPARABIO for guidelines on what should be in the lead paragraph.

LK (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, LK, thanks for the comments. Yep, it is thinly sourced. It's only in the past maybe fifteen years that anyone bothered with these women because: Women working on things for women. :D I've made a stab at a lead paragraph! —valereee (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

[edit]

Kimberly Wilmot Voss's PhD dissertation (2004), from page 136, contains a lot of detail about Paxson. I can see that at least some of that information is in another Voss source cited in the article, but the information hasn't been added to the article. SarahSV (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the last part of this means—"and their editors, whom she believed had been supporters of the movement". The "which she believed" + "whom she believed" construction needs a rewrite: "She expressed bitterness over her demotions and attributed them partially to the women's movement, which she believed unfairly denigrated women's pages and their editors, whom she believed had been supporters of the movement." SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Paxson from 1991, with lots of additional details. See cover and index. SarahSV (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC); edited 18:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says she was born on August 23 and the infobox and first section say August 13. The lead and infobox give no middle name, but the first section does. SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, thank you so much, and sorry for the delay, I suddenly and unexpectedly have gotten crazy busy IRL. I've added quite a bit from the Voss, am still working my way through the interviews but they've already helped with some confusion between other sources. The birth date must have been a typo! —valereee (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, there are still a few issues that need to be fixed, too many to list. It would be faster to fix them than to explain. I think you should let this be archived so that you can work on it at your leisure, then you can renominate. SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and there is no sign of a consensus for promotion forming. If there are no indications of the nomination gaining significant support over the next day or two it is liable to be archived. You may wish to see if any of the reviewers who have commented so far are inclined to support promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, I don't know how this process works at all. This is my first time here. What is supposed to have happened at this point? —valereee (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Valereee, I hadn't realised that, and I should have. Three weeks in, one would have expected a formal support or two. Or three. Instead you have had comments from three reviewers, all expressing degrees of dissatisfaction and one explicitly suggesting that you withdraw it to address issues off-FAC. Articles should arrive at FAC pretty much meeting the FAC criteria and the MoS, and just requiring a final polish. All of this is open to interpretation, but the reviewers seem to be suggesting that the article as it stands should be either withdrawn or archived to allow time for issues identified to be addressed. Possibly at WP:PR and possibly assisted by the same reviewers. Prior to, hopefully, a renomination of an improved article. Unless there is evidence that they, or other reviewers, disagree with this, I intend to archive it in a couple of days. If any of this is unclear, feel free to to come back at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, thanks! Maybe FA just isn't for me -- I thought it would be useful to go through the process so I could understand how it works, but if I'm not a FA writer, that's fine. It's fine to archive it. —valereee (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, don't say that about yourself. The article is very close. Don't give up! SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sarah! It's not that I don't think I'm capable of doing whatever needs to be done -- and I'm totally willing to do the work -- it's just that I just don't know what is is that needs doing. I've read the criteria, and I'm hearing the article isn't meeting them in multiple ways, but honestly I don't know what those ways are. The process just feels sort of opaque to me. —valereee (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Valereee; it is great to see you at FAC. I have been running behind lately on reviews because my computer got stuck in repair, but Gog the Mild asked me to lend a hand here. I am pretty sure he means, help you explore the fastest route to the bronze star :)
When a FAC doesn't garner sufficient support or reviews early on, a helpful route to turn things around quickly, and get more reviewers on board, is to submit the article instead to WP:PR, list it at Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and invite everyone who weighed in here to help you polish it up there. The reason that works (faster) is that reviewers can engage with less pressure at PR, whereas commentary at FAC is expected to be "resolved" via striking, answering, addressing whatever, so it creates more pressure on the reviewers and nominator to work quickly, which for reviewers, means constantly revisiting and updating. You can also ping people to a PR without concerns about canvassing. PR can be a faster route because wrinkles can be worked out there, such that by the time you return to FAC, you may see some immediate supports and get a more quickly promoted FAC, whereas keeping a FAC open that has fallen to the bottom of the page is rarely fruitful.
Several experienced reviewers have indicated that the article (and its sourcing) is a bit thin, so it is unlikely that this FAC will progress from here towards the bronze star; I suggest withdrawing, opening a PR, and pinging everyone who has engaged at this FAC (and anyone else who might be interested) to the PR, where you are likely to have a more enjoyable and collaborative experience. If you look at the history of The Heart of Thomas, you may see that PR worked out very well for Morgan695. Should you do that, please count me in, and know that I will do all I can to encourage other reviewers to engage ... best of luck going forward, as we anticipate an eventual FA here ! (oops, edit conflict with SarahSV -- what she said !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, thanks so much! That's fine, I'm happy to try Peer Review. I did try it once before on another article but didn't end up taking the article to FA. But I've got more experience now, I'm happy to give it another go! —valereee (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's great ... we'll get you over the hump. You may have to be patient, as we're all stretched thin, but always willing to help. Maybe have a look meanwhile at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. The top portion is focused on my content area (medical editing), but towards the bottom it becomes more general, and may give you some tips about how to negotiate the process, as well as other reading. See you at PR! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 27 March 2021 (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) 26 March 2021 [7].

Boeing 727

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bredyhopi (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Boeing 727, a massive gamechanger in aviation history, which gave Boeing the foundation in aviation history. It was one of Boeing's bestselling jets.Bredyhopi (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Hog Farm

  • Coming to this one through the article talk page, as my computer will not properly load WP:FAC.

This has a number of issues.

  • Aircraft on display would be better as a table than a list
  • Private aircraft needs expanded, and accidents should include information about any characteristics of the plane that cause accidents.
  • Lots of uncited text, including an underreferenced tag from 2009.
  • Reference formatting issues, include bare URLS.

From a quick glance, this fails WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1c, 2b, 2c, and probably 4. Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has never edited the nominated article; so this should be closed quickly as a bit of a drive-by nomination. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 26 March 2021 (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) 26 March 2021 [8].

Huaynaputina

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather inconspicuous volcano in Peru which was however in 1600 the source of the largest volcanic eruption in recent history of the Andes. This eruption resulted in widespread devastation of the surrounding area and in a volcanic winter that led to the Russian famine of 1601–03 and may have played a role in enhancing the Little Ice Age. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: I'm still finding prose that I do not find that engaging, which prevents me from supporting at this point. I'm likely to support only after a round of copy-editing with somebody better at prose than me. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the issues flagged here, FemkeMilene, but I take that there are more prose problems than the ones mentioned here, yes? Do you or User:SandyGeorgia have an idea where to ask for help on them (on or off FAC)? I think I have basically used up the available prose resources we have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, sorry to say that (as we all know :), prose is not my strength. I go through your work pre-FAC to catch as much of the jargon and MOS stuff as I can, but can't usually be helpful in bringing prose to a higher level. I do see how often you are constrained by your citation style, where you want to scrupulously cite each little piece, which can result in prose difficulties; perhaps over time you will move towards more citation bundling, which might free up your prose somewhat. Also, because your subject matter is highly technical, you are a bit constrained in soliciting help from GOCE, and I wouldn't go there; I am afraid they would do more damage in terms of changing meaning. I can only suggest some of the editors who have helped out at your articles in the past; perhaps one of them will jump in. @ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, and Iridescent:. Alternately, Gog the Mild might be willing to recuse for a copyedit, as he is competent to this task. Unfortunately, one of our most able copyeditors, Tony1 has been alienated from the FAC process, and we no longer have Eric Corbett. Good luck, and I'm sorry I can't be more useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AhmadLX

[edit]

Will do in a couple days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...Huaynaputina's eruption commenced on 16 February 1600". The cited source says 19 February
  • "it is also spelled ... Guagua Putina".[4] The cited source doesn't say that it is spelled as such. It is talking of a supposedly erroneous reference in a newspaper article that Guagua Putina and Misti are the same. Web search shows that the newspaper article was indeed correct i.e. Misti is called Guagua Putina.
  • [5] "Volcán Huaynaputina" [Huaynaputina Volcano]. Recursos Turisticos. Retrieved 27 March 2019: unreachable. Any archived link?
    @AhmadLX:All corrected so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link tephra, ignimbrites, dacites.
    Linked the former, the latter were already linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been about 400-metre (1,300 ft) wide" --> 400 metre; "200-metre (660 ft) wide" → 200 metre (also 70-metre, 30-metre etc.)
    Hmm, my impression was that the hyphen is the correct grammar here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, when describing it, hyphen isn't used (e.g. The well is 100 meters deep); when referring to something, it is used (e.g. A 100-meter-deep well). That's how I think. Maybe a native speaker may better guide here.
Oops, seems I read it as "it is unknown". lol.
  • I had sort of abandoned the review as I was unwilling to oppose. Since the nom is going to be archived now, I will describe my main concern. Addressing of which, I believe, will be useful in the future nom and attract more reviews.
  • The article is written like a journal paper, assuming good deal of background knowledge and familiarity with jargon. Especially, the sections Geology and Eruption history, to lesser extent also Geography, are very difficult to follow, with number of unexplained technical terms, and allusions to not so self-evident facts, appearing almost every next line, and details that are suitable only in a research article. Someone with no knowledge of the subject will almost certainly be lost. Some examples follow:
  • "It is likely that the development of the later Huaynaputina volcano within the composite volcano is coincidental,[33] although a similar tectonic stress field controlled the younger vents.[30]"
  • "Volcanic activity in that zone has moved since the Jurassic from the present-day coast region where remnants persist in the Cordillera de la Costa eastward into the actual Andes[13] and the present-day volcanic arc, where it is defined by stratovolcanoes.[19]"
  • "The basement underneath Huaynaputina is formed by almost 2-kilometre-thick (1.2 mi) sediments and volcanic intrusions of Paleozoic to Mesozoic age[33] including the Yura Group[41] as well as the Cretaceous Matalaque Formation of volcanic origin.[42]"
  • "In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre,[83] though fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents.[83] There is a fumarole on the third vent, and fumaroles occur in association with dykes that crop out in the amphitheatre.[30]" This is unencyclopedic style and typical of research papers. It should be changed, for example, to something like: "Although no fumaroles were detected in 1962,[83] several have been reported in the amphitheatre recently.[83][30]
  • "At least one of the vents has been described as an ash cone.[31]" trivial.
  • "Northeast-east of Huaynaputina,[28] the terrain drops off steeply (2.3 km or 1.4 mi vertically and 6 km or 3.7 mi horizontally[23]) into the Río Tambo valley, which runs southward and then westward as it rounds Huaynaputina." Stuff inside the brackets is to be dropped and description of valley simplified.
I understand that explaining every term and phenomena is not possible, but relying solely on links is also not helpful. I think creating a balance is possible. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that it's poor form for me to reply to examples of concerns, but I don't agree that these examples are too unclear for a lay audience. Knowing exactly what the Matalaque Formation is, for example, isn't necessary to understand the article subject and it can't really be explained within the text without a lot of distraction. I don't entirely agree with the other points, either - even a layperson knows that "vent" can simply be a hole, rather than a hill. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree. I think the sentence with the fumaroles is indeed difficult to read, as is the second example. Jargon is easier to place in context when the sentence structure is easier. I don't mind the mention of Matalaque Formation, even though I have no idea what it is. Not important for the overall sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This nomination has been open for nearly five weeks and has yet to attract a support. Unless there are a couple of indications that reviewers consider it worthy of promotion over the next two or three days, it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to come back on Thursday to finish a source review. Am I right in my understanding that that involves a) checking that all sources are reliable b) spot-checking various sources (how many?) and c) checking if formatting is consistent? Or is c not considered part of the source review? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, it's all three points. Of course, I am the nominator so... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FemkeMilene, yes - all three. c is part of a source review. b, given that Jo-Jo is an experienced nominator, would be covered by five or six random checks; although if these raised any issues you would likely want to do a few more. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by FemkeMilene

[edit]
  • Formatting: mostly fine.
    • I'm noticing a missing superscript in 14C in a title,
    • you do write 'in Spanish' explicitly, but don't do so for the french source.
      If you mean Juvigné 2008, it does actually say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largest explosive eruption in historical times in the Andes at Huaynaputina volcano, a.d. 1600, southern Peru -> they use mini-capitals, standard writing is normal capitals, never seen it written a.d.
      Put the correct capitals in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second element of the bibliography has something weird with page numbers: p. 640 pp.
    • Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union -> this is abbreviated and linked later; consistency
      Removed the second mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paredes, Japura; Blanca, Saida -> I don't think this name is appropriately formatted. It should be Japura Paredes as surnames and SAIDA BLANCA as first names I believe. In the 'thank you', you can read that Japura is comes from the father and Paredes from the mother, so seems standard Spanish naming convention.
  • Reliable sourcing: there are a couple of AGU meeting abstracts, which aren't peer reviewed. Are they all used for uncontroversial facts?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checking: I've done 10 checks, one possible minor disparity, one source that is possibly too old
    • As a result, natives and Franciscan friars reached the summit of that volcano and threw relics of saints into its crater -> this sentence implies the natives may have contributed to to throwing in relics into the volcano, which isn't what the source says. (Also; it's not that important that they reached the summit, follows from the fact that they threw in stuff)
      Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their formation may have been stimulated by the entry of mafic magmas into the magmatic system -> 2001 source. Is this amount of uncertainty still warranted or has science progressed? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A bit yes, since more recent publications have discussed different magma compositions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Regretfully this does not show signs of gaining a consensus for promotion any time soon, so I am going to archive it. The normal two week break before a further nomination will not apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2021 (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) 25 March 2021 [9].

Benedict Joseph Fenwick

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 19:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th-century Bishop of Boston who founded the College of the Holy Cross. He presided over a raucous period in New England, replete with schisms, riots, and armed patrols. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Ergo Sum 19:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over three weeks and shows little sign of gaining a consensus for promotion. Unless there is considerable further interest in it over the next few days it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regret I am closing this. There seems little prospect of a consensus to promote being reached in the near future. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2021 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2021 [10].

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly about carbon dioxide, although it should also cover methane thoroughly and mention the other greenhouse gases. It should thoroughly cover the politics of climate change and economics of climate change and avoid too much overlap with Climate change in Turkey. I suspect it is a very long way from featured standard yet, but I am hoping you will give me lots of constructive feedback on what to improve which I hope to be able to do quickly and then you can comment more. One reason this is important is that I am guessing Turkey will soon ratify the Paris Agreement and then people such as journalists and activists will be interested in what the country's Nationally Determined Contribution to limiting global greenhouse gases should be. so this article ought to be a sound foundation for the debate. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right off the bat I can say for sure that the references section needs major cleanup. Many news articles don't have an author, post date, and/or access date listed. There are many refs like: "Decarbonization Of Turkey's Economy: Long-Term Strategies And Immediate Challenges" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) which is just a step up from bare url. The article also cites preprints[11] and MDPI, a sketchy open access publisher[12] and heavily relies on official sources and Turkish state media. Considerable work may be needed to meet the high-quality sourcing requirement. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - hope to work through these in next few days and come back to you with questions Chidgk1 (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not started on "References" yet but is the "Sources" section OK now I have made some fixes to that? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit science topics that much so I wouldn't be comfortable attempting a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 11:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much science in the article. If anyone finds any science (or anything else) in the article they don't understand that means I have not explained it properly so please slap it with a "clarify" tag. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Femke

Thanks for working so hard on these articles. I'm afraid I'll have to oppose in the current state. Overall, it reads like a string of facts, instead of a well-rounded article, but with my prose skills I can't help much there. Many of the scientific details are not quite correct, so let me help there.

Absolutely - am struggling with flow/storytelling so hoping that HJ Mitchell might have time to give me a few ideas on that. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help with prose/story-telling. It's one of the things I enjoy most about writing articles. I won't be around much until the middle of next week, but that should give you time to address the other points. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sources are still not cleaned completely. Template:Cite report should typically be used for sources that lack a ISBN. As an example: Energy pricing and non-market flows in Turkey’s energy sector does have a ISBN.
I have just noticed now that there is Template:Cite techreport which allows isbn - so I will change some of the cites to that Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many external links
Have taken out a few. There are 15 now. I could remove more - what would you guys say would be a maximum for a featured article? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do they all comply with Wikipedia:External links? I'm sceptical of any article more than 5 to 10 external links. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced to 3 Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sad to see the first sentence back to sub-optimal prose. I think the previous version (GHG .. by Turkey are about 1% of the world's total or something) was better.
Hmm - you are probably right it is not the best. But on the other hand I am not sure the previous version was better. If I understand right it is not obligatory to bold the title. Instead "greenhouse gas" and "Turkey" could be linked. Also rather than giving a % of the world total it would seem fairer to emphasize that per person it is about the world average. So how about something like "Turkey's greenhouse gas emissions are average per-person and are mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning coal, oil and natural gas." Could reviewers who are less familiar with the subject comment on the first sentence too please. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen the abbreviation GhG instead of GHG
I got the idea from page 59 of this OECD report and I think it is more readable than GHG Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen the eq in CO2eq in subscript.
Ah now you mention I notice it is inconsistent in that sometimes I have subscripted both the "2" and the "eq" and sometimes only "2". I just had a look at Global warming potential and I see there they mostly use CO2e. So I am changing to follow that standard as it seems the most readable. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Paris goal is not below 2, but well below 2 degrees
corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When economic growth resumes after Turkey's late 2010s and COVID-19 recessions, it will be possible to expand the country's renewable-energy potential and invest in energy efficiency with a sustainable energy policy -> Doesn't follow; a lot of sustainable energy investment is done during the crisis during periods of recession.
amended - but please could somebody reread the first paragraph of the economics section to see if it is clear now Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • renewable-energy potential -> The potential stays the same per definition, the capacity increases.
corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The economics focusses very heavily on monetary policy; what about demand-pull and demand-push policies (f.i. producement and other softer instruments)? Only one sentence mentioned under the Fossil fuel subsidies section (which isn't a subsidy)
Added info from the OECD report linked above but not sure I understand all your points here ("producement" maybe a typo but for what?). The OECD seems to be saying that exempting petcoke from a tax counts as a subsidy. As there are arguments over the definition of a subsidy in other countries (e.g. UK less VAT on electricity than gas) discussion of that perhaps belongs in an article which is not country specific - such as Economics_of_climate_change_mitigation#Stop_subsidizing_fossil_fuels. More comments from you or anyone else on the economics welcome. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procurement, sorry. Other economic policies that are not tax or subsidies include regulation on efficiency, banning of certain industries (coal moratorium is populair), white certificates, building codes and so forth (this paper has a cool global overview). It may be that all studies focus on fiscal policy (not monetary..), as a lot of integrated assessment models don't have the capacity to simulate the full economy. If it hasn't been done, that's fine too. People studying these types of policies (which includes me), would say that omitting those policies is not a neutral way to explain economic policy options. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote to one researcher a while ago she told me there were no integrated assessment models for Turkey including so much stuff at that time. But I think the decarbonization study by Shura due to be published later this year will likely include an IAM with a lot of what you mention. Meanwhile I will add some bits and pieces from a new IEA report. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The economics section focusses a lot on GDP; what about employment.
added OECD jobs recommendation to the "buildings" section Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next heading with ratifying Paris doesn't talk about ratifying Paris; it talks about global investment in occordance with Paris.
The heading is maybe not the best but I am not quite sure what you are suggesting. I have not found any quantitative forecasts yet on the economic impact of the EU carbon tariff. As the main quantified economic benefit seems to be savings in the fossil fuel import bill perhaps I should emphasise that more? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could change it to 'Carbon pricing'. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Climate Transparency to take a fair share to achieve 1.5°C Turkey would need to reduce to 365 Mt CO2e by 2030, 226 Mt CO2e by 2050 and net zero by 2070 -> Prose. Commas are needed, be consistent in your unit for CO2 equivalent (CO2e / CO2eq are both valid I believe)
corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to mind hyphens in phases like: gasoline fuelled SUVs
corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rich people emitting more doesn't have much to do with cost-benefit analysis or Paris
moved to "politics" section but if anyone thinks a different place is better please suggest Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antalya, Bornova, Bursa, Çankaya, Eskişehir Tepebaşı, Gaziantep, İzmir, Kadikoy, Maltepe, Nilüfer and Seferihisar have Sustainable Energy (and Climate) plans.[229] One sentence in a paragraph. Why capitalisation?
corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • but there are some restrictions restrictions in what? Legislation? Emissions?
clarified Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FemkeMilene (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

  • While the figures denote historical emissions, the text seems to be quiet about it. Wouldn't it be logical to have historical emissions as the first section?
The text does give a total for historical emissions. Have now linked to Deforestation during the Roman period but I have not found any quantification of GhG from historical deforestation so don't know if it has been properly accounted for - so as far as I know most emissions were 21st century (7 out of the 10 billion tonnes total from a rough glance at the graph). For an article about a country where there is a lot of history and emissions are now declining fast - like Greenhouse gas emissions by the United Kingdom having the history first would make sense. But here where most emissions are very recent I think it would give undue weight to the history to have it first. But maybe I should add more history into the "trends" section which is lower down? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Figure captions: full stops after full sentences
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First figure of the body: the years are difficult to read. Could you only print every five years? And increase font size of the title?
Done (you might need to clear your browser cache) Chidgk1 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • .. to inform the government if it decides .. This sort of reads like the report decides whether the government makes that decision
Reworded Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN28 doesn't mention Turkey. Do we know whether Turkey exports cement to the EU? A lot of cement is produced close to destination
Surprisingly a lot is exported - see cement section - but no stats on where to - replaced cite with one which does mention Turkey - as our steel is mostly from electric arc furnaces I think the new cite is referring to our cement Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 83 million people -> Don't start sentence with number. Everything before colon can be deleted
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anadulo agency source is tagged by headbombs script as 'reliability depends on contributor'. Are they reliable? You use them quite a bit. That script is amazing, so if you don't have it, install it.
Yes very useful script - I have it. According to the reliable sources list Anadolu Agency is unreliable for controversial topics. I don't think any of the things I have cited them for is controversial, but if anyone has any concerns let me know which cite(s) and I will try and replace. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsections for things like industry lead to very small subsections. You can drop them.
Am deleting subheadings for some other short subsections but am inclined to leave "industry" as it is very likely to get bigger in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CCS is not financially viable, however, because Turkey has no carbon pricing. -> source
Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No city councils have yet created low-emission zones, -> source from 2019. Should this be singular? No city council has
Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by script Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2021 US climate change envoy John Kerry said that top 20 should reduce emissions immediately. -> grammar
Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is quite far from the FA criteria. I suggest withdrawing, improving the sourcing, asking for a copy-edit, and then starting another peer review. I'll be willing to help in another peer review :).

I agree with you it is quite far from FA. And thanks for offering to help with another peer review. But my concern is not to overload you with stuff which any of the FA reviewers could do. If I understand the FA process right then hopefully someone will do something called a "source review"? I was trying to persuade buidhe and others that this would not need scientific knowledge, because for the scientific papers I have generally just used the abstracts - which are written in easy to understand language - and not delved into any detailed science. There is only one source I can think of which might require a deep dive but even that needs nothing more than high school science and math - that is the Turkstat spreadsheets of 2019 GhG which will be published in 2 or 3 weeks time - to make sure that my reslicing of the data contains no mistakes or "original research". So buidhe or anyone else - any chance of doing a source review omitting the spreadsheets (as they will be out of date soon)? I think the best use of your time Femkemilene would be checking my use of those 2019 stats after they are published. For now, as you have a wide overview of climate change, I hope you would be able to say whether I have completely overlooked any aspects or given some aspects more or less weight then they ought to have (for example I say little on geothermal as I am waiting for more research on Turkish geothermal CO2 - but maybe that is a mistake). My concern is that if I withdraw this in favor of a peer review that you will be the only reviewer and end up doing lots of detail work which any experienced Wikipedian could do. Whereas if I leave it here others might comment more? Does that tactic of leaving it here make sense? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the rules, you are only supposed to nominate for FAC if the article already meets the criteria or is very close. You are not supposed to use FAC for peer review. However, I sympathize, as it can be quite difficult to get feedback on your writing. I think the article could benefit from requesting a copyedit from Guild of Copyeditors but maybe you want to sort out any sourcing issues first. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm (talk · contribs) I have been snooping around and I see you are thinking of doing source reviews - any chance? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Turkish, so I wouldn't be able to assess the non-English sources. Hog Farm Talk 23:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm (talk · contribs) That's fine. Almost all of the sources are in English so you could just omit the Turkish ones and I will try to find someone else to source check them. Alternatively if you want to attempt them Google Translate is pretty good Turkish to English nowadays (and I can translate any quotes) and if any Turkish sources look shaky I can search harder for English versions. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of the captions have neutrality issues - eg "There is hope".
amended a couple of captions - if there are any more you think are not neutral please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others need citation, eg "one of the few major European cities without a low-emission zone"
cited that one - I think any others without cites are either obvious or cited in the text or in the image itself - but if more caption cites are needed please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the reforestation image
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source of the data presented in File:Greenhouse_gas_emission_and_absorption_by_Turkey.svg? Ditto File:Fossil_fuel_CO2_Turkey.svg
The reason I put the source links in the charts themselves is so that people who google for images can see the source link without having to find this article. I will redo the pie chart when 2019 data is published in a few weeks time and incorporate the source link in the image. Should I also add cites in the captions? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adding to the image description pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zonguldak_port_and_breakwater,_Turkey_Ottoman_era_postcard.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
The Ottoman era ended in 1922 - if that is not sufficient info let me know and I will remove it from the article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources supporting the "Ottoman era" claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not important for this article so I removed it and have added a different Zonguldak picture Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FeydHuxtable

Thanks so much for taking the time to bring this vital topic to such a high standard. While already better than much audited content IMO, it would benefit from a little more polish. Some of the sentences are a little too long; the longer the sentence, the harder to understand. In places, the reader might have got the wrong impression. E.g. where it said that methane and N2O are more potent than CO2 "in the short-term", that might have implied they are less of a problem in the medium term. Whereas in fact, even on a 100 year time scale, both those gases are over 20x as potent for causing warming. I fixed a few minor issues I saw along these lines, but there lots more to improve. It would be especially good to see the 'Politics' section sharpened a bit, it's not something I understand well enough to usefully re-word myself. Is Turkey sees industrialized Western countries as solely responsible definitely an accurate reflection of the Ümit & Seçil source? My understand is that even as far back as Copenhagen, middle income & developing countries considered the rapid increase in emissions by China as a major contribution to GW & sometimes gave it as a reason not to commit to costly mitigation efforts themselves. Would it be possible to change "solely" > "mainly"? Will keep checking back every few weeks, as would love to support a promotion here! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyedit. I completely agree with you that politics is extremely important and that section needs improving - so I will try to polish. Not having any contacts in politics it is hard for me to understand too what is going on in the depths of the government. I am sure it is not one of their top priorities at the moment, but from the changing media coverage over the past few months I am hopeful that Paris might be ratified this year. I will modify as I suspect the government attitude has changed since Ümit's view 2 years ago. Probably due to Black Sea gas discovery they will favor coal less now I guess. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the improvements you made to the politics section. At the top after you quote Article 56, it might be good to indicate the key opposing force(s). E.g., something like "However, many in Turkey see fossil fuels as central to continued economic growth, especially in the absence of substantial assistance for a green transition from more established advanced economies." FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Have added "However, until the discovery of gas under the Black Sea in the early 2020s, many in Turkey saw burning local lignite as essential to lessen the high gas import bill. Likewise, until local production of solar panels, electric vehicles and lithium mining began around the same time, it was hard for governments to avoid burning a lot of petroleum." If anyone can improve that please do. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve the structure of the article? I am not entirely happy with the current structure but am struggling with how to improve it. The style guide does not seem to cover some important sections such as "politics". Any suggestions? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The currents structure's quite good, all the changes I'd suggest are debateable. But FWIW, heres my suggestions. 1) Change 'Latest carbon dioxide estimates and forecasts' so it's about GHG in general not just CO2, or move 'Greenhouse gas source' up so it becomes the first section. (As good to have the first section being something that relates to the article topic in the widest sense.) 2 Move 'Plans & targets' under Mitigation. 3 Move Politics above Mitigation - in a sense, politics drives everything. (Or if you keep Economics above Politics, it would be nice to see more on how the economics are constraining the pro enviroment political choices. 4) Drop 'Trends' from 'Trends, research and data access'.
The way you restructured the Politics section is great. Maybe a different structure would better help the reader as the content changes, but for now it seems optimal. 'Politics' could still do with content improvement though, if possible. It would be fascinating to understand the reason for Turkey's "critically insufficient" designation given that it has stronger reasons than most countries to move towards clean energy (fossil fuel imports accounting for ~70% of its current account deficit; not wanting energy dependency on Russia despite the good Erdoğan / Putin relationship; more exposed to -ve GW effects than many; high unemployment that could be alleviated by RE construction projects, etc.) Maybe it's mostly the funding & logistical challenges of outpacing growing demand, despite energy efficiency improvements. But would be good to have that confirmned by sources. Still that's more of a nice to have, I'd not say you need that level of depth for FA class. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that - will ponder and hopefully get some done tomorrow - you are right politics v important - probably was constrained by economics until very recently but with fall in price of gas and renewables lots more options. I suspect until now politicians had too much else to think about and climate change was not even in their top 20 priorities so they ignored it. Now maybe priority number 10 perhaps - due to drought and international pressure. By the way the changes you just made are excellent, but don't be surprised if I move the adaptation stuff to Climate change in Turkey. The only reason I put about Kurum and adaptation was as an illustration of the lack of co-ord with Energy Min. In general the climate change wikiproject decided that adaptation belongs in the "Climate change in country X" articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Just one last thing point on the "Dönmez favors coal, but Kurum is planning for adaptation" juxtaposition that was in an earlier version of the article. Maybe it makes sense to see coal use & adaptation as opposed from a local perspective, and certainly it does in some US circles. But from a global view, there's much less of a contradiction than there was a couple of years ago, before the almost complete collapse of outright climate denialism. Excessive focus on adaptation increasingly goes hand in hand with continued fossil fuel use. Michael Mann has a whole section on "Adaptation & Resilience" in chapter 7 of The New Climate War (Though he does say that some degree of adaptation is essential, & too be clear I'm not trying to imply that Kurums focus is excessive). Newer surveys are showing that the main reason folk are giving for not supporting mitigation measures is no longer skepticism, but doomism. All that said, I'd agree with moving out the mention of adaptation. Generally I don't mind if you revert any of my changes. You're the one whos put loads of effort into developing this vital topic. Hope to see this back at FAC before too long. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal; articles are expected to appear at FAC having addressed previous concerns, and many of the problems being raised here (eg lack of consistent citations) were covered in the peer review, but not yet addressed. I join two other editors (Buidhe and Femkemilene) in suggesting that this article needs more work before it is FAC ready. It is important to work through issues raised at PR and solicit further feedback on FAC readiness before nominating at FAC. @FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Ah OK sorry I had not realised there was stuff in the peer review I had not dealt with. I hereby withdraw and will resubmit when I have dealt with both the peer review comments and those raised here. Thank you to everyone here for your very useful comments. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2021 (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) 21 March 2021 [13].

Mah Laqa Bai

[edit]
Nominator(s): Omer123hussain (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about; 18t century female poet, courtesan, diplomat and philanthropist. She reached to the positin of court noble and participated in wars and hunting expidition with the ruler.Omer123hussain (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on 1b as there is several items of further reading not cited in the article. If they do not contain additional information about the subject, they should be removed per WP:ELNO#1, otherwise they indicate that the article is not comprehensive. This point was brought up by Sandy Georgia in the peer review but apparently not addressed. (t · c) buidhe 10:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately I agree with the commentary from the PR that this is a ways off of FA yet. The article would benefit from a thorough copy-edit, and there appears to be quite a bit of sourcing available not taken advantage of here - Kugle's work in particular. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would seem that this needs a little further work before it is FAC ready. This will need to be carried out off FAC before resubmitting. There will be the usual two-week pause before another nomination can be made. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2021 (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) 21 March 2021 [14].

Ruth Cupp

[edit]
Nominator(s): Remember (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ruth Cupp. She was an American lawyer, legislator, judge, and author in South Carolina. She was the first woman admitted to the Charleston County Bar Association and was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives. She even was a legislator in South Carolina before women could serve on juries. Remember (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to add those sources but I can't seem to find them. Can you tell me how best to find those articles at Newspapers.com? Remember (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask for a free subscription at WP:TWL: [15] (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem that this is not quite FAC ready yet. I would suggest fine tuning it off FAC and possibly running it through PR before resubmitting. There will be the usual two-week pause before another nomination can be made. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thank you everyone for the critiques! I'll fix it up and try running it through PR before resubmitting. Remember (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2021 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2021 [16].

Blond Ambition World Tour

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Madonna's third concert tour, the Blond Ambition World Tour of 1990. A highly influential and emblematic tour, it has left its mark on the work of multiple modern-day artists. I believe it deserves to be recognized as one of Wikipedia's featured articles. Christian (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 18:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the stage picture for Speedydelete (as much as it pains me). Do you suggest I also remove the corsets one @Buidhe:? --Christian (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it shows a copyrighted underlying work as its main element. (t · c) buidhe 22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All set @Buidhe:! How does it look now? --Christian (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review: Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • I would consider archived URLs for websites important for an FA.
  • Are you doing sentence case or title case? No all-caps either (fn 21, etc.). (be consistent)
  • Some works are linked on every occurrence in citations while others only the first time? (be consistent)
  • Fn 9 is missing page number, publication-place, agency, and via=Google News Archive
  • Same as above for fn 12
  • NYTimes, LATimes url-access=limited
  • Fn 44 missing page number
  • Fn 49 url didn't work for me
  • fn 50 page number and publisher (latter should be agency in italics, I believe) are incorrect, missing place, needs publication-place and via
  • fn 51 author-link is possible; check for others
  • fn 52 link didn't work for me
  • fn 53 missing agency, page number, possibly via (I don't think via is required for books from Google Books, maybe other people could comment for newspapers/clarify)
  • fn 54 missing agency (current work should be agency), place, , the work, page number
  • fn 59, 60 urls didn't work for me
  • fn 61 says the source was the evening version of the newspaper; change work to The Baltimore Evening Sun
  • fn 62 url=access=limited; the title has a typo, also missing the place
  • fn 68 missing agency, place, publication-place, page number
  • fn 72 missing place, via
  • fn 73 missing place, publication-place, agency, page number
  • fn 78 missing place, via
  • fn 79 missing place, via
  • fn 87 format parameter being used for date?
  • Fn 93 agency=The Canadian Press, it is not the Toronto Sun's work.
  • fn 98 missing place
  • Fn 114, uDiscoverMusic, is owned by Universal Music Group, which owns Interscope Records, who Madonna was signed to in 2017 when the article was published. Despite any potential author credentials, I don't think this can be used as there is a clear conflict of interest (it is also used for a quote box).
  • fn 119 url didn't work for me
  • Are there no secondary sources for the tour dates?
  • fn 133, 135 missing via
  • fn 136 HighBeam is via, not the publisher
  • fn 137 url didn't work for me

Why do you consider these sources "high-quality"?

There is a bit of work to do... also this is not a requirement but seeing nothing from ProQuest or Newspapers.com has been consulted, are you still confident the article is "well-researched" per the criteria? There may be more from the time period in those databases that could enhance the article. I haven't done any spot checks yet. Heartfox (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • fn 132 is dead
  • currently the tour dates refs only link to the dates and cities, but not the venues or opening act.
  • fn 73 cites "low ticket sales and a threatened general strike by labour unions", yet only the strike is given in the text... Also how do we know the second performance was to be on July 10?
  • I could not find a June 22 date in fn 136–138
  • the set list refs both show "Live to Tell" and "Oh Father" separately, but they are combined in the article?
  • in the references at the end of Gnowjewski she cites at least two Wikipedia articles (from 2005–2006 at that...) and some Madonna fan sites (among some good stuff, but is something citing a 2005 Wikipedia article high-quality?).
  • "complete control over virtually every aspect of the tour" — the quote ends at "aspect" in the book.
  • fn 9 says the video debuted on March 3 on MTV, but in the article it is the day after February 12?

@FAC coordinators: do you think I should continue? This is the first source review I have ever done. Maybe a peer review where others could help out more casually? I'm not opposed to continuing the review I'm just wondering what the best path forward is. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recusing to comment here. @Heartfox: I think that this is sufficiently far from what one would expect of sourcing for a FAC that the best thing would be for the nominator to work on it off-FAC with a view to resubmitting once it has attracted rather more attention at PR, and possibly a mentor. SandyGeorgia, does anyone spring to mind? Chrishm21, can I suggest that you withdraw this nomination, work through the sources, now that Heartfox has done sterling work in flagging up some of their weaknesses and hopefully given you a clearer idea of what is expected at FAC. It would be helpful if you could attract more detailed advice on the rest of the article via PR - Sandy may be able to help there - and follow the advice at the head of the FAC page "Editors considering their first nomination ... are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." If not, it is possible that my fellow coordinators will consider that it falls under "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks to Heartfox for getting right on the source review, and thanks Gog the Mild for the ping. Chrishm21, there is a lot to be worked on here. I agree the article isn't FAC-ready yet, and the nomination would be best withdrawn. I want to reassure you that you are likely to find the work towards bringing this article to standard to be more relaxing and productive at this stage if you list it at WP:PR and add it to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to attract more reviewers. Finding mentors is harder and harder, as so many reviewers are stretched too thin, and no one mentor in particular comes to mind. But at peer review, there is less pressure, so if you are prepared to be patient, quite a few reviewers will pop in over time and lend a hand, and you end up with, effectively, a team of mentors. When a nomination is difficult, people can be reluctant to engage at FAC because they are then obligated to come back quickly to review and re-review and re-review to strike done commentary and not hold up the FAC. Because that pressure does not exist at PR, and people can offer as much or as little as they have time for, you are likely to attract more reviewers there, and maybe even a mentor. Besides the citation errors and sourcing problems, I would examine also the amount of quoting. My best advice is to clean up as much of the sourcing as you can, and then open a peer review. Hope to see you at PR! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I would go with the above advice and take to PR after addressing the points raised by Heartfox, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2021 (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) 17 March 2021 [18].

Love for Sale (Bilal album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unreleased album by the singer-songwriter Bilal, recorded in the early 2000s at Electric Lady Studios during the height of the studio's Soulquarians era. A darker, experimental departure from the neo soul music of his first album, Love for Sale was resisted by the singer's record label and controversially shelved after an unfinished mix leaked online in 2006, changing the course of his career while becoming a cult classic among black-music fans. This article was recently (and thoroughly) reviewed by Kyle Peake for good-article nomination, making it ready for review here, in my opinion. isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kyle Peake

[edit]

This article looks to be in amazing shape, having only improved if anything since my review that helped improve it to a strong degree! It would be not only incredible, but also deserved of Isento for this article to become a FA. --K. Peake 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

[edit]
Do you have any follow-up comments @Ealdgyth:? isento (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck some above, but the problem with interviews isn't being primary but the reliabilty of the actual interviewer and the site publishing the interview. See User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#New FAC stuff for some helpful advice. I am sensitive to the fact that this isn't an subject area that is going to have big academic tomes written on it, but we do still need to be mindful of the FA criteria as well as the general WP:RS policies. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that reference @Ealdgyth:. I believe I've demonstrated criteria described at your page for most of the above sources, with more commentary added since. But please take me through them, one by one, if more is needed to make a better determination. I don't think any of them fall into the adage "Not everything you read is true", if the question about the interviews is whether they were accurately recorded or not, or if they are even real to begin with. isento (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a few more but the others I'm not persuaded by. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. I would like to continue examining each of the rest further one by one, with additional research, and respond to your reservations. isento (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw in Gearslutz, which is listed in the Bibliography as an "interview" but is in fact a page from an online chat forum. EddieHugh (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is under the site's Expert Q & A section, which fits the definition of an interview. The site is actually reputable, even referenced in various articles at Google Scholar and Google News, and Elevado is a verified contributor, even has recommended it as a source of research for audio recording topics. isento (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elevado's statements are attributed to him as a primary source in the article. He is not used beyond those few sentences. isento (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we're confident that whoever posted on that forum was Russell Elevado? EddieHugh (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He is the only poster with that name there, and he confirms the location of his posting on the site in the Red Bull interview I linked earlier. isento (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. It looks ok for how it has been used in this article. EddieHugh (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. Isento, I would suggest concentrating your efforts on addressing Ealdgyth's concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, I have concentrated my efforts here. I've responded to each of the remaining sources since Ealdgyth's last response prior to responding to you, and have asked for them to go through each source one by one for an adequate explanation of the concern in light of my additional supporting material. But the recent response feels like a hand-wave dismissal. And for them to suggest that AllMusic and Kellman are still a concern -- even though they appear all over Google Scholar, and Kellman in particular has been published in music publications and referenced in music reference books -- is ridiculous. In general, I believe I have demonstrated multiples of what their FAC cheat sheet demands: "news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. ... backed by a media company/university/institute ... the author is a noted expert in their field ... the author is actually a member of the press." Unless I have missed something, in which case it would be appropriate to point it out to me in each concerning source. For an interview published on a site like Warren's, the fact-checking issue pointed out at the cheat sheet isn't relevant if all I'm citing from that interview is Bilal's own words, as a primary source, in but a few sentences in this article. Otherwise, I am not citing any claim from Warren. And most of the other remaining sources listed above are used sparingly or once or twice and in appropriate context in the article. I would recommend a more nuanced approach to adjudging their quality here. isento (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I know that Ealdgyth has been largely out of action for a day or two and snuck that response in as a favour for me. They won't be free for any extensive work until Saturday. So if you think that you have done as much as you can, be patient and we'll see what the verdict is then. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I understand. That is fine. I was not demanding immediate inspection. My reason for messaging you was just the concern for the craziness below. isento (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuh-uh, Gog, not fair enough. The nom's free to disagree with reviewer perspectives, but the post above was rude and inappropriate. I would encourage them to withdraw and apologize for the personal commentary which was out of line before requesting more source reviewer time. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original source reviewer's comments said no spot checks were done and, in regards to some of the remaining sources above, "leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves". I don't know what was supposed to be done with conclusions like that, which is why I suggested a second opinion along with the spot check request. I'm not dignifying the other remarks on my remarks. isento (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Ealdgyth's judgements here have been based more in their own "cheat sheet" than with Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC#High quality. Sometimes they've simply glossed over the material I've collected to support the criteria of even their own "cheat sheet" standards. They have lacked nuance and respect for much further investigation in certain cases, especially in the case of Kellman and AllMusic. I've noted credential upon credential for Kellman to establish his expertise and quality, and here is yet another one: he wrote for Billboard and was cited in a piece for the Smithsonian. Aliya Ewing is also clearly an expert in this field, supported by a publication, etc. If my tone was a bit intense earlier, my apologies - as I said, there was other craziness below here to deal with. And I respect the fact that there are numerous other FAC's needing source reviews. Which is why I put in the time and effort into collecting all that information above, and not for it to be limited to perfunctory responses like this. isento (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ealdgyth has said they would "probably oppose" on this issue. Which makes my defense crucial, especially since WP:FARS says the concept of "high quality" has to be flexibly applied ... particularly in the various fields of sport or popular culture, "high quality" often has to be interpreted as "best available". Look at the credentials and links I've offered above, and you'll see that Kellman, Ewing, and Larrier's The Shadow League are all pretty high quality in this context. isento (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:FARS is not any more "official" than Ealdgyth's page; they are both essays by frequent FAC source reviewers, although the author of FARS is unfortunately now deceased. As I said, you're welcome to disagree with her assessment; my objection was to the way you did so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • As Nikkimaria pointed out, WP:FARS has the same standing as my own essay. I am not bound by either, but I set mine out as a help to nominators. At this point, I'm not persuaded by any of the rest of the sourcing, and will have to relunctantly oppose on sourcing. I'll also note that I have taken account of the fact of the subject matter - we should use the "best available" not "everything we can find". I've indeed struck some (even most) of my initial concerns, but I am still concerned about the rest and thus the oppose. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, you are wrong in suggesting (if you are) that sources like Kellman's Bilal bio and Larrier's piece on him and the album are not among "the best available". I am willing to remove the few citations to Warren, since it is repeating detail of more reliably-sourced content and not essential. But I cannot remove Kellman and Larrier, or Ewing, especially since they are undoubtedly reliable. And you have not explicated your doubts at any point on each. Which is disappointing in a reviewer here and justifies my ask for a second opinion. isento (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to revisit - I acknowledge that there are only a few spots of disagreement, but I stand by my oppose - I do not think the remaining contentious sources meet the high quality criteria as set forth in the FAC criteria. And I do not feel that I've been unwilling to be persuaded - there are a number of sources that I questioned that I've been persuaded that do meet the criteria given the subject area. Please don't badger me about this - I have my opinion, I've set it forth, and it's for other reveiwers and the coords to decide if it's valid or not. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were not asked to revisit this. You were asked if you have any further remarks to give, considering you told me a few weeks ago that you'd "reply more in depth". And you still haven't. I am sorry if you consider holding you to your word an attempt to "badger" you. isento (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to revisit, as a coordinator. For whatever reason, Ealdgyth seems to have been generous with what they have accepted as high quality. The areas on which they are opposing seem well founded. Until and unless they are resolved I do not see this article being promoted, on this or any future nomination. I would note in passing that I very much doubt that any future nomination would find as forgiving a source reviewer as this one has. I am also "restarting the clock" for archiving as noted in the coordinator comment below. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You volunteered revisiting. I didn't ask you to begin with. I doubt a source reviewer would come around next time to be as foolish as to question the quality and reliability of AllMusic or Andy Kellman. To quote another reviewer below, WP:RSP is clear: 'There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with attribution.' ... WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and saying it is unreliable because it is hosted by a yellow website is merely an incorrect opinion on the subject and not an objective assessment of the writer." I don't want mysterious forgiveness; I want engagement with the material so I can trust some thought went into the assessment. As of now, I don't trust much did from either of you. You want to dismiss this merely as frustration, that will be another incorrect opinion. isento (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT biscuit

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:DMT biscuit

In conclusion, a very good article that needs a little tinkering and further detail. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review and the positive feedback, @DMT biscuit:. I've responded above to your points. isento (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the support @DMT biscuit:. But, in the process of investigating some of your concerns, I wandered upon a few sources that led me to expand the article a bit here. Can you assess these changes or confirm your support in light of this addition? isento (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. From what I can see the only new inclusion is the inside pulse source. From the examination of it, I do conclude that it is not a reliable source. The writer does not seem to be well-versed in high-quality sources—mentioning that his previous occupation was for 411Mania. It also lacks an about us page making it impossible to verify the structure and professionalism, present. If removed my stance will be the same.
While this discussion is happening I noticed that the userscript User:Headbomb/unreliable has identified two sources as unreliable: The Moptop Maven and the CHRY 105.5 FM Music Department. I assumed these would be hashed out in the source review but it seems not. The Maven particularly seems unreliable it's just the personal blog of one person, who makes no claims of expertise, a la Robert Christgau. This is the same vein of Anthony Fantano who despite being the most popular music critic is not allowed to be cited due to his reviews being self-published. I would recommend this being removed. The second source i am more likely to let slide provide you give sufficient reasoning. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Maven and CHRY sources, along with the accompanying text. As for Inside Pulse, the site does appear reliable enough to be included by Google News and is verified by Muckrack, which profiles John Babos, the editor-in-chief, among others. While primarily a comics journalist, Erhardt also wrote columns for Inside Pulse's music webzine Moodspins and TV section Primetimepulse. His review text adds good detail to the paragraph on lyrics in Music and lyrics, and to the paragraph on the album's online acclaim, particularly as an example of the extent to which the leak's popularity crossed over. (Note: 411 Mania is also Google-News approved and Muckrack verified). isento (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's sufficient reasoning. My verdict still stands. DMT biscuit (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vmavanti

[edit]

This person isn't a jazz musician. My guess is R&B, not jazz. I request that references to jazz be removed unless reliable sources proving he is a jazz musician can be found. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this article, or even the singer's? There are reliable sources attributed to those references to jazz. And nothing refers to him outright as a "jazz musician". isento (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic calls him a jazz vocalist ([47]), as do numerous other reliable sources out there. isento (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a jazz and soul singer" ([48] Jesse Thorn, NPR)
  • "much of [Love for Sale is] based around his signature sound as a trained jazz vocalist" ([49] Jonathan Cunningham, Detroit Metro Times)
  • "soul, jazz and R&B impresario ... catapult[ed] himself into the holy ranks of jazz and soul crossover vocalists" ([50] Eric Tullis, Indy Week)
  • "his performances usually extend beyond jazz and even soul" ([51] Peter Margasak, Chicago Reader)
  • "The album showcased Bilal as more than just a neo soul singer, with forays into jazz and blues" (The Urban Daily)

isento (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"based around his signature sound as a jazz vocalist". Does this mean anything? What is his signature sound? If he is a jazz vocalist, then is this a jazz album?
"holy ranks of jazz and soul crossover vocalists". Holy? Cat out of bag. Does this mean "jazz crossover" and "soul crossover". Neither genre exists. Bow down to ambiguity.
"more than just a neo soul singer" Why neo-soul instead of soul, and what's wrong with being either one? Why "just"? What's elevated about jazz? It came out of the brothels of New Orleans. "his performances usually extend beyond jazz and even soul" Does performances refer to concerts or albums or this unreleased album or none of the above? And "beyond jazz and even soul" means what? "Forays into jazz and blues" What does this mean? I would like to see some specifics. Where do these forays occur? Does a foray into anything mean one can steal it the title and claim it as one's own? If I played basketball as a kid, does that make me a basketball player for life? Or does it have a clear definition? I'm supposed to accept these mushy-headed statements as reliable sources regarding facts? That's wishful thinking, an article of faith. The will and desire to make something true although it really isn't.
Vmavanti (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the sentence reads "One of a kind R&B/jazz vocalist". There's our friend the slash again, celebrating ambiguity. I don't know what the write means by "R&B/jazz vocalist" given that those two genre, properly understood, have little to do with each other. Elsewhere on that linked page he is labeled "R&B" under Genre and under "Styles": Alternative R&B, Contemporary R&B, Neo-soul, and Adult Contemporary R&B. The infobox for this article calls the album "jazz fusion", a genre that combines rock with jazz. So that adds another genre to the debate: rock. I didn't know this guy is also being called a rock musician. Maybe he is so profound he can do everything, or at least that's the impression sent by this article.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit summary you called my comment "misguided". I would like to hear you defend that accusation in specific detail. The infobox says "jazz". I would like to see that removed. He isn't a jazz musician and this isn't a jazz album. If you put "jazz" in the infobox, you are saying this is a jazz album. It isn't. It's an unreleased R&B album by an R&B musician. This is a typical Wikipedia article where a fan tries to elevate something insignificant merely by insisting it is significant. It's a mistake to love protocol more than common sense. "On occasional trips to the city's jazz clubs with his father, he witnessed the working habits and lifestyles of musicians, which inspired him to pursue music seriously." What habits? What "lifestyles"? What does "language" refer to in "music theory and language". What does "connecting with" mean? That's slang. "Buzz" is a slang term that has no place in Wikipedia. Why is it a contract "from" Interscope rather than contract "with" Interscope? Was it a gift from them? Or was it a deal, an exchange? Why use "tenure" in "tenure at Interscope"? How did they "pressure" him? "I was trying to come from a jazz perspective." What does this mean? "Expand his fanbase" is slang. Why neo-soul rather than soul? Is this album soul, neo-soul, R&B, or jazz? It can't be all of them. Choose. And that's merely sentences after talking about his "alternative-rock style demos". Where they alternative rock demos? And how is that different from alternative rock "style" demos. I could go on.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a considerable influence/merging between/on hip hop/r&b from jazz and vice versa in the last decade. Bilal's contributions to the seminal jazz album To Pimp a Butterfly and his work with Robert Glasper certainly underline this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's telling that in your attempt to explain you fall back on slashes and vague references to imaginary, hybrid forms of music that lack names or definition. One of the jobs of an editor is to replace ambiguity with clarity. It's your opinion that To Pimp a Butterfly is a "seminal jazz album". We don't deal in opinion on Wikipedia. We deal in boring facts. If you are interested in opinions, movements, causes, idealism, romanticism, and boosterism, you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. This isn't a jazz album. It's dishonest to hint/suggest/imply that it may be/might be/could be/influenced by/wants to be/smells like/was in the same room as...jazz.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we write about art on Wikipedia, the only 'facts' we can cite are other peoples opinions. Wikipedia is inherently an idealistic project. "Imagine a world where the sum etc...". Every time someone says of an album 'that's not jazz', that when the next musical revolution begins. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"When we write about art on Wikipedia" — You're not writing about art. You are writing about R&B music. Artists uses paint brushes. "the only 'facts' we can cite are other peoples opinions"— Wrong. I don't know where you got that idea but you should drop it. Wikipedia is not in the opinion business. Facts differ from opinions. Facts actually exist and thus don't need limp quotation marks around them suggesting that they do not. You should be writing facts, not quoting opinions, no matter what the subject of the article. "Wikipedia is inherently an idealistic project" — To the degree that Wikipedia continues to exist as a reference work, an impartial encyclopedia, this comment is wrong. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's not the place to inject your opinions or your feelings about life. "Every time someone says of an album 'that's not jazz', that when the next musical revolution begins"— This is another arbitrary, frivolous remark that really doesn't mean much of anything. It's irrelevant to this article and irrelevant to Wikipedia. Let's not make virtues of ambiguity, ignorance, confusion, hope, and wishful thinking.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- I was pinged on my talk page to look at this discussion. There seems to be a lot of focus on whether the artist is considered a jazz musician or not. That's a concern for the artist's article, not for this article. The focus here should be what reliable sources say about the album. If reliable sources consider the album jazz, or to have jazz elements, then noting this would be reasonable. I can't see why someone not considered primarily a jazz musician couldn't create an album with jazz elements, and if the sources support that contention then so be it. The point is that the article should reflect the sources without undue weight being applied, IOW if the term jazz keeps coming up in the sources, I'd expect to see the term prominent in the WP article. If the term is less prominent in the sources then one would expect it to be less prominent in the article. Our opinions as WP editors on an album's genre or styles matters not a bit, what RSs say does. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's possible for someone who isn't a jazz musician to make a jazz album. It's possible. But I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Linda Ronstadt's albums weren't jazz. Steve Miller? Almost. Rod Stewart? Uh, no. Jay Geils pulled it off. There's a difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug". There's a difference between "jazz" and "jazz influenced". I have seen the latter many times. Usually it means puffery, promotion, and pretense—particularly if the musician in question is approaching the end of life or looking for work. I'm not here to sell albums. I'm not here to sink albums.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genre field in the infobox "should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album. It should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article" (Template:Infobox album#genre). I don't see a source cited that clearly states 'this is an X album', for "jazz fusion", "blues rock" or "avant-garde" (is this really a genre?), and I haven't looked for the others. I see "inflections", "closer to", "arrangements drawn from", "perspective", "directions of"... even the "progressive jazz" line is "began displaying Bilal's love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock" in the source. There's an impressive array of sources, and they're saying, overall, that this is something unusual, original, influenced by lots of things, and that it's not of a particular genre (or genres)... which suggests that the infobox shouldn't contain these things. EddieHugh (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depriving this article's infobox of genres because sources opt for nuanced descriptions of the music, as opposed to rigid, singular designations phrased in explicit and simple enough terms for you (like "this is a jazz album"), is a bit short-sighted and denies readers any impression of what this music is like. The kind of standard you are expecting for editorial discretion here is usually reserved for cases where there are too many genres to pick from sources, or when there is a controversy among sources explicitly disagreeing on genre. Not only does that quote you cited ("love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock") support those particular genres, but the other details cited in the article -- radical and unorthodox rhythms, free-form composition, experimental song structures -- add credence to the fusion and avant-garde designations, as merely soul or funk -- traditionally simple three-minute songs of popular music -- would not capture adequately what this music is, according to what's been cited in the article. isento (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I don't agree with your interpretation of the genre guideline as demanding a source categorize the album rigidly or singularly. And in this particular case, I don't think following such an approach would improve the article, even if it were a rule. isento (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't "demanding a source categorize the album rigidly or singularly". I was saying, quoting Infobox album#genre, that, for any genre specified in the infobox, cited sources should state what genre(s) a recording is part of. I also gave a summary of what the sources are actually saying, which isn't 'this is a [genre] album'. A solution I've used in these circumstances is to leave the genre field blank and let the reader... read the article (the first two paragraphs contain everything). (On the specific point, "began displaying Bilal's love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock" doesn't say that those genres were major parts of this album.) EddieHugh (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A love affair, figuratively speaking, is defined as an intense interest or passion in something, which in my opinion makes a strong enough case to note it, along with the other discussion of jazz, fusion, and related characteristics in the article... There is actually one source that defines the music on the kind of explicit terms you're touching on, and it's Hart in Aftermath and legacy, in reference to soul. But that wouldn't do the whole of the music summary justice, to merely include that one genre in the infobox. Again, the guideline does not say to note the "major parts," because that would be a one-size-fits-all policy that would neglect the fact that album articles are not a monolith. isento (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly...figurative. That's what makes it a bullshit statement in a bullshit article. We deal in literal here, not the cloudland of figurative. On Earth, people have love affairs with people. You literally can't have a love affair with an abstraction. That kind of flowery, excessive language is what makes music articles inferior to other articles on Wikipedia. Frankly, it makes all of us look bad.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"sources opt for nuanced descriptions of the music, as opposed to rigid, singular designations phrased in explicit and simple enough terms for you (like "this is a jazz album")"—Hold on there, sport. These insults need to be refuted with facts. The first job I had when I was a teenager, long ago, was as a jazz disc jockey. EddieHugh plays piano and I played guitar in college. We both have shelves full of books about jazz. We have many years of experience editing jazz articles. Eddie is a skilled collector. Sure, these facts don't indicate we're right all time. But it does mean we deserve better treatment than repeatedly being dismissed as rigid and simple-minded. What you called "nuanced" is really an attempt to make a virtue of ambiguity and ignorance. There may be some naivete about how musicians, advertisers, and writers of articles find ways to promote topics without actually saying much about them. Sometimes people who don't know what they are doing fall back on generalizations and ambiguity, while those who deal in facts and specific arguments are dismissed as rigid, simple minded rule-mongers. Consequently, I'm not surprised that you fall back on "ignore all rules". If want nuance, how about this? There certainly is a difference between topics like jazz which involve a degree of subjectivity and interpretation. But that's different from believing, "It's all so subjective and relative that it's hopeless to figure out, so I'm going to do and say whatever I damn well please." Eddie and I deal with these subjects all the time, maybe every day. We talk about them and give them a lot of thought. What's the difference between avant-garde jazz and free jazz? What is "avant-music"? What is "avant" Anything weird? Anything an untalented person wants it to be? What is experimental music? What is progressive jazz? What is progressive rock? We have literally spent years talking about these subjects on Wikipedia. I'm going to repeat this because it is a masterpiece of brevity, precision, and accuracy:
The genre field in the infobox "should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album. It should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article" (Template:Infobox album#genre). I don't see a source cited that clearly states 'this is an X album', for "jazz fusion", "blues rock" or "avant-garde" (is this really a genre?), and I haven't looked for the others. I see "inflections", "closer to", "arrangements drawn from", "perspective", "directions of"... even the "progressive jazz" line is "began displaying Bilal's love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock" in the source.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic classifies this person as R&B. What's wrong with R&B? I heard a lot of great R&B in the 1970s. What's wrong with being an R&B singer? Or being called an R&B singer? Obviously something, or people wouldn't feel the need to "elevate" it. There's nothing elevated about jazz or any other genre of music. And it's music, by the way, not art. If you want art, go to art school. AllMusic doesn't even have an article about this album. Maybe because it was never released. So for most people it doesn't exist. Are we retreating into Harry Potter fantasyland now? Why is there an article about an album that was never released? Because a handful of people out of a world of 7.5 billion want to promote it? That's not a good enough reason.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Blue Note image is missing alt text
  • File:Love_for_Sale_-_Bilal.jpg: not convinced this is sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection - it's not really "cover art" so much as a default press design, if I understand correctly? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, I've added the alt text. Yes, it is a default press design. I inquired about this topic in August at the albums project talk page and was advised this was the best option. What course of action should be done if it doesn't warrant copyright protection? isento (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the one response you got was more with regards to selecting which cover design to include rather than what tagging to use?
If it doesn't warrant copyright protection the tagging will need to be changed to reflect that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this subject. But hopefully this suffices. isento (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested that the original file here be deleted so that the Commons version of the same name can be used here. isento (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the new file and tagging @Nikkimaria:. isento (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
  • Not sure what you mean by "independent direction" from "a more raw and independent direction"
  • "dark, experimental nature" → "dark and experimental nature"
  • If the songs are available online, then doesn't that count as being released in some capacity?
    • The leaked songs -- which were an unfinished mix -- are available online, unofficially. The body of sources on this album tend to call it unreleased, which officially it is. So I think this distinction is appropriate for the purposes of this article. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hit" from "R&B chart hit" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
  • Perhaps "The label acquiesced in giving him" could be "The label reluctantly gave him", since I'm pretty sure readers will more easily be able to understand this form over what's currently used
  • File:Bilal - Something to Hold on To.ogg appears to comply with WP:SAMPLE
  • "he tells The Root" should be in past tense
  • Same goes for "Bilal cites this compounding conflict" as well as "recounts Larrier", and maybe "called" or "deemed" would be better terms to use for the former
  • The use of "iconic" in "an iconic reputation" feels like puffery
  • Whether fans consider this his best work seems rather minor compared to what critics think
    • The album's cult following is a dominant theme up to this point, including its success with new fans. And fans and critics, particularly those cited following the sentence, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "ahead of his time" bit just comes off as a vague form of praise (or it at is least one I could never really decipher beyond being a sign that somebody likes the person/thing described). Try saying something more specific, or just scratch it entirely.
  • Don't italicize "The Moptop Maven.com" (and remove its ".com"), "WRVU.org" (which should just read WRVU), "CHRY 105.5 FM Music Department", or "Red Bull Music Academy Daily"
    • The published titles of those first two include the domain name (.com and .org), and the other two are also websites with original content posted or published in the manner of a periodical, i.e. at regular intervals. Per MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, they should be italicized. Another note at that guideline is "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bibliography" is discouraged as an ambiguous section title per MOS:BIB
    • Per MOS:REFERENCES, that title may be confusing in a particular context, specifically when the article is a biography: "'Bibliography' may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography". This is not the case here. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even as an EL, I'm not convinced it's appropriate to list Discogs or WhoSampled when both are full of user-generated content
    • User-generated content is unacceptable as a source (WP:USERG). I've removed Discogs since it doesn't appear to have anything useful or beyond what's already here. But I still believe WhoSampled offers aid in the spirit of WP:ELMAYBE -- it features media that confirms reliably-sourced observations in this article about instances and elements of sampling among some of the songs. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have to say. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @SNUGGUMS:. I've made some changes and responded with rationales in defense of other content. isento (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I support following article improvments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

[edit]
  • Honestly, the article looks great to me as it is. There's nothing I can say that would be repeating what's above. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks :) isento (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In light of the mess above, I would like to ask how do you feel about the current list of genres in the infobox @Zmbro:. isento (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isento I actually had a similar issue for Bowie's Blackstar in which a user pointed out that Bowie was never a jazz musician despite the infobox having jazz as a genre. It really doesn't matter if Bowie or Bilal weren't "jazz musicians" per say. Hell, Neil Peart of the rock band Rush (rest in peace) experimented with jazz styles in the 1990s despite him having a primarily progressive rock background; again, this doesn't mean he was a "jazz drummer". Anyways, if multiple sources describe Love for Sale as having elements of jazz then it's perfectly fine to have it in the infobox. Just because a genre is in the infobox of an album doesn't mean the artist themselves were musicians of that genre. – zmbro (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It matters to people with integrity who know how to use words properly and whose first interest is the reader. It matters because words matter. And if it's not a big deal, then why not remove it? Why fight it so hard? Therefore it must be a big deal, right? I don't know how many times I have to say this: "elements of jazz" is not identical to jazz, and it's such a vague statement as to be meaningless. What specifically does it mean? Just like "forays into jazz". It allows the writer to sound elevated while saying nothing, a common tactic in music journalism. Puffery, in other words. And since when does one person's feelings determine the quality of an article? Are we done with facts?
Vmavanti (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[edit]

Sandy is going to kill me for the header, but anyway. Took a spotcheck of 20 sources:

Regarding the interviews and user-generated posts Ealdgyth questioned, I am inclined to say that if we can assure that the interview/post a) wasn't altered from the original and b) it actuall comes from Bilal, they can get a pass. I don't know about the others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, thank you. isento (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that particularly in the various fields of sport or popular culture, "high quality" often has to be interpreted as "best available". (WP:FARS). The non-interview sources -- AllMusic's Kellman, Larrier's The Shadow League -- I have shown multiples of the criteria laid out at Ealdgyth's cheat sheet, including expertise in the field, press membership, and publication backing -- I just found Kellman cited in a piece for the Smithsonian to boot. You can scroll above to the bullet point(s) for each of those sources and see for yourself, as this page has become too sprawling for me to repeat more than is needed. But WP:FARS recommends a more flexible approach to adjudging quality here. isento (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts, feedback @Jo-Jo Eumerus:? Same worries here as expressed below. isento (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Along with Kellman's professional experience, another indication of his reliability is how the Philadelphia Weekly source echoes Kellman's bio, which is cited to support in this article that Bilal developed an interest in singing while growing up in Germantown and sang in the choir at the behest of his Baptist mother. The Weekly source says exactly that as well. isento (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Shadow League article echoes high-quality source claims as well, including the shelving, leak, and touring claims ([52] Swan in East Bay Express, [53] Gray in WBUR, [54] Cunningham in Detroit Metro Times... several other profiles cited in this article). isento (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable enough with the other sources to comment on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the nearly 200 shortened footnotes in the article, the remaining sources questioned above make up around 20 of those. Even if they are not high-quality, as still-reliable sources comprising a minority of sourcing, would that really prevent this article from passing a source review? isento (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe

[edit]

Please take the quoteboxes out. I think it disrupts the flow and gives too much weight to these short quotes, which would be better integrated into the text. (t · c) buidhe 10:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed two of the quoteboxes, about his live performance and about his newfound artistry in the album's aftermath. But I kept the "Love for Free" quote in the section about the leak. As I reasoned to DMT biscuit in the earlier review above: It is illustrative of a few major points throughout the article going forward, including the fact of its indefinite shelving and the crucial irony noted by multiple sources, among them Bilal himself. Quotes "may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" (MOS:QUOTE), and I believe this one does so succinctly. And on further reflection, as far as flow, I believe it segues nicely from the events amid the delay and into the paragraphs about the leak. isento (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the box is pretty small and the content is on-topic with the theme of the section. I understand how the other boxes may have been distraction or conflicted with the flow of the text. But this case acts as a clever conceit, as well as a culmination of the aforementioned delays and failed release expectation. Without it, I feel that moving from the idea of its promo vinyl being manufactured (at the end of the preceding paragraph) to the preliminary mix leaking on the Internet (the beginning of the next paragraph) may feel a bit abrupt to readers. isento (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither a weight or POV issue. His quote is stating a fact, just in a clever turn of phrase. isento (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback @Buidhe:? I worry this nomination is running out of time and patience among the delegates. isento (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the quotebox still sandwiches with an image contrary to MOS but it also gives too much prominence to this one quote. I would integrate it into the text somewhere. (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it a block quote, which the template page says is ideal for short quotes. WP:WEIGHT regards viewpoints. This is hardly a viewpoint, apart from his attitude in conveying a simple yet crucial fact (crucial to the article). isento (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tbhotch

[edit]
  • The recurring theme in the section is the album remaining in "online purgatory", being "notoriously bootlegged", Bilal's adaptation (including to the phenomenon of leaks and the digital piracy era). The image is illustrative of the album's status and existence, both in those years and currently (to my knowledge, it is only available as a torrent file or as individual user-made clips on YouTube). isento (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the general reader may not have an understanding or a visualization of album piracy (and its common method). There are several articles where that image may also be relevant: BitTorrent tracker, peer-to-peer, music piracy. But there would be less pertinence to the text of those articles, since they do not discuss this album. isento (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following words are being highlighted by Grammarly. As an automatic tool, they are not necessarily incorrect, but they should be checked:
  • "and black sunglasses playing a piano (it suggests "the piano").
  • "neo soul categorizations" ("neo-soul")
  • "He did not want to labeled as" ("label")
  • "this point become a homebase" ("home base")
  • "in contemporary neo soul" ("neo-soul")
  • "In mid 2005" (mid-2005)
  • "Love for Sale in the seven months since its leak, while noting" (suggests to remove the comma)
  • "A black man dressed in black t-shirt" ("a black")
  • "17th century literature" (17th-century literature)
  • "his vocal delivery changed by a shooting to the face"
  • "it showcased an experimentation outside" (an)
  • "crucial to honestly appraising the singer's career" ("apprise")
  • I have to say that, unlike the assessment performed by various users above, this source is reliable. WP:RSP is clear: "There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with attribution." A reliable publisher won't become unreliable solely because they write in questionable websites (like Martin Meredith writing an article for The Sun), and unreliable publishers won't become reliable solely because they write in acceptable websites (like Perez Hilton writing an article for The New York Times). WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and saying it is unreliable because it is hosted by a yellow website is merely an incorrect opinion on the subject and not an objective assessment of the writer. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy-edited to address the above concerns, added a subtitle file to the audio sample, and left responses to a few leftover points. And thank you very much for that take on the earlier sourcing issue. isento (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

isento, currently this nomination is failing its source review. I cannot see that any action has been taken to address the concerns which were confirmed more than two weeks ago. Unless they are addressed in the next two days this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting my energy arguing with you people anymore. The original source reviewer backed out of his word to offer more in depth replies, another a few sections above us felt uncomfortable addressing it after I asked for a second opinion, the other reviewer right above us confirmed the lack of objectivity in the original reviewer's assessment of a certain source... I had to deal with the insult of you guys mentioning my nom in connection with "quid pro quo" supports and "serious" sourcing concerns at the FAC talk page... and now this from you. Do what you want. I'll just renominate in a few weeks. Hopefully I'll get a different source reviewer who won't fail the whole of the sourcing over a handful of sources they erroneously deem of questionable quality and are too obtuse to engage in thoughtful dialogue over it. I knew this would happen. No one took it seriously when I brought it up as an issue. I even apologized for being too intense at the expense of politisse. Pfft. Why should I care at this point? Just archive it now so I can get closer to the renominate date. isento (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2021 (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 March 2021 [55].

Airbus A300

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bredyhopi (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Airbus A300, it is important to aviation history, it was the first twinjet ever to be ETOPS certified and changed the aviation market forever since. It had a tough battle against the trijets, the DC/MD 10/MD 11. Bredyhopi (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (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) 15 March 2021 [56].

Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an indie horror video game that became immensely popular after appearing in numerous popular Let's Play YouTube videos. It led to the launch of a very successful media franchise, which now includes several video games and books, with a film adaptation currently in development. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • What makes Cliqist a high-quality reliable source? Softpedia? Engadget? Armed Gamer? kotaku? Clickteam? Destructoid? WMPoweruser? ComicBook.com? Think Gaming? ScreenRant? Escapist? Player.One? Christian Post? International Business Times?
  • I've removed Cliqist, Armed Gamer, WMPowerUser, Player.One, Escapist, Softpedia, Screen Rant, International Business Times and Christian Post as sources. Kotaku, Engadget, Destructoid and ComicBook.com are all used as sources in current video game featured articles (see Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario Galaxy). I would also say Clickteam is an acceptable source as per the above user's reasoning. As for the Think Gaming source, I cannot find any other source with information about sale numbers for the game. The source seems okay, but I can't prove it to be a high quality source. Do I need to remove that part of the Sales section altogether? GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being used in other articles or being an interview are not in themselves sufficient rationales; see this page for some pointers on rationale. If you can't find alternative sourcing or a reason why that one should be considered high quality, then yes you may need to remove material cited to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engadget is owned by AOL and is written by a team of 45 editors (many with quite a few years of experience- see their about page). It was listed as one of the best blogs of 2010 by Time Magazine and has won two Webby awards.
  • The Clickteam website is the official website for the company behind the game development software Scott Cawthon used to create Five Nights at Freddy's, is this not enough to show its reliability?
  • I'll remove Destructoid and Think Gaming as sources, as I can't find any indication of their reliability. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you deciding when to include publisher?
  • FN7 is missing date
  • FN22 author is listed incorrectly
  • FN26 is missing author
  • Forbes was added to replace one of the sources listed above - what makes this a high-quality reliable source? See entry at WP:RSP
  • Betsy Brey or Brey Betsy? And this is a book so should include a publisher

Image review

[edit]

Media assessment is complete. I might come back later with other comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss

[edit]
  • I am so glad you nominated this article for FA. Fnaf was a HUGE part of my childhood. I remember when I made videos of myself playing the game and uploading them to YouTube. Ah, good times. I'm getting off track. The article looks great; just some minor comments. Idk about the Toy News. Is that reliable? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from HumanxAnthro

[edit]
  • The first sentence in the lead does not meet WP:VG/GENRE "Five Nights at Freddy's is an indie point-and-click survival horror video game.":
    • (1) There are more than two genres stated.
    • (2) Indie is not a genre... I'm talking to you, too, music and film industry
    • (3) The inclusion of "point-and-click" as a genre contradicts what is said in the gameplay section. "Five Nights at Freddy's is a survival horror video game with point-and-click elements." Having elements of a genre doesn't make it of that genre.
  • Can I just say I'm skeptical of any source that's written by students at a college?.... Specifically, LiveWire
  • I'm also having skepticism about IndieGameMag. It says it's published by "IGM Media," a company I can't find anywhere else; additionally, there are infrequent news pieces, it hasn't been active or announced anything (even discontinuation) since July 2020, and the layout is lame and unprofessional (there's only a short "about" section that establishes little about its editorial standards, plus a porn games section that's in the open for anyone to click on with zero barrier). Also, all of the "news pieces" are credited either to "indiegamingmag" or "Ryan Brown." Totally not self-published, amirite? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2019, ports were released for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.[23]" No specific release dates for these, even though they're stated in the infobox?
  • Although, why is the Steam date not in the infobox?
  • The Reception section is non-engaging to read and has three major problems
  • There is no representation from academic or scholarly literature about this game. Took me a simple Google Scholar to find tons of it.

While I haven't read the whole article in depth, the incompleteness and reception section of this article is the hammer that strikes an Oppose for me. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • Almost every sentence from the second paragraph of "Gameplay" begins with "the", which feels monotonous.
  • "notably" from "most notably the two hallways" is inapporpriate WP:POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • "restaurant’s main animatronic" → "restaurant's main animatronic" per MOS:CURLY
  • Is it known when development concluded, or even when that first began?
  • Five reviews in "Reception" isn't nearly enough for a highly famous and popular game like this. You should aim for at least twice as many.
  • You mention FNAF "was the top-selling game on Desura for the week ending August 18, 2014", so how many copies did it sell?

Unfortunately, I must oppose, mainly because reception really needs to be expanded. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This is four weeks in and only has one support. If you are aware of any experienced reviewers who may be prepared to look at this, can I encourage you to approach them. Lacking a detailed review or two in the next four or five days, I am afraid that this is likely to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly not currently a consensus to promote. I would suggest working on it off-FAC, possibly with support from the opposers. There will be the usual two-week wait before another nomination can be made.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 March 2021 [57].

Joel S. Levine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Yitz (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a NASA research scientist who contributed significantly to a number of important spaceflight and national security-related projects, and seems in general to have been involved in a large number of interesting events. I've been trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of NASA scientists, and hope that this article can reach a point where it can be used as an example for future articles. Yitz (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Will do in a few hours. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 07:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref numbers from this revision.

  • What is ref 1 supporting? I was going to ask if Digital Trends was a high-quality RS, but that cite itself seems to be unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE.
  • Ref 2 has the wrong title
  • this RS/N discussion does not lend me with confidence that Popular Mechanics passes the higher threshold of high-quality RS
  • Be consistent between using NASA as a publisher or using www.nasa.gov as a website; I recommend the former.
  • The h-index and Google scholar stuff are only in the lead. The lead should not contain information only found in there.
  • Most of the citations use websites, not publishers. I'd recommend using publishers, rather than websites.
  • What is Flat Hat News and what makes it high-quality RS?
  • Ref 22 lacks a publisher
  • Ref 26 lacks a publishing location
  • What is SpaceNews, and is it high-quality RS?
  • The masters thesis probably fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
  • Ref 33 has neither a publisher nor a website.
  • What is SpaceFlightNow and is it high-quality RS?
  • EEtimes looks like it's okay, although I'm not familiar with it.
  • Ref 38, Research Gate is probably not the right publisher. Since you're citing the paper itself, you should use the publisher as wherever it was first published.
  • What makes ScienceDaily a high-quality RS?
  • Mashable appears to be a blog, probably not high-quality RS
  • You won't want to cite Studylib.net as the publisher. The publisher should be the journal or magazine the relevant article was published in.
  • And we cite Flat Hat News again, so same question about that source as above.
  • What is Spaceref.com?
  • What is alertnet.org and is it high-quality RS?
  • He's in Category:Jewish scientists, but that isn't verified in the article anywhere.
  • At least one of the external links is used as a reference, so no need to have it as an external link.
  • The source formatting does not follow a consistent style. Some use websites instead of publishers and some the other way around; some do not include publishers; etc.
  • "“We did that for six years,” Levine said. “I was the lecturer and she was the director. I spoke for 45 minutes and then we had questions transmitted back to us in the NASA studio live … and when we ran out of our 60 minutes, they would email them, and sometimes I would spend a day the next day answering questions.”" - Can we get an inline citation for this direct quote?
  • "However, NASA ultimately decided to select the Phoenix stationary lander, designed by the University of Arizona, for the first $400 million Mars Scout Mission." - [citation needed]

Once all this gets sorted out, I will conduct spot checks. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments - almost a full two-thirds of the information in the lead is only found in the lead.

"In 2004, she and Joel developed a series of interactive television programs through NASA and the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE) to talk about topics in space science once a month [...] addition to reaching out to black students in elementary schools, the Levines also worked with Native Americans living on reservations, developing a summer program for young Native-American students interested in space and science through the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES)" is essentially identical to the source.

"NASA engineers designed the escape capsule over the next week, and it was built by the Chilean Navy" is very close paraphrasing of the Virginia Gazette source.

"The first test attempt was halted after a helicopter crashed just after the fire was ignited. According to The New York Times, the cable from the helicopter snagged on one of the few telephone wires within the 1,000-square-mile San Dimas Experimental Forest, and the helicopter then lost control and crashed. As scores of firefighters reportedly looked on, the helicopter toppled over a ridge and rolled down a 45 degree slope, becoming completely destroyed in the process. The pilot, who was not identified, crawled out and walked away, uninjured" - Is rather close paraphrasing of the NYT source.

" A U-2 plane, flying in a 10-mile loop above the smoke at an altitude of about 65,000 feet, carried a thermal scanner that sent pictures to a receiver at the test site, which measured the fire's intensity and the volume of particulate matter released." - Is also very close paraphrasing

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose for now due to the close paraphrasing concerns. It's going to be a lot easier and more effective to sort out that and the reference quality questions outside of FAC. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, I've been working on your critique, and while I do agree there is a lot to clean up (I was under the mistaken impression that the WP:GAN process was equivalent to peer review, and I was clearly mistaken in that regard), I think I should actually be able to work through all of your concerns within two days or so. Would it be okay with you if the FAC remains up for then, if I can work through the issues you've brought up with minimal hassle? Yitz (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm fine with that. Striking my oppose, as the issues are going to be addressed. As an aside, GA and FA have very different standards. For a rather drastic example, this is what my first FA looked like when in passed GA, and when it passed FA, it looked like this. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments by Spicy

[edit]

I have just skimmed the article, but I've noticed some very basic MOS issues - for example we generally don't use honorifics such as as "Dr." (see MOS:DOCTOR), include the names of a subject's non-notable children (WP:BLPNAME), or use contractions ("it still wasn’t able to fill")... Articles that are linked in the main text should not be included in the "See also" section, per MOS:SEEALSO (and it's unusual for featured articles to have a "See also" section as they are meant to be comprehensive). I also have reservations about the Earwig results - while quite a lot of this consists of proper nouns, list of publications and other things that are not copyrightable, there are some passages that are nearly identical to the source and have considerable creative content. Spicy (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First pass at corrections

[edit]

Hog Farm I just finished working through your list of potential issues, and I think I got to everything you mentioned (though it's totally possible I may have missed something, of course). I think I addressed Spicy's issues as well. There were a few things you mentioned where some communication is needed, so here you go (sorry if the formatting is a bit wonky btw):

  • What is ref 1 supporting? I was going to ask if Digital Trends was a high-quality RS, but that cite itself seems to be unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE.
Removed unnecessary reference as per your advice
  • this RS/N discussion does not lend me with confidence that Popular Mechanics passes the higher threshold of high-quality RS
Replaced with better source
  • Be consistent between using NASA as a publisher or using www.nasa.gov as a website; I recommend the former.
Based on conversation with some senior editors on Discord, this may not be correct advice, as “website ends up in the metadata and fundamentally you're citing the work, not the publisher.” That being said, I tried to make everything consistent, so we're probably good here (though it should also be noted that metadata isn't my area of specialty, so it's worth looking over it to be sure).
Never heard the metadata thing and I've got 5 FAs and over 60 GAs, where I've often been asked to use publishers. So if someone comes along to this FAC and starts talking about how using the website parameter is needed, then feel free to ignore my advice here, but I've never heard of the metadata being significant or used for anything now. Are we data mining wikipedia now?
  • Most of the citations use websites, not publishers. I'd recommend using publishers, rather than websites.
See above
  • What is Flat Hat News and what makes it high-quality RS?
Reading through The Flat Hat, the paper seems to be pretty prestigious with a stellar history behind it, so I think it should be fine.
Somehow, it didn't catch on to me that Flat Hat News and the Flat Hat are the same source. Agree that it looks like it's part of the highest tier of college student papers, and is probably RS for this case.
  • What is SpaceNews, and is it high-quality RS?
replaced reference with original NASA press release they copied from to avoid issues
  • The masters thesis probably fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Removed, as it was unnecessary anyway
  • What is SpaceFlightNow and is it high-quality RS?
SpaceFlightNow seems to be a news site devoted to contemporary spaceflight news, and appears to be associated with C-Span (or at least can be found here)
YEah, it does look like it's associated with CSPAN, so it's probably fine.
  • What makes ScienceDaily a high-quality RS?

vGood catch, it’s not high quality at all, was just recycling content from NASA, which I now have linked

  • Mashable appears to be a blog, probably not high-quality RS
See Mashable—they’re a pretty well-established news source
  • What is Spaceref.com?
According to http://spaceref.com/press/06.22.00.pr.html, they’re in partnership with Discovery, Inc., so I’d say that qualifies as being well-established enough (though if you disagree I can probably find some alternative source for the info in it)
  • What is alertnet.org and is it high-quality RS?
I couldn’t find it on the page, I must have already removed it.
I can't find it anymore, either.
  • He's in Category:Jewish scientists, but that isn't verified in the article anywhere.
Removed
  • The source formatting does not follow a consistent style. Some use websites instead of publishers and some the other way around; some do not include publishers; etc.
I think I got that worked out now, let me know if I messed up anywhere.
  • "However, NASA ultimately decided to select the Phoenix stationary lander, designed by the University of Arizona, for the first $400 million Mars Scout Mission." - [citation needed]
Added citation

Okay, so I've got one last formatting comment. The very last reference, take Brooklyn College and the pipe key out of the title, and then make Brooklyn College the publisher. I'm still not entirely sure about Mashable, but I could well be wrong, so I'll be opening a discussion about the source at WP:RSN. Feel free to contribute your thoughts there. Hog Farm Talk 01:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, I really appreciate your input! Just fixed that last reference issue. I would also like to point out that the author of the particular Mashable article used at Joel S. Levine is Lauren Indvik, a very well-respected journalist, from what I can tell from a quick google search. Here's her "about" page on Mashable: https://mashable.com/author/lauren-indvik/. As such, I think we're probably good here, even if Mashable itself turns out not to be reliable enough in general (which I suspect it will be anyway, but that could take a while to determine). Thanks for your help, and let me know if you've got any other suggestions for improvements!
Looks like this specific Mashable page is probably fine then. I'm happy with formatting now, and I'll conduct some spot checks for close paraphrasing and source-text integrity. Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks on project page. I am not comfortable with some of the results. It looks like the sourcing for this one still needs a tuneup that might be best done outside of FAC, and then a second nomination occur. Hog Farm Talk 16:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm is there anything in particular here that concerns you? Looking through your spot check, I think that I can fix everything you mentioned fairly easily, without taking much longer than I did for the first pass. Yitz (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By concerned, I guess I kinda need to explain how I approach spot-checks: like an audit. If I find close-paraphrasing or source-text integrity lapses, then I find that a bit concerning and need to increase the theoretical control risk. And to keep the risk that I pass a source review when I shouldn't, I compensate by reducing detection risk by conducting more spot checks. So I'll give this another round of spot checks. Sorry this is taking so long, I've been kinda busy all of a sudden. Hog Farm Talk 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine, take all the time you need! I'm really thankful you're taking the time to do this at all, tbh :) Yitz (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Suggest withdrawal

[edit]

Based on the lack of preparedness of the citations and sourcing (along with MOS issues), I suggest this article be withdrawn and referred to peer review. A strong NPOV check is going to be needed; Levine has at least five papers published in a journal that has been called predatory and fringe, Journal of Cosmology. This suggests a very close look at sourcing will be needed, after the sources and citations here are cleared up. If he publishes in predatory journals, one can wonder what criticism there is of his work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, appropriateness of sourcing needs to be reviewed throughout. As an example, Wikipedia cannot use his own W&M profile to source an external fact like:
  • an award given to only 37 NASA and NACA researchers as of his induction. Levine is the youngest member in the Hall of Honor as of February 1, 2021.[1]
Anything not related to his position at W&M needs to be independently sourced— particularly a claim such as the example given above (which should be independently sourced to NASA or other). This article’s sourcing would be better examined off-FAC, at peer review. A good deal of the bios used are most likely submitted by ... him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have glaring problems of the type of this paragraph:

In 1974, the Soviet spacecraft Mars 6 crash-landed on Mars. Before crashing, an onboard ion pump sent a brief message signaling that the pump was working harder than scientists expected. One of several explanations for the pump not working properly was the presence of an unknown amount of argon gas in the atmosphere of Mars, which could have been very hard to pump out of the device. NASA was fearful that the Viking lander's ion pump could also be overloaded if there was too much argon in the Martian atmosphere.[29] Levine was selected as a Guest Investigator on the NASA Copernicus Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, where he was able to obtain the first measurements of atomic hydrogen in the upper atmosphere of Mars at solar minimum prior to the Viking encounter with Mars. As a result of his observations, Levine developed a new model of the Martian upper atmosphere, which included argon, helium, and atomic hydrogen. Levine's work modeling the concentration of argon in the Martian atmosphere was considered crucial to the Viking Program's successful soft landings on the surface of Mars.[30][31]

The entire first portion is not about him, the entire second portion is puffery and is sourced TO him (primary); not a third-party, independent source about him in the entire para. Overreliance on primary sources. The article actually should have a big maintenance tag at the top, rather than being at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is a good deal of the article is about trivia ... conferences he has chaired and the like. This article is quite promotional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find a single thing in this source to support a single piece of the text:

Levine served as Principal Investigator of several NASA research programs and projects dealing with atmospheric chemistry, photochemical modeling of the atmosphere over geological time, atmospheric trace gases produced by atmospheric lightning and biogenic activity, fires, and global warming. Levine’s Mars-related research activities continued in 1998, when he was appointed Chief Scientist of the proposed NASA/French Space Agency (CNES) Mars Airplane Package Mission (MAP).[32]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of the text is not about Levine, and a number of the sources do not even mention him (WP:SYNTH). Sample: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-060205.html The closer I look, the less the article looks like a BLP, and the more it looks promotional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entire section “Preservation of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights” is built upon either sources that do not mention Levine, or ... Levine himself. Third-party, independent sources talking about Levine himself are scarce. That doesn’t mean these sources don’t exist, but this content is not correctly sourced, and UNDUE weight is given to parts of the story that are not about Levine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! I didn't realize those journals were problematic. Hog Farm said they'd do another spot check so I'll keep it here for now until that happens, but I'll move it if they agree with you. For now, should I remove those journals from the page? (it looks like it's only one submission, just split up into five parts.) Also, if you don't mind me asking, what MoS issues are you noticing? Yitz (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you added to your response, thanks for the further details. Yitz (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a catch at all; they are highlighted in glorious red by Headbomb’s unreliable sources script. This article cannot be fixed with a source check. It needs a top-to-bottom rewrite, considerable cleanup, and the involvement of some experienced editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your question about MOS issues; see the corrections I already made to the article. And Spicy’s comments. And my comments below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is written similarly to the “Role in rescue mission to save trapped miners” section. The first paragraph goes into excess detail about the Chilean miners, which is available in that article. This is followed by a one-sentence stubby para that is correctly cited. The third para is an unnecessary quote from Levine. The fourth paragraph includes, as in most cases, some sources that never mention Levine and excess detail about the event rather than biographical information about Levine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Earwig results highlighted above by Spicy also are significant enough to give rise to concerns that the article should have a copyvio tag on it. This article is almost brand new; there is little change those Earwig results are due to backwards copies (the article takes too much content from his William & Mary bio, likely written by him ... and even if written by him, still has to be paraphrased). The articles feels almost like a hoax. @FAC coordinators: . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I deeply appreciate your criticism, I would like to respectfully push pack against your assertion that this article may be a hoax or a promotional attempt. I'm a 19 year old, autistic, ADHD nerd who sometimes gets fixated on random topics, and am currently kind of obsessed with how the personal lives of scientists and their work intersect (feel free to check out my sandbox and user history to see what I've been working on for evidence of that). Yes, I may have nominated this article prematurely, and may have judged myself a better writer than I actually am, but I can promise you that I am not editing Wikipedia with negative intent in mind. Levine is an actual NASA scientist with a history that I genuinely believe is notable, despite any questionable publishing decisions he may have made, or any mistakes that I've made while writing about him. A quick search shows that I did not invent a NASA scientist where no scientist exists, and while I know that this was not your intention, your suspicion does pain me a little when there is such an abundance of evidence as to notability. Also, I would like to push back to some degree against your assertion that I simply copied the William & Mary source. While I did use it to find a number of further articles written by or about him, I believe that if you look closer, you'll find the only identical/nearly identical phrasing are in place names and titles, which cannot be altered. I do agree with most of your criticism, however, and will try to fix the other issues that you brought up. Yitz (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the “feels like a hoax” and have struck it (and never meant to say the article or the person was a hoax, as Levine clearly is not, just that the unsourced bits read like a hoax article would). I know you did not invent Levine or his accomplishments, which are real, but we need for his bio to read like a proper bio. I am hoping that back in 2010 when he published in the predatory journals, they were less predatory? You have handled the criticism of the article with considerable and commendable maturity; perhaps spend some time at WP:FA looking through bios of scientists to see how to reorient the article? Starting over by finding secondary sources and reporting only what they say *about him specifically*, and then using his own bio (W&M) to fill in only uncontroverial basic info (eg birthdate) would work. You have made a fine effort; now to get it right. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying; your wording kind of freaked me out there and I apologize if I responded too sharply. For now I would like to keep the article on FAC, as I honestly don't really see what the point of withdrawal would be at this stage—it's not harming anyone by being in the queue for a bit longer than perhaps it technically should have if I was better prepared; I fully plan on addressing all of the concerns here in a timely fashion; and based on a brief Discord conversation with other members of WP:SPF, it sounds like this really isn't an unusual amount of work to have to do during this process. I'll probably have some amount of pushback against some specifics of your criticism as I get to it, but on the whole I'm with you on what needs to be changed.
Hi Yitz, I can understand the "not harming anyone" comment but we try to keep the FAC queue ticking over as best we can and articles that need a lot of attention from our scarce reviewer base should be worked on away from FAC, ideally given a friendly critique at Peer Review, then re-nominated. I'm therefore going to archive the nom and hope to see it back here in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to earlier in the discussion, it looks like the first major public critique of Journal of Cosmology was in 2011, while Levine published there in 2010, along with James B. Garvin, who also seems like a totally respectable NASA scientist. This leads me to believe that this was probably not a malicious activity, though of course I can't say for sure. If you want I can remove those references from the bibliography, though I'm not sure if that would be proper or not to do. Yitz (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first criticism as reported by Wikipedia is not the same thing as the first criticism. And since the journal was only founded in 2009, it was criticized quickly at any rate. But those papers have been removed, and this one item is besides the (much larger) point. This bio is not sourced correctly at all, and the nomination should not be at FAC; it can be repaired more effectively off-FAC, as it needs a top-to-bottom rewrite with appropriate use of secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The awards section needs to be prosified (with trivia removed), and the section headings need to be shortened, see WP:WIAFA and WP:MSH; several of the section headings are unnecessarily repeating words. The WP:LEAD is inadequate and not a summary of the article. There is not a consistent page numbering scheme; how many digits are repeated on page numbers in citations? MOS:LQ odd placement of punc relative to quotes everywhere. Incorrect use of italics, eg newspapers ... All of this is work that can be addressed at WP:PR, and is too much to have to check and re-check in the course of a FAC. No, this is not a normal amount of work to do during a FAC, and it is not reasonable to expect reviewers to have to come back and strike and continue to review an article with this many issues, that is not prepared for FAC. I haven’t even started listing prose redundancies and issues (starting with “also” in the lead). This kind of extended work is best done at peer review where people can enter comments without an obligation to revisit and strike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 12 March 2021 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2021 [58].

Suzanne Lenglen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, one of the first global superstars of tennis. Lenglen was virtually unbeatable, winning 287 out of the final 288 matches of her career. She gained immense popularity through her balletic playing style and vibrant personality, and first drew attention to herself by winning a World Championship tournament a few weeks after turning 15 years old. Her popularity forced Wimbledon to move to a new venue more than twice the size of the previous one to accommodate all of the fans who wanted to see her play. While still in her prime, Lenglen spurned amateur tennis to turn professional. She was the first top amateur player to turn professional, kickstarting the professional era. In one year of professional tours, Lenglen made more money than Babe Ruth in the year Ruth hit a record-setting 60 home runs.

A former featured article from the Stone Age of FAC reviews, this is your chance to get a former FA back to featured status and to review one of the most vital articles in tennis history. If passed, this would be my third FA; here are the first two: Kim Clijsters (also tennis) and Erin Phillips (Australian football). I nominated the same article last month and it was archived only for not receiving enough reviews. Now that there aren't any other recent nominations of sports articles (or French articles) at FAC, I'm hoping it will be easier to find reviewers. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if promoted, needs to be adjusted at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Images are mostly too big, causing sandwiching. Most images, certainly photographs (maps and charts sometimes need to be bigger for readability), should be no bigger than upright=1. If you like to see images bigger than that, it's best to adjust your own display preferences accordingly (in Preferences#Appearance), rather than scaling images up. (t · c) buidhe 06:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The larger upright values are for the more horizontal images. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What settings are you using in your preferences? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have mine set at 250px and this is what it looks like: File:Suzanne Lenglen article.png If you need to use more than upright=1 for mostly vertical images such as these ones, that's a sign that you should adjust your settings. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That screenshot is helpful, thanks! I use 220px, which I assume is the default since I've never changed it? I guess 250px would mean all of the images are about 14% larger than I intended. I'd rather follow the default settings since I assume that is what most readers would use (especially those who don't even have accounts). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's true, but on 220px it is not significantly different, and I am still seeing sandwiching. Per MOS, "When specifying upright= values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text." Many of these images don't have such fine details that you need to show to make the large size worthwhile. Particularly in the "1926: Match of the Century" where the scaled-up image just blots out the paragraph. (t · c) buidhe 09:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tall and skinny images don't work so well in infoboxes in general. I've redone the crop to be more square, hopefully you are happy with it. (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way don't they work so well? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had tried something similar before; it doesn't work to crop out the ground because then you can't tell that she is jumping. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can't see the rest of the infobox, the image is taking up too much space; I can only see a few lines of it on my screen.
          • The new crop you made is a little better than the first one you made. Still, I don't particularly like it because it comes at the cost of the zoom not being as good. Tennis infoboxes at least (and probably most sports infoboxes) are all too long to fit on the page. I'm not so sure it's worth lowering the aspect ratio of the image to make a few extra lines of the infobox more visible to the reader, given that they are probably going to need to scroll down if they want to read the rest of the infobox anyway. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is a bit on the long side, would benefit from more aggressive summary style in places, I think. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to use Babe Ruth as a comparison as the most similar FA (in terms of a very accomplished athlete from that time period with a long-lasting legacy on their sport). That article was 82000+ characters / 14000+ words when it was promoted. This article is much shorter at 66000+ characters / 11000+ words, which is also a little bit longer than the general guidelines, but I think it's worth it given the importance and intricacies of the subject. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (non-book sources only)
  • What makes the following sources high quality RS?
  • https://sabr.org/research/article/mlbs-annual-salary-leaders-since-1874/ This source is used to make an OR comparison that doesn't seem to be made in any of the sources
    • The Engelmann book makes this exact comparison (which I had forgot to add, apparently. Just added it, good catch!). Besides that, I included the online source as a duplicate for convenience for people who don't want to use the book. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the top women's players nearly all kept their amateur status, women were largely left out of both the travelling exhibition tours and the growing professional tournaments after Lenglen's playing career ended. The next significant exhibition tour to feature women's tennis players did not occur until 1941" could not verify in the cited source
  • "Lenglen is honoured in a variety of ways at Stade Roland Garros, the site of the modern French Open. The second show court, which was built in 1994 with a capacity of about 10000, was named Court Suzanne Lenglen in 1997" could not verify, not sure if the source is high-quality RS anyway
  • "Fellow top-ranked players Pauline Betz and Althea Gibson followed Marble by turning professional in 1947 and 1958 respectively. Betz played on two tours... another in 1951 against Gussie Moran." cannot verify in source, which only discusses Betz in detail and doesn't mention "1951"
  • "Lenglen had a versatile all-court game." failed verification
  • Do any of the books give an exact height?
  • "The following year, Lenglen ended the norm of women competing in clothes not suited for playing tennis..." a long paragraph cited to 3 sources makes it difficult to verify. Can you break this up to clarify which content is supported by which source?
    • They all state that main point. The Engelmann book is the most detailed. I can break it up if needed? The reason I didn't do it before is because it will be very repetitive (most of the sentences are supported by multiple sources). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of newspapers to cover her death, this is probably OK, but do the secondary sources cover it and what the press reported at the time? The problem with "reported" and citing a couple newspapers is that it only shows that two newspapers reported it that way (and should probably be attributed, "Newspapers X and Y reported...") Using a secondary source would get around this problem.
    • The book sources agree on how they cover her death. However, they also use something along the lines of "newspapers reported that". As the Sports Illustrated source explains, it could very well be the case that those reports were wrong. At the same time, we don't have much better information today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenglen was referred to by the French press as notre Suzanne (our Suzanne) and universally called La Divine (The Goddess), embodying her mythical persona and perceived infallibility at tennis." Are these nicknames really WP:DUE in the lead? (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amakuru. I reviewed this article in detail at the previous nomination page here, and everything I wrote there still stands. On the issue of article length mentioned by Buidhe above, I did consider that this might be an issue when I did my review, and per WP:TOOBIG it is at the point where it "probably should be divided". I think there is some repetition that could maybe be avoided, for example her rivalry with Mallory is effectively covered twice, in both the history and the dedicated rivalries section. In fact, you could conceivably remove "Rivalries" altogether and just fold any important detail into history where it's not already covered. I decided not to oppose on that basis though because it's borderline, the article is otherwise excellent, and the guideline does encourage us not to be in a massive hurry to split. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

This article is far too long. Looking at WP:LENGTH, if the level of detail present in, say, "Rivalries", is desired then a separate article on this should be span off per WP:DETAIL. the section could then either be summarised or included elsewhere per Amakuru's suggestion above. There are other opportunities to similarly reduce the size of what should be a parent article.

I removed some of the statements in the rivalries section that were repetitive with the amateur career section, as Amakuru had commented on. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separately to this, the article is not written in a sufficiently summary style. In virtually every paragraph after "Early life" there are opportunities to tighten the language. It would benefit from a thorough copy edit to convey the message in each paragraph in a more succinct, punchier and clearer way.

Regretfully, these two issues cause me to believe that this article is not currently ready for FAC and that the work suggested above should be carried out off FAC and the article then resubmitted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, can you give examples with one or two subsections (preferably one in the "Amateur career" section, and one in another section)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although please accept that this may be a little rough. So, plucking a paragraph at random:

In the middle of the year, Lenglen won the triple crown at the World Hard Court Championships, the French Championships, and Wimbledon. At the World Hard Court Championships, she came close to losing a set to Kathleen McKane in her singles semifinal. saving two set points before winning the set 10–8. After she only needed to play three challenge round matches to defend her three titles at the French Championships, Lenglen agreed to forgo the challenge round system and be included in the Wimbledon main draw at the request of the tournament organisers. Prior to the singles final, she lost more than one game in a set three times, once in a 7–5 second set against McKane in the second round, the second time in an 8–6 second set against Ryan in the quarterfinals, and the last in a 6–4 first set versus Irene Peacock in the semifinals. Mallory won the other semifinal to set up a rematch of their U.S. National Championship meeting. Like in the United States, Mallory won the first two games of the final. However, Lenglen rebounded and won the next twelve games for her fourth Wimbledon singles title. The match only lasted 26 minutes, making it the shortest final in Wimbledon history.

1,191 characters. A quick copy edit suggests (to me) something like

In the middle of the year, Lenglen won the triple crown of the World Hard Court Championships, the French Championships, and Wimbledon. Lenglen agreed to forgo the challenge round system and be included in the Wimbledon main draw at the request of the tournament organisers. Prior to the singles final, she lost more than one game in a set three times. Mallory won the other semifinal to set up a rematch of their U.S. National Championship meeting. As in the United States, Mallory won the first two games of the final. However, Lenglen rebounded and won the next twelve games for her fourth Wimbledon singles title. The match only lasted 26 minutes, making it the shortest final in Wimbledon history.

702 characters. Readers who want further detail will be able to click through to the original text – which has, to my eye, not a lot wrong with it at the appropriate level – at a new article: "Suzanne Lenglen's amateur career". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the "Honours" section:

Lenglen is honoured in a variety of ways at Stade Roland Garros, the site of the modern French Open. The second show court, which was built in 1994 with a capacity of about 10000, was named Court Suzanne Lenglen in 1997. There is a bronze relief statue of Lenglen outside the court as well, which was erected in 1994. The FFLT had originally planned to erect a statue of Lenglen immediately after her death, but this plan never materialized due to the start of World War II later that year. Additionally, one of the main entrances to the ground is Porte Suzanne Lenglen, which leads to Allée Suzanne Lenglen. This alley had previously been a road, Rue Suzanne Lenglen, before the grounds were expanded in 1984. Moreover, the women's singles championship trophy was named the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen in 1987. In spite of her success at the French Championships, Lenglen never competed at Stade Roland Garros as it did not become the site for the tournament until 1928 after her retirement from amateur tennis.

1,006 words. This could be slimmed to

Lenglen is honoured at Stade Roland Garros, the site of the modern French Open: the second show court was named after her in 1997, with a bronze relief statue of Lenglen outside the court. One of the main entrances to the ground is Porte Suzanne Lenglen, which leads to Allée Suzanne Lenglen. This alley had previously been a road, Rue Suzanne Lenglen, before the grounds were expanded in 1984. Moreover, the women's singles championship trophy was named the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen in 1987. Lenglen never competed at Stade Roland Garros as it did not become the site for the tournament until 1928, after her retirement from amateur tennis.

(638 words) without, in my opinion, losing anything essential. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I make it 59kB. Nevertheless I consider that large parts, arguably most, of the article is not written in a sufficiently summary style, to the point that I believe it fails criteria 4 and arguably 1a. Sorry, but I am not inclined to go through over 10,000 words pointing out each one that I believe to be an insufficient summary. I note that the one paragraph from outside "Amateur career" which I randomly selected to look at in more detail - and it honestly was a random selection - is now 13% shorter. A similar tightening of the rest may well give a sufficiently summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, what does "you make it 59kb?" mean? And can you comment on the changes I made? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "the article is down to 60.5 kb"; my page size calculator reckons the readable text to be 59kB, slightly less than you have.
Okay, I'm just using the Wikipedia tool. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which changes you would like me to comment on. Just this? Or all of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, the second one (all of the changes, which mainly cover the amateur career section). Though, as above, I don't think you actually need to comment on the whole thing. At least in the amateur career section, seeing the types of changes you would want for a few paragraphs would probably be indicative of the changes you would want for the whole thing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consider pretty much all of them to be improvements. There are a few places which could use a light copy edit (eg "Often playing in front of sell-out crowds and having been acquainted with many prominent social figures, she is recognized as the first female athlete to become a global sport celebrity" is a little clunky and "in that the public no longer perceived her to be unbeatable" is not grammatical) but IMO the article is the better for the changes you have made. I will come up with some suggestions; if I haven't come back with them in a day or two feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Gog the Mild as a reminder, as requested. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked on my talk page to look in. I don't have time for a full review, regrettably. I think it's more tightly written than it was, but possibly more text could be cut. Consider for example, "Lenglen's performance at the French Championships set the stage for her debut at the World Hard Court Championships, one of the major tournaments recognized by the International Lawn Tennis Federation at the time.[7] She won the singles final against Germaine Golding for her first major title. She was only challenged in her opening match against Phyllis Satterthwaite and her semifinal against Suzanne Amblard, needing an 8–6 score to win the second set in the former and losing the second set in the latter. Her volleying ability was instrumental in defeating Amblard, while her ability to outlast Golding in long rallies gave her the advantage in the final." Do we really need that level of detail about the tournament, especially the early rounds?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay.

  • "Lenglen dominated Browne on the tour, winning all 33 of the best-of-three set matches played to completion. After the ninth stop, Pyle tried to make the matches more competitive by offering Browne a $100 bonus any time she could win four games. She regularly earned this bonus afterwards, despite having only won four games against Lenglen in two of the nine matches before it was instituted. Overall, Browne won two sets against Lenglen, the first in the second set at the 33rd stop. She also won the only set they played at the 36th stop, where Lenglen had decided to play just a one set match in spite of being ill to avoid disappointing the fans. She remained sick and did not play on any of the last four nights of the tour. Browne also nearly won a set at the 23rd stop, losing 9–11, at which point Lenglen decided not to continue"
The first sentence is fine. The rest is not in summary style and needs condensing or removing. Personally I see no need for anything beyond "Lenglen dominated Browne on the tour, winning all 33 of the best-of-three set matches played to completion. After the ninth stop, Pyle tried to make the matches more competitive by offering Browne a $100 bonus any time she could win four games. She regularly earned this bonus afterwards, despite having only won four games against Lenglen in two of the nine matches before it was instituted. Overall, Browne won two sets against Lenglen".
I believe there is a policy on Wikipedia to include extra detail when explaining misconceptions. Some sources erroneously state that Lenglen was 38–0 on the tour, even though she didn't play 38 matches (mainly because she was sick) and wasn't undefeated (losing the one-set fill-in match, and losing the match she didn't finish), hence the need for the detail. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three points from a paragraph in a different section:

  • "In the 1919 Wimbledon final against Lambert Chambers, Lenglen's father gave her cognac at two separate points in the match. On the first occasion, he threw a vial onto the court from the stands without anyone realizing what it contained at that moment." Delete "in the match" and "at that moment".
  • "Both instances helped Lenglen as she won the next three games following the second set incident and then took a 4–1 lead in the third set after receiving more cognac in-between sets." Reduce to 'Both instances helped Lenglen'. (I would make it 'Both instances seemed to help Lenglen' unless there is a consensus among RSs that the brandy definitely made the difference.
  • If I cut those parts, the reader won't understand the significance of how much it helped Lenglen. (This is an extremely normal way to write something like this out. Have you been watching the Australian Open? e.g. Something similar happened a few days ago, where taking a medical timeout helped a player win a match. It wouldn't be complete to write only that statement in an article, without also specifying when the medical timeout was, what the score was at the time, and how the matched finished. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell if it really made a difference.)
  • I would say the RSs are pretty clear on that. Part of the reason why they are clear is that every time she asked for cognac, her situation in the match immediately improved. The one time she asked for it and didn't receive it is the only time she lost a match after the war. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, at the very least, the USLTA did not provide Lenglen with alcohol during her retirement loss to Mallory" This is unclear. Why "however? Why "at the very least"? Had they provided alcohol on other occasions? If not, why the need to specify that they had not this time? Do you mean that they prevented her from accessing and/or consuming alcohol during this match, contrary to their previous policy? If not, why is it mentioned?
  • Noted in passing: The caption "Lenglen leaping balletically to hit a volley". Is there an RS describing this image as "balletic", or similar? In which case could a cite be added.

The examples of non-summary style are just that and, for the avoidance of doubt, far from an exhaustive list of paragraphs which I feel need trimming. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I'm not saying you're wrong about everything you want to remove, but if you don't post more suggestions, we'll never know for sure. You don't need to literally rewrite every paragraph you want to comment on, as you have done above. Simply listing the material you want removed should suffice (and I imagine that would be easier for you to do). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in the place of the above edits, you could instead list out:

In the US professional tour section, I don't think you need to state:

  • which sets Browne won
  • that Lenglen missed several matches because she was sick
  • that Browne almost won a third set

Then, I could respond in-line:

  • which sets Browne won
    • The point of identifying the first set is to emphasize that Lenglen went 32 matches against Browne without losing a set.
    • The point of identifying the second set is to emphasize that it wasn't supposed to be a regular three-set match like nearly all of the other matches they played. Beyond that, it was also the only clear win for Browne where she won a set. At the same though, because it wasn't supposed to be a real match, it wasn't a real loss for Lenglen. In that sense, Lenglen only really lost one set on the tour in the real three-set matches.
  • that Lenglen missed several matches because she was sick
    • The point of stating this is to emphasize that even though the tour was 40 stops, Lenglen didn't play 40 matches (or even 38, as is normally reported in older sources). She only played 36 of the stops.
  • that Browne almost won a third set
    • Many older sources typically report that Lenglen was 38–0 on this tour. This match is worth including because it was the only three-set match Lenglen lost (as in, she retired from the match, like her 1921 loss). It is not enough to just state that though, because the reader shouldn't be left with the impression that Browne won a completed match, or even a set in this match.

Alternatively, if you don't want to address my comments, I suppose that's fine as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I know this is going to be frustrating, but I also think the article is too long. My first impression when I opened the article was "Ack! The lede is so large!" Here are some examples of the lede that can be reduced:

  • "youngest major champion in tennis history as well as her elegant style of play and exuberant personality." Replace with " youngest major champion in tennis history, her elegant style and exuberant personality."
  • "Often playing in front of sell-out crowds and various prominent social acquaintances, she is recognized as the first female athlete to become a global sport celebrity." to "She is recognized as the first female athlete to become a global sport celebrity, playing to sell-out crowds and social acquaintances."
  • The WWI information in the lede can be removed as I don't see it as important to her biography. (It's not particularly notable that an athlete suspended their career during WWI; this was common.)
    • I don't know how familiar you are with sports (Are you familiar with sports?), but if someone has a much shorter career than normal (and in particular, if they missed years in their prime), it's usually important to explain why. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's important to mention the WWI break in the body, but I am unsure why this is so important that it needs to be in the lede. Remember: the longer the lede, the less likely a reader will remember the information. What is the most important information that needs to be in the lede? Everything else should be cut. Another option is to condense this information to "After suspending her career during WWI" which will remove a sentence of information. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the lede disorganised, as the timeline of events jumps around a lot. Although the notability needs to be established at the beginning of the article, a whole paragraph is excessive for describing notability. Instead, highlight the most important aspects of her career in the first sentence and start her biography with her birth in the second sentence. Another example is her death, which is buried in the middle of the fourth paragraph. I recommend that the biography be the first two paragraphs of the lede, and the last paragraph be her legacy (yes, I am recommending three paragraphs for the lede).

  • I agree the lead is a little bit long, and I'd be happy to shorten it a bit (and have just done so!). Overall though, I think the four-paragraph structure is normal. The whole thing isn't intended to be in chronological order, only the second paragraph. It's structured as: (1) main profile, (2) career in chronological order, (3) overall accomplishments, (4) legacy/miscellaneous. I copied the format from other sports FAs (such as Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan), and many sport GAs for top athletes follow this format as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a very normal thing to state someone's death in the penultimate sentence of the lead and then follow that up with how they were honoured in the very last sentence. I could also leave out when she died altogether, as it's not particularly important and already mentioned in the first sentence and the infobox. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not interpret your suggested format when I read the lede. I don't think you need a "main profile" section: the whole lede is the main profile. A miscellaneous section (combined with legacy) contributes to the disorganised feeling. Overall achievements can be combined with the bio section to make it chronological. It is difficult to find information in the lede because of its format and a chronological format is one way to rectify this. The lede should include a sentence that explains how she died. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the chronological format is that it doesn't emphasize key accomplishments. If you don't have expertise in the topic, you won't be able to tell what's most important. And even if you have expertise in the topic, you still have to figure out what's important for yourself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also noting that you do the equivalent thing in your own GA: The start of the second paragraph "Development began in 1996 and took three years" is the equivalent of starting the second paragraph in this article with: "Coached primarily by her father Charles throughout her career, Lenglen began playing tennis at 11 years old". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also looking at the headings of the article, and I see that you have sections for every year from 1919-1927 (with two sections for 1926 and 1927). Although I haven't read through the article yet, I am sceptical that the information cannot be merged into two or three sections (Pre-WWI amateur career, post-WWI amateur career and professional career?) The long sections are not appealing to a reader, which is who we are writing Wikipedia form.

  • I agree in general. Normally, I combine years into longer sub-sections (like in Kim Clijsters). However, I didn't do it here because I thought it would make the section headers more difficult to follow. For example, combining "1919–21: Wimbledon debut, Olympic title, only post-WWI loss" seems less helpful because "Wimbledon debut" happened in 1919, "Olympic title" in 1920, and "only post-WWI loss" in 1921, but you wouldn't realize that with a combined header. If I reduced it to "1919–21: Classic Wimbledon final, only post-WWI loss", it would still have that same issue. It wasn't a problem with Clijsters because the highlights of one year were almost always related to what happened in the adjacent year(s). That isn't the case with Lenglen, though. Every year seems separate. Moreover, every year really does have one main highlight (except 1926, which has two; and 1912–14, part of which is combined). I could combine 1912–13 with 1914, but I wouldn't end up writing the prose so differently if I did that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are suggesting the years (or sets of years) should be sections instead of sub-sections, that's not consistent with standard practice for virtually all sports articles, including FAs. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-WWI amateur career, post-WWI amateur career and professional career? <<<=== This would be unbalanced because of the number of years that would fit in each section (3, 8, and 2). The bulk of her career (roughly 80 to 90%) was her post-WWI amateur career. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The titles do not have to include her achievements, like Wimbledon debut or Olympic title. The sections do not have to be balanced; if there's more important information in the post-WWI career, then that section should be longer. Some of these paragraphs can be combined together, and possibly removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including achievements in the titles makes it easier to convey the highlights of her career without having to read the whole section. It also helps the reader find the important things mentioned in the lead and the infobox. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to help with a rewrite, but I don't know if we can complete it quickly enough to get it passed as a FAC right now. It'll depend on how quickly you can rewrite parts of the article. I can also take a deeper dive into the article over the weekend when I have more time. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not worried about the time constraints. I can reply to things quickly. Even if the coordinators were to close the nomination for some reason, I would just end up re-nominating and you could always continue commenting on the article talk page if you don't want to wait until then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the coordinators closed the nomination, I would recommend opening another PR. FAC reviewers have little patience for candidates that require rewrites being nominated. FACs should be so well developed that they only require minor edits to be promoted. Rewrites are not minor edits. It is better to resolve the issues first, then nominate it. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the comments above have convinced me that this article is in need of a major rewrite. I don't even think anyone else is asking for that. Gog noted that cuts in the realm of 13% might be sufficient, and I've already cut 10% of the whole article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Z1720! I appreciate your quick interest in commenting! (especially if you just noticed this on the urgent list?) I don't know if you have done this already, but I would probably recommend looking at other recent or high-quality sport biography FAs for top athletes, and also going through the whole article. (I certainly have never done an FAC or GAN review where I didn't look at example FAs/GAs in the same area, or didn't read the whole article before starting to comment. The main reason I'm skeptical of Gog's comments above, aside from the fact that they did not leave too many comments, is that I don't think they did either of those things.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I found this article from the urgents list. I have read many FAs lately, including sports bios (I'm participating in the URFA/2020 project, so I have read many FA articles of various quality) and I'm currently reviewing another sports bio FAC. You mentioned Babe Ruth and Michael Jordon above as articles you used as a template for this article. Keep in mind that Ruth passed FA in 2014 and Jordon in 2007: FA standards have changed (especially since 2007) and there are going to be differences.
  • FAC has definitely changed since 2007. But since 2014? I'm less convinced of that. If Wehwalt were to tell me that in hindsight, they think the Babe Ruth article should be cut to <60kb instead of 80kb, I would be more inclined to make my own articles shorter. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of when those articles were promoted, what are your thoughts on those two leads? Do you think they are easy to follow? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give Gog more credit on their FA expertise: Gog has reviewed over 200 articles for FAC and they are knowledgable on what an FAC is. I note that I am the fifth editor in this FAC that has expressed concern on the article's length and suggested cutting or dividing the article. If that many reviewers were saying that in my FAC, I would seriously consider if they are correct. I am glad to see you have started doing this after some comments above, but in my opinion, more needs to be cut and paragraphs need to be merged. I suggest looking at these redundancy exercises to see if you can remove text from this article.
    • Three of the five editors of who have made that suggestion have never written a sports article (Gog in particular is adamant they "don't do most things which could even loosely be described as culture or sport"). Of the two that have, one didn't have to time to review and the other still supported promotion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Gog is not leaving specific comments because they acknowledge that if it were in fact the case that length is an issue, they don't have the expertise to comment on it without putting in a ton of effort. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done those exercises before (and looked at them again now). I think Gog is suggesting removing excess content more than removing excess words related to grammatical issues. Nonetheless, I can go through the grammatical side again. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you familiar with sports in general? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also do a brutal edit of this article: delete everything that is not absolutely necessary and remove too much text. If a section doesn't support the larger narrative about this person you are trying to tell, delete it. Afterwards, ask editors if something is missing and they will tell you what they are confused about. Since the text will be in an older version of the article, you can easily put that text back in the article. This exercise might help you determine what can be cut from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to discuss the rationale for why any of the material currently in the article is important enough to be included. I don't expect any major revision to be warranted at this point, especially now that I've already cut 10% of the article and it actually is at my original target length of 60kb. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to oppose this FAC at this time for not fulfilling some of the featured article criteria, specifically 2a and 4. Although I am happy with editors disagreeing with me, it seems like my major concerns are being summarily rejected. Instead of a discussion of how to improve the article, my comments are met with an analysis of the abilities/credentials of reviewers and an analysis of my work, specifically comparing an FAC of a sports biography to a video game GA. I am going to remove this review from my watchlist, but I welcome another reviewer or the FAC coordinators pinging me if there are major changes that address my concerns above. Z1720 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FAC coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: please withdraw the nomination, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2021 (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/March_2021&oldid=1014595550"