Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2023

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2023 [1].

Jessie Murray[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Murray was an interesting person. She founded one of the first psychotherapeutic consultancies in Britain and helped train a generation of analysts in what was a nascent field of study. History has slightly overlooked her achievements partly through misogyny and partly through psycho-politics of Freudians versus anyone who wasn't a devotee of Freud. A dedicated suffragist who (literally) wrote the first book on Black Friday, she died way too early. I took this through GAN a few years ago when there were multiple gaps in the story that I couldn't fill. (It must have been frustrating for Usernameunique reviewing at me not being able to answer many of the questions), but I've belatedly managed to fill a couple of the gaps, even if there are still plenty of others that the sources still don't cover. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Are there any images of the subject that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. One of the sources that examines a number of the early female psychotherapists notes that several of them don't have locatable photographs (although they don't name Murray), and I couldn't find anything in my searches too, which is a shame. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

A few quibbles about the drafting:

Early life, education and professional training: 1867–1915

"Sometime later Murray also attended the lectures ..." – all four editions of Fowler [obsessive? moi?] say that in this sort of use it is usual to write "some time" rather than "sometime".

Women's suffrage activism

"used tax resistance to protest the lack of vote" – missing "against" after "protest" unless you're writing in American.
"The clinic was one of the first ... offering their services ... they began ... their approach" – you ought to decide whether the clinic was singular or plural. The former seems more convincing to me, but it's your call.

Final years

"In 1915 Murray met the writer Marie Stopes" – Stopes undeniably wrote, but it seems an odd label nonetheless

Impact

"Many students and staff became leading psychoanalysts ... This included Marjorie Brierley..." – perhaps "They", rather than "This"?
"dismissive of the clinic and Murray, to the point he was disingenuous" – could do with a "that" after "point"
"the clinic split, with Glover leaving with some of the staff and students" – too many withs. I'd resort to a semicolon if I were you.
"The clinic's finances were also parlous" – Fowler again: in the original 1926 edition the old boy called "parlous" "a word that wise men leave alone"; the current 2015 edition is not so prescriptive, but mentions perilous, hazardous and dangerous as possibly preferable alternatives.

That's all I have. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim; all duly attended to. - SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me as comprehensive as it could possibly be, is well sourced, balanced and an excellent read. Alas for the lack of a picture of Murray, as Nikkimaria notes, above, but as one is not available, so be it. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 13:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting article. With the caveat I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, just a few small comments:

took statements from the suffragettes --> I would wikilink suffragettes
She also studied --> that's 3 times also in short succession
10s 6d to the Tax League -> Tax Resistance League?
as one another --> is this needed?
Her thesis was "Nervous --> Her thesis was titled "Nervous ?
I went with "her thesis was on..." instead

Otherwise, all looks good. I looked at the formatting of the references and could not find anything wrong with it. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Edwininlondon. All done bar the last, which I've slightly differently. Many thanks for your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I believe the article meets the FA requirements, so I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

Maybe shorten "attended the lectures of the French psychologist" to "attended lectures by French psychologist" but that may be a BrEng. Assume AmEng/BrEng differences for all following comments, and feel free to disregard those.
Half done: "French psychologist" is a false title, so the definite article is needed. (This is much more common in BrEng than AmEng, which tends to have less of an issue with the false title.)
"to set one up" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Ditto later usage. (Maybe "establish one"?)
Should "in-fighting" be "infighting"?
"In-fighting" is the noun form; "infighting" is the verb
- D'oh!
The sentence During its nine years of existence, it trained a number of high-profile individuals who formed the next generation of psychoanalysts and laid the foundation of the study in the UK is somewhat repetitive as it's already been stated that Several of the staff who worked and trained at the clinic became leading psychoanalysts.
"was later adopted by the International Psychoanalytical Association." - what year or general decade?
No idea on this - the sources don't clarify at all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might consider linking life partnership
" for treatment by isotonised seawater" - treatment of what?
Should "middle-class" be hyphenated?
"and retired from the clinic" is a dependent clause and doesn't need a comma preceding 'and' (...at least stateside)
"wrote her will" to maybe "wrote her own will" for clarity - not a big issue
Can the "British Psychoanalytical Society" be abbreviated to an acronym in subsequent uses?
"was wound up" - is this a British colloquialism?
BrEng, but not a colloquialism! I've swapped for liquidated. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge fan of all the semicolons in the lead, but that's really a matter of personal choice, so I'll leave that up to you.
~~Is there really no available image of Murray?~~

That's all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 03:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers HAL333. All sorted (in these edits), except where I've explained above. Thanks very much! - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 14:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've belatedly also trimmed the semi-colons in the lead too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden[edit]

"it laid the foundation of the study" - I'd replace "the study" with "psychological evaluation" since the name of the study hasn't been mentioned yet in this paragraph.
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In about 1880 Frances Murray and her children travelled to Edinburgh, and by 1891 they were living in London." - That's a significant gap of 11 years. By "travelled", do you mean they relocated to Edinburgh and then to London? Or did they visit Edinburgh temporarily, return to India, and then move to London?
The sources are a little unclear, but probably the former. I've tweaked slightly to add that they settled in Edinburgh, which is about as far as the sources go. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Murray was a member of the Women's Tax Resistance League" - Was she a member of this organisation concurrently with her membership in the Women's Freedom League? Or did she leave the former and then join the latter? Knowing the year she joined these organisations would also be helpful.
Not clear from the sources, although probably membership of both simultaneously. There were several groups and splinters in the suffrage movement with overlapping membership for many. I've added a date we know Murray was with the Tax Resistance League, but there's not a huge amount more that can be added from the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any further suggestions or questions. The article is already in excellent shape. What an intriguing life story! I hope to see an article about Turner on Wikipedia someday. — Golden ^talk 14:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Golden, that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes. I gladly support. — Golden ^talk 13:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Vat[edit]

Just putting down the marker quickly -- I have little doubt I'll be able to pass it very soon (within a day or two at most). Vaticidalprophet 21:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review is a pass. I spent a little bit double-checking the IA link to the cited version for The Psychology of Self-Consciousness -- their version is the American edition while the British one is cited here, and the pagination is very subtly different, including not numbering(/lettering) the dedication -- but it wasn't anything that could reasonably be called a 'verification issue'. Also, fixed a typo :) Excellent work from excellent sources. Vaticidalprophet 00:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi SchroCat, not much to quibble about...

move good article template up to beneath short description

lede

suffragette - is linked twice in lede
two organisations that took direct action in their campaign for women's suffrage - 2 orgs so 'campaigns'?

Early life, education and professional training: 1867–1915

was born in Hazaribagh, British India on - add geocomma
then enrolled as student at the - missing a

Women's suffrage activism

Image Black Friday Alt suffragette lying on the floor - ground
while Turner's two sisters were members of the - I cant access Valentine, just checking they were definitely Turner's sisters not Murray's (only because you mention before Murray had two sisters)
the memorandum was presented - their memorandum?
to protest against the lack of vote - for women or women's vote

Medico-Psychological Clinic

Quinton Polyclinic, where they treated of gastroenteritis in infants - remove of
Clinic at 14 Endsleigh Street, where they both lived - where is Endsleigh st?
that could be afforded by middle class patients - add hyphen (per middle-class families)

Notes

note c. based on Consumer Price Index - add 'the' per note b

References

ref 10 Atkinson 2018, 4452. - what's that?
I am not actually contesting this, simply trying to learn what it is. I understand the loc parameter is used when page numbers are not appropriate. The other Atkinson notes have page numbers, and having not used a Kindle, I am wondering what 4452 might refer to. JennyOz (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry JennyOz - I meant to look into this but forgot! I've tweaked this now so it's also a page number. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and here's me eagerly anticipating learning another intricacy! Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journals

Hall, Lesley ... Study of SexPsychology - add space

Titanis[edit]

Nominator(s): AFH (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Titanis walleri, an extinct genus of terror bird. I have been working on this article for several months and it got promoted to good article status today. This is a vital-class article, so I am nominating it for featured article status. I also have used alt text in addition to colorblind-friendly colors when making the article to make it more widely usable.

AFH (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFH (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination[edit]

Hi Augustios Paleo, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright sounds good. Thank you! AFH (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger[edit]

*First off, there's duplicate links. Most of them are technical terms or names that probably do need the extra linking, but "tarsometatarsus" is linked twice within the lede, and "Isthmus of Panama" is linked twice within the Great American Interchange section, which is overkill.

At the top of the lede: "seriemas" is a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized.

"Titanis is very unique among phorusrhacids in that it is the only one known from North America," -> "very unique" is word overkill. If something is unique then it's unique.

"The genus name references the Greek titans due to the large size of its fossils and the species name is after the collector Benjamin Waller" -> "The genus name references the Greek Titans due to the large size of the fossils, and the species name is after the collector Benjamin Waller." And could you please rephrase the second clause to something like "honors fossil hunter Benjamin Waller"? Because collector could refer to either someone who finds fossils and digs them up, or someone who hoards them.

Optional: "Titanis, being a phorusrhacid, had elongated hind limbs, thin pelvises, proportionally small wings, and huge skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak." -> "Titanis, being a phorusrhacid, had elongated hind limbs, a thin pelvis, proportionally small wings, and a huge skull, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak." To me, it reads less weirdly this way.

"Studies of the related Andalgalornis show that large phorusrhacids had very rigid and stiff skulls;" ... rigid and stiff are synonyms, you don't need to use both.

"Titanis was an apex predator in this ecosystem, likely preying on mammals like the..." -> "Titanis likely preyed on mammals such as the..." ... You've already said Titanis was an apex predator earlier, the repetition so close after is unnecessary.

Moving on to the Discovery & age section.... "The earliest discovery of Titanis fossils originates from the winter of 1961/1962, when amateur archaeologists..." -> "The earliest discovery of Titanis fossils was in the winter of 1961/1962, when amateur archaeologists..." and I also question why archaeologists were searching for fossils- shouldn't they be looking for broken pots or something?

"but were instantly recognized as unique by paleontologist Clayton Ray who recognized the avian affinity of the material after going through the museum's donations." -> "recognized" is repeated twice, why did he think the fossils were unique, and this is a run-on sentence.

"Brodkorb published his description in 1963, dubbing the genus and species Titanis walleri, the generic name originating from the Greek titans due to the size of the bird and walleri after one of the type specimen's collector, Benjamin Walker." Same as above, Greek Titans needs capitalization, please rephrase to "after Benjamin Waller, one of the collectors of the type specimen" to flow better, and you spelled the man's name wrong.

"as was suggested by Ray." Optional, but the "was" is unnecessary here.

"Titanis has been found in three more sites within Florida since the discovery of the genus:" -> "Titanis has been found in three more sites within Florida since the discovery of the holotype:"

"A newer discovery of Titanis came in 1995, in which the description an isolated pedal phalanx.." -> "A newer discovery of Titanis came in 1995, in the description an isolated pedal phalanx.."

"Later analyses of rare earth elements within the fossil did demonstrate that the Texan Titanis derived from.." -> "Later analyses of rare earth elements within the fossil demonstrated that the Texan Titanis came from.."

"This would make it the oldest estimate of a Titanis fossil, at 5 million years old.." - the comma between fossil and at is unnecessary and breaks the flow.

Regarding that last paragraph under Texan & Californian discoveries- Did Woodward's fossils include that wing bone referred to Aiolornis, and if so can you rephrase it to "..California, including a wing bone from a large, carnivorous teratorn.." and make it clear later on if (a) if Aiolornis incredibilis was named & described based on those fossils, and therefore if (b) is Aiolornis incredibilis a synonym of Titanis walleri.

"..who noted that Bathornis was more lightly built with longer limbs proportionally and carried skulls more akin.." -> "..who noted that Bathornis was more lightly built, with proportionally longer limbs and skulls more akin.."

"..they appear to have been more successful than for example the South American.." -> "..they appear to have been more successful than the South American.."

"All of these genera went extinct by the end of the Pleistocene during the Late Pleistocene extinctions, in which the last phorusrhacids also died out during." -> "All of these genera, including the last phorusrhacids, went extinct during the Late Pleistocene extinctions."

"The internal phylogenetics of Phorusrhacidae have recently received more analysis in the 21st century, though for many decades they were uncertain, with many subfamilies and genera being dubbed in quick succession." -> "The internal phylogenetics of Phorusrhacidae were uncertain for decades, with many subfamilies and genera being named in quick succession, but have received more analysis in the 21st century."

And moving on to the Description section: in the lede, you say it might have been more lightly built than Devincenzia, but in this first paragraph you say it was overall more heavily built. Please clarify.

"The premaxilla is incomplete, consisting of its anteriormost end including the caracteristic long sharp beak tip of phorusrhacidae that would have been used for predatory purposes." -> "The premaxilla is incomplete, consisting of its anteriormost end including the characteristic long, sharp beak tip of Phorusrhacidae [or phorusrhacids] that [would have -> might have (how certain is this?)] been used for [predatory purposes -> hunting?].

"..with a traingular shape in vertical cross section." Is that supposed to be traingular, or did you misspell triangular?

- I have implemented all of these edits, will get to the other suggestions now. Augustios Paleo 18:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to Postcrania and the rest of the article later today. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time for part two:

As a note just to start, you inconsistently use citation templates i.e. {{cite journal}}. This is more of personal pet peeve, but could you put your citations in template where possible?

"However, it was later pointed out that this wing joint is not in fact unique and is present in seriemas, which do not have any specialized grasping hands." -> "However, it was later pointed out that this wing joint is not unique and is present in seriemas, which do not have specialized grasping hands."

"Evidence of elongated quill-feathers is known from Patagornis and Llallawavis, with large tubercles called quill knobs being found on their ulnae." -> "Evidence of elongated quill-feathers are known from Patagornis and Llallawavis, with large tubercles called quill knobs present on their ulnae."

"These quill knobs would have supported long flight feathers, though their purpose is unknown." How is the purpose unknown when you just said what they supported?

"Little is known about the paleobiology of Titanis due to a lack of ample fossil remains." -> "Little is known about the paleobiology of Titanis due to a scarcity of fossil remains."

"..been much swifter than the smaller, more heavyset and slow.." -> "..been much swifter than the smaller, heavier-set and slower.."

"..they suggested that it either fed on smaller prey that could be killed and consumed more safely, by, for example, swallowing it whole.." -> please remove the for example. "such as by swallowing it whole" or simply "more safely by swallowing it whole" (depending on the source) is fine, but the for-example phrase breaks the flow. As a general rule, avoid too many commas in close succession around phrases.

"..and the "Terror Bird Skull Type", which included Titanis and other large members, that was more specialized, with more rigid and stiff skulls." -> again, rigid and stiff are synonyms and you don't need to use both.

"Despite the differences, studies have shown the two types handled prey similarly, while the more rigid skulls and resulting larger bite force of the "Terror Bird" type would have been an adaptation to handling larger prey." -> I find this sentence a bit confusing. Do you mean they handled smaller prey similarly, and the Terror Birds' had adapted to handle larger prey as well? Or did they handle prey similarly but Terror Birds' had adapted to scale up their prey? Either "handled smaller prey similarly" or "with the more rigid skulls...of the "Terror Bird" type being an adaptation" would clarify which way.

And on to Paleoenviroment: "..based on the fossils of squamates, aves, and serpentes." -> Is there a reason you can't just say lizard, snakes, and birds? And even so, "Aves" and "Serpentes" are proper names and not used like that, it would be squamates, avians, and serpents.

"During the Pliocene-Miocene climatic transition, the climate was cooled but.." -> "During the Pliocene-Miocene climatic transition, the climate was cooler but.."

"The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis has been found in also preserve over a hundred species.." -> "The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis has been found in preserve over a hundred other species.."

"Mastodon" is not a common noun when used like that, please change it to either Mammut americana or "American mastodon".

"..grazing equids Nannipus and Equus with the browsing tapirs Tapirus lundeliusi and Tapirus haysii." -> "..grazing equids Nannipus and Equus and the browsing tapirs Tapirus lundeliusi and Tapirus haysii."

"A wide array of artiodactyls existed, including; the peccaries.." -> "A wide array of artiodactyls existed, including: the peccaries.."

"Armadillos and there [change to their] are also known, like the.." -> And their what? There's a word missing. And change the "like" to "such as" or "including".

"The carnivores include.." -> "The carnivorans include.."

"Many fossils of smaller mammals like soricids, lagomorphs, and Ondatra have.." -> Is there a reason you can't say shrews, rabbits, and muskrats? WP:JARGON applies- please use small words for the common ~~dummy~~ reader.

"..along with extant box turtles’ have.." -> please rephrase, as bow turtles is an imprecise common name. I suspect it refers to the common box turtle which is still found in Florida, so "along with those of common box turtles" would be appropriate.

What is the black-tailed hawk, why did you surprise-link it to the genus Falco, and why did you capitalize a common noun again?

"..turkeys, wading birds, and several others." -> suggest rephrasing to "..turkeys, and wading birds, among others."

"..tapirids, antilocaprids, and equids populated the region in addition to extinct families like gomphotheres.." -> "..tapirids, antilocaprids, and equids populating the region alongside extinct families like the gomphotheres.."

"Flight-capable birds could more easily migrate between continents than their mammalian counterparts, creating a more homogenous avian fauna." What mammalian counterparts? Do you mean bats? Either just say "than bats", or remove "than their mammalian counterparts," altogether, since you mention bats in the next sentence.

"..such as with primates and rodents which may have rafted to the continent from Africa and the movement of bats.." -> "..such as with primates and rodents, which may have rafted to the continent from Africa, and the movement of bats.." - add commas to separate clauses, is that supposed to be from Africa, and "movement of bats" needs rephrasing. "immigration of bats"? "arrival of bats"?

"The Great American Interchange did not enter its substantial stage until.." -> "its substantial stage" is not a phrase that makes sense to me. Please rephrase/clarify.

"Titanis is not the only large animal to have done this however;.." -> the however at the end is unnecessary.

"Human settlement of the Americas spelled out the extinction of much of the remaining native South American mammal families, such as glyptodonts and ground sloths." -> "Human settlement in the Americas led to the extinction of most of the remaining native South American mammal families."

You should not include Devincenzia, Phorusrhacos, or Kelenken in the See Also section because they are already linked and mention in the article proper.

Overall, this article is pretty good, if (necessarily) technical in places. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have implemented all of your suggestions. AFH (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As all my concerns have been taken care of, I am happy to Support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size
File:Pierce_Brodkorb.jpg needs a more specific tag
File:Titanis_walleri_holotype_skeletal.jpg: what sources support this? Ditto File:Life_reconstruction_of_the_terror_bird_Titanis_walleri.jpg, File:Great_American_Biotic_Interchange_examples.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this origin for File:Pierce_Brodkorb.jpg, which lacks more information and states that the copyright usage varies by photo. Should it be replaced with an image such as File:Titanis holotype.png? AFH (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That image is appropriately licensed; do you have any more information on the first? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, for now I will be removing it until its copyright status is known. AFH (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three other images should be sent for WP:paleoart review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

"However, Titanis remains poorly known and undescribed": is this a technical usage of "describe", to do with formal species descriptions? Below we have "Brodkorb published his description in 1963, dubbing the genus and species Titanis walleri" which appears to contradict this.
"Titanis, being a phorusrhacid, had ...": suggest "Titanis, like all phorusrhacids, had ..."
"Waller and Allen's fossils consisted of ...": for a moment I thought this sentence was introducing two new characters, but then I realized these are the two collectors already mentioned. Could we give their names earlier?
"The Santa Fe River specimens come from two localities within the river, 1a and 1b. The former locality is ... As for Inglis 1a, it was originally a sinkhole during the Pliocene": presumably "the former" is 1a, so should this be "As for Inglis 1b"?
The sentence starting "A newer discovery" looks like it's missing a verb in the subordinate clause.
"The pit was largely disorganized, with fossils dating to the Early Pliocene and Late Pleistocene jumbled together." Can I just check this is correct per the source? Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene would make a lot more sense.

- "Although the fauna is mixed, it appears that only two components are present: late Hemphillian and Rancholabrean. No definitive Blancan or Irvingtonian taxa have been recognized." (Baskin, 1995)

"This led to an incorrect age assessment, following Brodkorb's aging error": do you mean that someone took Brodkorb's erroneous age and agreed with it, because of the confusing stratigraphy? Or just that they assessed the age incorrectly, as Brodkorb (for different reasons) had done?
"This would make it the oldest estimate of a Titanis fossil at 5 million years old": doesn't this contradict the statement in the lead that Titanis crossed to North America during the Great American Interchange? I see that the next paragraph says the Texas age is unconfirmed, but Howard's assigned age of 3.7 million years for Woodward's fossil also predates the GIA.
- Titanis crossed over before the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, as I go over in the Great American Interchange section.
  Struck; I still have a question here but it's covered in the related point below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Later in 1972, ornithologist Hildegarde Howard referred all the fossils collected by Woodward": since apparently Woodward collected the premaxilla, suggest making this "referred almost all".

- I talk here about how Howard assigned Titanis fossils to Aiolornis.
  After reading the paragraph a couple more times I think I follow: Woodward found avian fossils including a wing bone and a premaxilla found in association; of these fossils, only the wing bone was assigned to Aiolornis at that time. Later Howard assigned all these to Aiolornis. Then in 2013 the premaxilla was proposed as Titanis. If that's correct, I'd like to try to make it clearer. How about "In 1961, while fossil collecting, G. Davidson Woodward acquired several avian fossils from sediments in the Pliocene-aged (3.7 million year old) strata of the Olla Formation in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California, including a wing bone found in association with the premaxilla (ABDSP/LACM 6747/V26697) of a giant bird. The wing bone was referred to the teratorn Aiolornis at that time. In 1972, ornithologist Hildegarde Howard referred all these fossils to Aiolornis. This was supported by later studies, but in a 2013 paper the premaxilla was assigned to Titanis, the author citing its phorusrhacid anatomy as well as age and location." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"speciose" is rather jargony; could we go with "taxon-rich"?
"with many subfamilies and genera being dubbed in quick succession": I'm not sure what this means. Named? But subsequently discarded?
The skeletal reconstruction image shows a silhouette with a height of 2.25 metres. According to the article ("more accurate scaling ... downsized it to 1.4 to 1.87 meters") this is out of date. I think it would be fairly easy to rescale the human figure and metre bar to adjust the apparent size. Did the re-estimations change the apparent body structure as well? That is, are the more recent estimates still consistent with this silhouette, based as it is on older work?

- The size is incorrect, will be fixing that. The anatomy of Titanis itself remained unchanged for the most part.

What's the source for File:Life reconstruction of the terror bird Titanis walleri.jpg? The image file gives references but I can't tell if this image is taken from one of the cited papers or if it's the work of a Wikipedia editor. The source field in the summary template just says dtmitrchel@mail.ru.
- The sources are for the anatomy in the reconstruction, as much of it is based on Andalgalornis
  Sorry, I wasn't clear. The summary template doesn't say who did the reconstruction. Is it a Wikipedian, and an original image created for the encyclopedia? Or is it taken from an external source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader is DiBgd, who has uploaded several other reconstructions for Wikipedia. You can see their DeviantArt account of the same name here. AFH (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The culmen (arc) of the exposed premaxilla was described as identical to that in Patagornis marshi, an Argentine phorusrhacid." Do we need "described as"? It implies this is uncertain or disputed. Is there any reason not to accept the source on this?
"this bird may have been much swifter than the smaller, heavier-set and slower Brontornis": "slower" is redundant with "swifter"; perhaps "smaller, heavier-set and slow Brontornis", or just "smaller and heavier-set Brontornis".
'and in simulations of "pullback"': what does this mean?
"The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis has been found in preserve over a hundred species and many different mammals." Looks like a couple of typos; should this be "The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis have been found to preserve over a hundred species and many different mammals"?
The second paragraph of the "Paleoenvironment" section seems more detailed than is strictly necessary for this article. Wouldn't this level of detail be more suitable for an article specifically about the Blancan in Florida?
Why do we care how primates and rodents came to North America from Africa? I think that sentence could be cut.
"The Great American Interchange did not enter its largest stage until the crossing of the Isthmus of Panama around 2.7 million years ago during the Blancan stage of the Pliocene, though the Isthmus itself formed 4.5-3.5 million years ago." I don't understand the distinction here. If the isthmus formed 4.5-3.5 Mya, what does "the crossing of the Isthmus of Panama" refer to?
- Refers to the crossing by most of the participants of the Interchange (I. e. felids, canids, gomphotheres, armadillos)
  I think some rewording is needed. I think the intended meaning is "The Great American Interchange took place over a long period, with most species crossing at around 2.7 million years ago. The oldest fossil of Titanis is 5 million years old, at least X million years older than the earliest date for the isthmus’s formation about 4.5–3.5 million years ago. How Titanis was able to traverse the gap to North America is unknown." I've left it as X million as the 1.3 million you quote doesn't seem to tally with the numbers given in the article, but I don't know what the sources will support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was putting in my edits and they were lost by a conflict resolution with your edits. I will be adding them again now. AFH (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most points struck; a handful of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions implemented, thank you! AFH (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck a couple more. Did you miss the fourth bullet; looks like that hasn't been fixed? And I'll wait for the scale on the skeletal reconstruction to be fixed before I support. And Nikki, re your image review, does it matter that the uploader is not noted in the summary template as the creator of the image? That appears to be their email address; does that suffice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The username and given artist name is linked via the Commons creator page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a fixed version of the skeletal. AFH (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The height is twice the length of the metre bar; given the range quoted, shouldn't it be around 1.6 m? And if you don't want to scale the human figure to be around 6 feet tall, as is common, I'd remove it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for sure this time. Human & Titanis height accurate AFH (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm still seeing the 2 m one. Did you successfully upload the new version? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for confusion, upload of updated version has gone through. AFH (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, I see it now. The silhouette is fine now. I'm going to strike the point,~~ but I think you should consider rescaling the human silhouette to six feet (it's currently around 5' 2") or eliminating it. These silhouettes are conventionally six feet. It's not wrong as you have it, since the scale is there, but it does look odd. Other than that there's just the one unstruck point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which point are you referring to? AFH (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The silhouette is 160 cm, I'll change this to 180 cm. I also changed the paleoenvironment section if that is what you are referring to. AFH (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Last point is now fixed. This is a layman's review, but it seems FA quality as far as I can tell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed for the article to pass? Do I need another reviewer? AFH (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have two editors supporting the nomination; that's enough that you don't need to worry about the coordinators archiving this any time soon. FACs are never promoted without at least three editors supporting on the content, so you'll need at least one more editor to review and support. You can post neutrally worded requests for reviews at project or user talk pages, if you know of editors or projects that might be interested. Or just wait -- FACs can take one or two months, sometimes. As Gog noted above, you'll also need a source review with a spotcheck. Those can be requested here; I've just added a request for you.

You might also consider reviewing other FACs, if there's one that you find interesting. There's no requirement for a nominator to review, but unsurprisingly, reviewing other people's nominations builds goodwill and makes it more likely they'll consider reviewing your nomination. It takes six or seven reviews to promote a FAC, on average, so the system does rely on most nominators also doing reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwigs Copyvio Detector[edit]

A search found a 15.3% similarity with the citation Morgan (2005), which is not significant. The similarities to other sources were around 1% and were mostly proper nouns. I haven't checked for close-paraphrasing. Graham Beards (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is a rewrite of the section with Morgan (2005) necessary? AFH (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Graham Beards (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support specifically on criterion 1a (the standard of the prose), but in my view the article is of FA standard subject to a satisfactory source review and spotcheck for close paraphrasing. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Having written the only other terror bird FAC, Kelenken, which I see some of this article has borrowed from, I think it's a good idea if I gave it a review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*At first glance, I see some WP:duplinks (not counting the cladogram), which can be highlighted with this script:[3]

- fixed, though Im keeping linked duplicates that had first been linked in the prose.

I'm seeing duplinks under Postcrania still. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article need to use space on a cladogram that doesn't even show the subject of the article? I think it could be cut and explained briefly in text what it implies.
- Which cladogram are you referring to?

Seems you solved it, it was the first one. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images could be rearranged so that they don't clash with section titles. For example the American interchange image could be right aligned and put under the title, and the size comparison image could be moved up so the restoration could be moved right, though I see that creates a problem with the guideline that image subjects should face towards the text. I don't think uploading flipped images is a good idea, so I'll try to ask somewhere if this can be done with code.
- Please let me know if this can be done with code. Thank you

They're dragging their feet, so not much that can be done yet. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the duplicates outside of the prose. AFH (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*"This led R. M. Chandler to suggest" State when.

- Done

*"However, it was later pointed out that this wing joint is not unique and is present in seriemas, which do not have specialized grasping hands" State by who and when.

- Done
The restoration and skeletal seem to have not been reviewed at WP:paleoart (note I removed the wing-claws long ago). Interchange image has restoration silhouettes and could be reviewed too.
- Put both images up for review
Link terms in image captions, like holotype, tarsometatarsus, Life reconstruction, etc.
- Done
Link equids, Pliocene, and Pleistocene, avian, stratigraphic, Rancholabrean, University of Florida, fossil collecting, type specimen, sinkhole, strata, phylogenetics, sexual dimorphism, etc., at first mentions.
- Done
"until they were recognized as unique" When?
- Done
Link and explain phorusrhacid at first mention. Something like (or "terror bird", a group of large, predatory birds).
- Done
"The Red-legged seriema, the closest living relative of phorusrhacids." How is one species of seriema closer to them than the other?
- Done

I see no difference, there are two living seriemas, so it makes no sense to say only one of them is the closest relatives of the phorhusrhacids. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Brodkorb created a manuscript" Wrote would make more sense.
- Done
"though Ray pushed Brodkorb to change his assessment" To what?
- Done
"after Benjamin Waller" You already spelled out his name earlier, only need last name here.
- Done
I wonder why Ray didn't just name the species himself, if he had to steer the direction of the manuscript anyway?
- I am unsure why, it may be due to Brodkorb's more comprehensive knowledge of Aves
"dubbing the genus" Naming would be more formal and fitting for the context. It's not like it's a nickname.
- Done
"but became a sedimentary layer of clay that was uncovered during construction of the Cross Florida Barge Canal by the federal government." When? In general, give dates for important events and publications.
- Done
"n association with the premaxilla (ABDSP/LACM 6747/V26697) of a giant bird" Seems random that you give a specimen number for this, but not all the other specimens you've mentioned earlier. Either just give it for the holotype or give it for all you can.
- Done
"to the teratorn Aiolornis" Always link clades and genera at first mention.
- Done
"he wing bone was referred to the teratorn Aiolornis at that time. In 1972, ornithologist Hildegarde Howard referred all these fossils to Aiolornis." It wasn't referred anywhere the second time if it was already referred in 1961. You could say it was agreed/confirmed it belonged in that genus.
- Done
"but in a 2013 paper" By who? Always give authorship for important studies.
- Done
"Skeletal reconstruction of the Titanis holotype." You could point out what the only one bone shown is.
- Done
"Distribution map of Titanis" That should rather be fossil localities, we don't know what its distribution was.
- Done
The description[4] seems to have a lot more images than what's used here, I think many more should be used in the articles. I can help if needed.
- That would be very helpful, thank you

I've updated the existing image to show all views, and added another. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"recently received more analysis in the 21st century" Unnecessary to say "recently".
- Done
"genera were dubbed without justification" Saying "named" would fit the context better.
- Done
"and huge skulls" A bit informal, perhaps "prportionally large" or similar would fit better.
- Done
The section "Postcrania" could be named "Postcranial skeleton" for clarity.
- Done
"have been mentioned in scientific literature as being known" Not sure "as being known" is needed.
- Done
"The culmen (arc)" I would specify "upper arc".
- Done
"The pterygoid is giant" Rather informal.
- Done
There is a good deal of anatomical terms under description that could be explained in parenthesis.
- Done
I would convert anatomical terms for direction into more common terms.
- Done
"Potential sexual dimorphism has been suggested twice" What does it give the reader that it has been suggested twice, if you don't mention by who? I'd just cut "twice".
- Done
Nowhere in the description can I see what sets this genus apart from its relatives, other than being heavier. What are its diagnostic features?
- Done
Citations like 34 and 39 look incompletely filled out.
- Done
"The pes is large and had three toes" You mix tenses, should be consistent, look throughout for this in the description especially.
- Done
"though several vertebrae have been collected from Florida" Why is it relevant under description that it was from Florida?
- Done
"suggesting the digits could flex to some degree" But is this still supported, or just an outdated assumption along with the claws?
- Done
"pointed out by Gould and Quitmyer (2005)" Since you include the dates in the sentence structure outside parenthesis elsewhere, should do so here.
- Done
"Much of its habits are inferred based on related taxa like Kelenken and Andalgalornis" Is this really what the source says? Note that much of what I wrote in the Kelenken article is itself inferred from other taxa, so perhaps this is an overstatement.
- No detailed studies on the habits of Titanis specifically have been published to my knowledge.
The second half of the Leg function section is strictly about Kelenken, is there nothing published about this genus in particular? It is ok to use info that can be applied to an entire group in multiple articles, but I don't think that's the case here, as it's so specific, and should possibly be removed.
- Any parts specifically? I believe some of the information is relevant.

The entire second paragraph of Leg function is specifically about Kelenken. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - Removed much of the paragraph

"In Inglis 1a specifically, longleaf pine flatwoods and pine-oak scrub are known to have occupied the area based on the fossils of snakes, birds, and lizards." How is it known which trees existed there based on animal fossils?
- Done
"The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis have been found to preserve over a hundred species and many different mammals." The "to" is confusing, is it a mistake?
- Done
"This includes extinct proboscideans, perissodactyls represented by grazing equids and browsing tapirs." I think there needs to be an "and" after proboscideans, since you don't mention a third group after perissodactyls.
- Done
"The avifauna of the period has extensive preservation" Odd way to put it, maybe you mean "an extensive avifauna is preserved" or "there are abundant remains of avifauna"?
- Done
"From circumstantial evidence (i.e., bone fractures), it has been suggested that the species did not become extinct until 15,000 years ago" Why do bone fractures suggest this? And by who was this proposed and when?
- Removed & fixed

I think this is important to keep just so it can be refuted (I also remembered this issue, and wanted to check what the current interpretation is). What I was asking is just what was the rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - The age issue was already addressed in the Discovery and age section, so I believe it is unnecessary to include. Also, I could not find any mention of circumstantial evidence mentioned, I believe another user edited the page and added it.

"with the dominance of phorusrhacids and sparassodonts as the dominant predators" No need for double dominance/dominant.
- Done
" The fauna of North America was composed of contemporary groups like canids, felids, ursids, tapirids, antilocaprids, and equids populating the region alongside extinct families like the gomphotheres, amphicyonids, and mammutids" I think you need to say "still extant groups" instead of "contemporary", and say "now" in front of "extinct groups".
- Done
"Phorusrhacids evolved independently in South America" Independently from what?I think this is the wrong way to use the word, it implies independent evolution.
- Done

I'm still unsure what's meant here. Convergent with what? What does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - The source states that "The predator guild, feeding on vertebrates, was occupied by metatherians (Sparassodonta; Fig. 1), birds (Phorusrhacidae, Cariamidae, Anseriformes, and Falconiformes), reptiles (Squamata), and frogs (Neobatrachia), the last being occasional predators of small vertebrates (Fernicola and Albino 2012)" These niche gaps were instead filled by mammals in North America.
"he extinction of T. walleri and other phorusrhacids" Why randomly use the full binomial here and in other places?
- Done
Spell out full name of McFadden as you do with other writers.
- Done
"the earliest date for the Isthmus’ formation" You haven't mentioned the isthmus before, state what it connected, link an article about the term, and I don't think isthmus should be capitalised.
- Done
"including the South American terror birds" Probably best to use their scientific name, since you do that everywhere else in the article.
- Done
" Human settlement in the Americas led to the extinction of most of the remaining native South American mammal families" Isn't this just one out of multiple theories? Since climate change has also been suggested, I don't think you can be so definite here.
- Done
"assumed the same would be true for other large, big-headed phorusrhacids like Titanis." But Titanis isn't mentioned in the article. Should use more unspecific wording like in the Kelenken article it was taken from, which says " same would be true for other large, big-headed phorusrhacids."
- Done
- Done
"but comes from one of the largest phorusrhacid individuals known", "Titanis was one of the largest phorusrhacids, rivaling Kelenken and Phorusrhacos in size based on preserved material." this is only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info. If true, it should be repeated and elaborated on under description, with citations.
- Done
"The skull has been estimated to have been between 321 millimetres (12.6 in) and 542 millimetres (21.3 in) in length, one of the largest known from any bird." Likewise, only mentioned in the intro, needs to be mentioned and sourced under description, and explained how this length was reached.
- Done
"The skull has been estimated to have been" Repetitive wording, just say "is estimated to have been".
- Done
" is after the fossil hunter Benjamin Waller" Already presented in the intro, no need for occupation or firstname repeated.
- Done
"Titanis was in the subfamily Phorusrhacinae" Is classified in.
- Done
"The tarsometatarsus was long and slender, like that of its relative Kelenken, which suggests that it could run faster than had previously been assumed for large phorusrhacids, and would have been able to chase down small animals." But no source actually compares the two?
- Done
"Titanis is unique among phorusrhacids in that it is the only one known from North America, crossing over during the Great American Interchange" Shouldn't this be in the last paragraph of the intro instead of the first, to reflect the article structure?
- Done
"Titanis is unique among phorusrhacids in that it is the only one known from North America" This doesn't seem to be specifically stated outside the intro.
- Done
Here's a bit mouthful, Augustios Paleo, but should be all for now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This would make it one of the largest phorusrhacid and aves known" Probably clearer to just say "birds" instead of "aves" (which should be capitalised anyway).
I see some images have pixel size forcing, but this is discouraged, and should be removed. If you want to make an image larger, use the upright parameter (scaling by for example saying |upright=1.6). But in general, just let them stay at thumbnail size, because then they will adjust to individual screens.
Added a two points more and answered some points above (still seeing a few older points without answers). FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I believe this is everything. AFH (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I have two minor points, I saw you changed "largest" to "biggest", but "largest is less informal, and I wouldn't say seriemas are "close" relatives, just closest living relatives. And there are some of my replies to your answers above that are unaddressed still (you can find them by looking at my comments that are not followed by yours). FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - changes look good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SlvrHwk[edit]

Jumping in here to provide some comments:

Lead

The "For" template at the top should read "For the Greek myth figure..."
Saying "The holotype (name-bearing) specimen was first unearthed..." is probably unnecessary for the lead. I would rephrase to "The first fossils were unearthed..." and use the "holotype (name-bearing)" phrasing in the "Discovery and age" section.
"United States" doesn't need to be included in the link to Florida.
The first mention of the species name "...and was named Titanis walleri by ornithologist..." should be bolded.
Is the full binomial etymology needed here? The generic name meaning is given in the very first sentence, and the full etymology is in the next section.
Why is Texas linked, but not California? Should be both or neither.
Saying "...large skull, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak" might be too detailed for the lead. Could be shortened to "large skull with a hooked beak", with more detail given in the body paragraphs.
cm→in (rather than mm→in) conversions for skull length would likely be easier for most people to grasp.
The end of the last paragraph is rather confusing:
- "...known from the Pliocene deposits of Florida and southeastern Texas..." (the first paragraph says it is also known from California?)
- "Titanis likely preyed on mammals...and other herbivores of Pliocene Florida." (what about Texas and California?) Could rephrase to just "preyed on mammals...and other Pliocene herbivores" or something similar.
- The last sentence could be slightly reworded for clarity; "Titanis is unique..., having crossed over [from where] during the Great American Interchange."

Discovery and age

The holotype pedal phalanx seems to have a different specimen number (UF 4109) than the tarsometatarsus (UF 4108). This should be properly noted in the image caption and body text.
The sentence "This was the first discovery of phorusrhacids outside of South America" is out of place in its current location. It would fit much better at the end of the paragraph.
The page mentions "...bones of equids, proboscideans, and many other Floridan fossils...", but the following sentence says "Waller and Allen's fossils consisted of only a distal tarsometatarsus...and a pedal phalanx..." The second sentence is referring to only the avian/phorusrhacid remains, so this should be made more clear in that sentence (i.e. "W. & A.'s avian fossils...").
A semicolon or em dash would be more appropriate in this sentence: "Ray also noted their stratigraphic origin: they were found..."
"Brodkorb published his description..." can be linked to species description.
I would make the following adjustments to the end of the first paragraph for clarity: "...naming the new genus and species Titanis walleri. The generic name, Titanis, references the Greek Titans, due to the bird's large size, and the specific name, walleri, honors Waller, one of the collectors of the type specimen. As suggested by Ray, Brodkorb grouped Titanis with the subfamily Phorusrhacinae..."
"As for Inglis 1b, it was originally..." could be rephrased to "Inglis 1b was originally..."
Under "Texan and Californian discoveries", Texas is not linked, but California. Should be both or neither.
"...but in a 2013 paper by paleontologist Robert Chandler and colleagues the premaxilla was assigned to Titanis, the author citing its phorusrhacid anatomy..." can be rephrased for clarity and active voice: "...but a 2013 paper by paleontologist Robert Chandler and colleagues assigned the premaxilla to Titanis, the authors citing the bone's phorusrhacid features..."

Classification

It might be helpful to link the first mention of Phorusrhacidae in this section, as the clade is a primary focus.
"While they are the most taxon-rich group within Cariamiformes, the interrelationships between phorusrhacids are unclear..." can be rephrased for clarity: "While phorusrhacids are the most taxon-rich group within Cariamiformes, their interrelationships are unclear..."
"Filled" in "...living from the Eocene to Miocene and filled a similar niche..." should be changed to "filling" for accurate parallel structure.
"Red-legged" does need to be capitalized in the image caption.
I may be misunderstanding the text, but the second paragraph says "Phorusrhacids originated in South America...", but later "It is unclear where the group originated...". Could this be rewritten to be more clear?
The first sentence of the third paragraph could be reworded for clarity: "Though for many decades the internal phylogenetics of Phorusrhacidae were uncertain and many taxa were named without justification, they have received more analysis in the 21st century."
"...ending up with..." could be replaced with the more formal "...resulting in...".
A cladogram following the 2011 phylogenetic analysis could be helpful, if not just to demonstrate a more "historical" view. This could be implemented using the column template (see Yuxisaurus for an example).
It would be helpful to include the "Phorusrhacinae" label on the existing cladogram, as illustrated on the Phorusrhacidae page for the same analysis, to show the clade's polyphyletic nature.

Description

"...enlarged skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak"—this is very wordy. Is there a more efficient way to say it?
"...overall more heavily built bodily structure" → "overall more heavily-built body."
"The size of Titanis has been estimated several times, older guesses placing it at..." → The size of Titanis has been estimated several times. Older guesses place it at..."
"This would make it one of the...Struthioniformes and Gastornithiformes → "This would make Titanis one of the largest phorusrhacids and birds known, with only relatives like Devincenzia and Kelenken as well as some struthioniforms and gastornithiforms being larger."
"bones" should be plural in "...quadratojugals (cheek bone)..."
Once again, skull length would be more easily understandable if given in cm, rather than mm.
"The premaxilla is incomplete..." should be "The premaxilla of Titanis is incomplete" for clarity, since a different taxon was just mentioned in the previous sentence.
"...a partial mandible is known but it is unfigured and undescribed." → "...undescribed in scientific literature" (for clarity).

Paleobiology

"Much of its habits..." → "Many of its habits..."
"In a 2006 news article, Chiappe stated that Kelenken..." Who is Chiappe? Introduce him in the body using phrasing like "Luis Chiappe, an Argentine paleontologist, stated that..."
Instead of reusing the phrasing "Chiappe stated..." in the next sentence, say something like "Chiappe further explained/remarked/etc...."
"...very long legs, and thereby had the same kind of meat-eater adaptations" → "...very long legs, and thereby similar carnivore adaptations."
Remove duplicate word in "...killed and consumed more more safely..."
"et al." has a period after "al."
"A 2012 follow-up study by Claudia Tambussi and colleagues...", since she has not been mentioned earlier.
"...neck musculature and skeleton of Andalgalornis was adapted..." → "...neck musculature and skeleton of Andalgalornis were adapted..."
"...downwards strike, and the researchers assumed..." → "...downwards strike. The researchers assumed..."

Paleoenvironment

"During the Blancan..." → "During the Blancan stage..." for clarity.
Add link "endemic".
"The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis preserve..." → "The Blancan age strata of Florida from Titanis sites preserve..."
Unlike bird-of-paradise, bird of prey is generally not hyphenated.
"Teratorn" is linked in a much earlier section, so an additional link here would be helpful.
"...gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as apex predator" → "...gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as that of apex predator."
"...took place over a long period and most species..." → "...took place over a long period of time and most species..."
Replace period with a comma in "...to the rest of the Americas. and a reverse migration..."
"MacFadden" is misspelled once as "McFadden" in the text and accompanying citation.
Once again, there is a period after "al." in "et al."
I believe "postulated" is a better word choice than "stipulated", though the two have similar meanings.
The second instance of "Isthmus' " is not capitalized, but it probably should be ("The period following the isthmus' foundation...").

Extinction

The abbreviation "BP" should be clarified, at least with a link to the relevant page.

Other

Per MOS:CAPFRAG, image captions that are not full sentences should not end in a period. I believe this applies to four instances on the page.
Since the page already has the "Phorusrhacinae" category, it does not also need "Phorusrhacidae". And maybe not "Extinct flightless birds", since "Phorusrhacidae" is in that category (though I'm less certain about this one).

Hopefully this helps! -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions implemented. Thank you! AFH (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Adjustments made as suggested. Nice job! -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is enough supporters and the article is ready for promotion. AFH (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs a source review, a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, sorry this is my first FA review so I'm not sure what happens. AFH (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild@SlvrHwk@FunkMonk Are any of y’all available for the spot check & paraphrasing reviews? AFH (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Sources are reliable.

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

~~The links for FNs 10, 15, 22 do not work.~~
~~FNs 22, 38, 46, 47 & 58 are incomplete citations.~~
~~You're inconsistent about giving publisher locations for book citations: FN 8 does not give a location, but FNs 33 & 57 do give one. Either way is fine; it just has to be consistent.~~
I see you've addressed this, but can I suggest you add US state names after towns that are not well known, such as Lubbock, New Haven, and Hoboken? And it looks like you meant to link Lubbock but only used one set of brackets. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~For FN 42 you give NPR.org as the website parameter, but the website is branded as NPR -- npr.org is the domain.~~

Will do spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

FN 1 cites "Brodkorb authored a manuscript assigning it to the Struthioniformes, though Ray pushed Brodkorb to classify the fossils as phorusrhacid." I don't see mention of the Struthioniformes in the source.
FNs 2 & 5 cite "As for Port Charlotte, a single fossil, a partial pedal phalanx from the fourth digit, was donated to the UF in 1990." Verified.
FN 21 cites "A 2020 study of phorusrhacid skull morphology by Degrange found that there were two main morphotypes within the group, derived from a seriema-like ancestor." Mostly verified, but I couldn't spot the support for "derived from a seriema-like ancestor". Can you point me at the right page in the source?
FN 40 cites "They also suggested future studies could examine whether they could have used their beaks and claws against well-armored mammals such as armadillos and glyptodonts." Verified.
FN 39 cites "By manually manipulating the vertebrae, they concluded that the neck musculature and skeleton of Andalgalornis were adapted to carrying a large head and for helping it rise from a maximum extension after a downwards strike." The sopurce says "maximum ventroflexion". I think you're using "extension" here in the usual English sense, but unfortunately it also has a technical meaning for neck movement which is the opposite of flexion. I wouldn't count this as a problem with the spotcheck, but I think you need to change this. I would suggest either changing the wording so you can use the verb extend in some way ("raising the head after the neck had been fully extended" or something like that) or else just use "ventroflexion"; it's a technical term and you can't be blamed for re-using it.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "Struthioniformes", I am referencing this line: the bird is more like the large flightless rhea of southern South America than any other flightless bird known to man. This would make it a member of Struthioniformes. "Derived from a seriema-like ancestor" comes from "a trend towards a more rigid skull (Degrange et al., 2010) from a presumed seriema-like morphology, was influenced by the adaptation to a very specific niche among predatory birds."

Rest of suggestions implemented AFH (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Struthioniformes, our own article says the rheas are in Rheiformes. I think the later mention, "describing the bird as a giant rhea" is closer to what you want (the earlier cite is just him talking to the newspaper, before writing the ms) but I'm not sure whether that's enough to say he assigned it to Rheiformes in the ms. FunkMonk, sorry to bug you again, but I know you're expert in this area. Would you say the citation is sufficient to say that Brodkorb assigned it to Rheiformes in his ms? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say that is over interpreting the source. "more like the large flightless rhea of southern South America than any other flightless bird known to man" is definitely not a specific classification, it is a very general statement, and should probably be made closer to the source. If I say "this animal was more like a dog than a cat", I'm not specifically classifying it as a canid. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change this to "a relative of the rhea" or something along those lines. Thank you. AFH (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But does he really say it's related? He just says it's similar, but that doesn't necessarily mean related. For all we know, he could have meant convergent, so we shouldn't really interpret. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ray (2005) states "By Monday at the latest Brodkorb had also prepared a formal manuscript ready for submission, describing the bird as a giant rhea." AFH (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you'd have to add that citation after the sentence to support it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is already there AFH (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is now OK. Since there was one spotcheck that needed attention, I'm checking a couple more below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More spotchecks.

FN 2 cites "The Santa Fe River specimens come from two localities within the river, 1a and 1b. The former locality is more productive, producing elements of Titanis including vertebrae, limb bones, and even parts of the skull." Verified.
FN 22 cites "A lineage of related predatory birds, the bathornithids, occupied North America prior to the arrival of phorusrhacids, living from the Eocene to Miocene and filling a similar niche to phorusrhacids." The source says their way of life was similar to the cariamas (seriemas); can this really be said to be the same niche as the phorusrhacids? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FNs 3 & 25 cite "They all preserve an elongated, thin tarsometatarsus that was around half the length of the tibiotarsus." I think this is derived from the individual descriptions which give the relative length of the two bones. The description of Mesembriornithae says "around 80 to 85% of that of the tibiotarsus". That's a good deal more than half. In addition, unless I'm misreading the source, which is possible, not all the phorusrhacids have sufficient fossil preservation for this ratio to be measured in every case, so we shouldn't be saying "They all preserve".

Stopping there to let you respond to these, in case I've misunderstood something in the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“They” refers to Phorusrhacines. “ Titanis and other phorusrhacines were heavily built. They…” AFH (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow -- how does this address the questions I raised above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All phorusrhacines have preserved tarsometatarses and bear this ratio. I’m talking about that subfamily specifically. If I shouldn’t use “they” should I just say “All phorusrhacines”? AFH (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFH, sorry I've been slow getting back to you. You say all phorusracines have this ratio, but as far as I can see looking through Alvarenga & Höfling it seems several genuses do not have this ratio measured -- Brontornis, for example, or Physornis. The other two points I raised above also need to be addressed -- you say "around half the length" but 85% isn't close to half; and there's also the question about comparing their ecological niche to that of the seriemas -- cursorial habits don't necessarily imply that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physornis and Brontornis are not part of phorusrhacinae. AFH (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I say that their ecology was similar to seriemas’? Also, the tibiotarsus length sentence has been fixed, AFH (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that we're only talking about phorusrhacinae; sorry about that -- I read it as phorusrhacidae. The relevant quote from Alvarenga & Höfling is presumably then "The tarsometatarsus (Figs. 2E and 2F), relatively long and slender, is always longer than 60% of the length of the tibiotarsus" -- the 85% figure I quoted you doesn't refer to the phorusracinae. I think your original phrasing of "around half" is not quite precise enough. I've changed this in the article to match the source and have struck this point above. I see you've fixed the other point so I've struck that too. Will check a couple more sources tomorrow and I hope to pass this review then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third spotchecks.

FN 36 cites "Degrange et al. also postulated that it used a series of well-targeted repetitive strikes with the beak in an "attack-and-retreat" strategy. Struggling prey could also have been restrained with the feet, despite the lack of sharp talons." The source has "... it most likely applied multiple well-targeted strikes in a repetitive attack-and-retreat strategy. Restraining struggling prey with their feet also was potentially an option, despite the absence of sharp talons." This is insufficiently paraphrased.
FN 52 cites "Phorusrhacids evolved in South America to fill gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as that of apex predator." Verified.
FNs 43 & 44 cite "During the Pliocene-Miocene climatic transition, the climate was cooler but temperatures did not reach those of the Pleistocene, creating a warm period." Verified.
FNs 9 & 13 cite "Large rodents are represented by capybaras and porcupines." Verified.

-- @WP:FAC coordinators: this is the third pass for spotchecks. Each time I've found something that needs addressing, which means I don't feel comfortable supporting, but the issues are not so egregious I feel I have to oppose. I also don't want to continue to check and find minor issues. I would like another reviewer to do some spotchecks -- perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, Mike. FunkMonk, how would you feel about taking up Mike's suggestion for some further spot-checking? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't done a real spotcheck before, but here's an attempt. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN 22 " and filling a similar niche to cariamids" I'm not seeing this exp0lkicitly stated anywhere. Also, is't it better to use a more recent review of the group than one from 1968, which must surely be outdated in ways? And if you use it, best to link directly to the AMHN PDF site:[5]
FN 52 "Phorusrhacids evolved in South America to fill gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as that of apex predator." I'm not seeing this explicitly stated anywhere in the source.
FN 24 While the citation supports the latter part of the sentence it is used for, the binomial in the title needs to be in italics, check all citations for same issue.
FN 37 While it supports the parts it cites about quills, I wonder if a source from 1899 is appropriate outside the more historical sections when used only to cite current thinking? Also, what does the first usage of the citation support? I assume it is this "Sides of the fossil are flat bearing a large dorsal crest, as in other thin-skulled phorusrhacids like Phorusrhacos. The culmen (upper arc) of the exposed premaxilla is identical to that in Patagornis marshi, an Argentine phorusrhacid." But how can a source from 1899 compare with a taxon named in 1963, without it here being WP:original synthesis?
FN 17 While it seems to support the statement, it is a bit of an odd citation. Looking at the bottom of the page, it says "Published in: Borrego Sun Vol. 62 No.8 April 11, 2013 By Susan Vescera". This would indicate the text was copied from a newspaper article, which should probably be credited somehow (nice if it could be found), if the citation can't just be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if more should be checked, but five seems fine for now? A more general comment on something I missed first time arund, I think the caption of the American Interchange image should state which colours represent taxa from what area, and that Titanis is included in it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed AFH (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk, is this one ready for a decision? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, looks fine to me, can't talk for Mike. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens[edit]

Lead

The first fossils were unearthed by amateur archaeologist Benjamin Waller from the Santa Fe River in Florida and was named Titanis walleri – "were named"?
an incomplete right tarsometatarsus shin bone – I don't understand this, what is incomplete? A "tarsometatarsus shin bone"? Comma missing here?
Titanis remains poorly known. Titanis was – I suggest "It was" to avoid repetition of Titanis all the time.
and a large skull with a hooked beak . – space too much?
The material is fragmentary, consisting of only an incomplete right tarsometatarsus shin bone and phalanx toe bone – This would mean that nothing more is known, but apparently it only refers to the type specimen. That should become clearer I think.
A 2005 estimate placed Titanis at 2 to 2.5 meters (6.6 to 8.2 ft) in height and weighing 200 kilograms (440 lb). – sounds a bit awkward to me; maybe "200 kilograms in weight"?
Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and have often been considered apex predators that dominated Cenozoic South America – this lacks context; the reader won't know why South America, since so far only the US was mentioned.
Titanis is known from the Pliocene deposits of Florida, southern California, and southeastern Texas, regions with large open savannas – I assume you didn't want to describe today's landscape in those states? Need to switch to past tense I think.
I know I'm a bit late for this one, I will try to get to the rest asap. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions implemented. AFH (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but: "Shinbone" is the tibia (or maybe the tibiotarsus in birds), not the tarsometatarsus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, changed to "lower leg bone" AFH (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed one instance; it is repeated in the main text, too. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where? AFH (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed the second intance now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and age

As suggested by Ray, Brodkorb grouped Titanis with the subfamily Phorusrhacinae within Phorusrhacidae, along with Phorusrhacos and Devincenzia, as suggested by Ray – only need one "as suggested by Ray"
- Fixed
honors Waller, one of the collectors of the type specimen. – This contradicts the information provided in the lead, that mentiones Waller as sole collector.
- Fixed
sparking a wave of large-scale excavation – "excavations"
The localities are confusing and could be better introduced. The Santa Fe River specimens come from two localities within the river, 1a and 1b. – Does this refer to Inglis 1a and 1b? What is Inglis to start with? Why is 1b not listed in the first sentence of the paragraph, while the other sites are?
- This refers to the Santa Fe River localities which are called 1a and 1b. Not Inglis.
The description followed Brodkorb's erroneous Late Pleistocene age assessment. – Comes a bit out of the blue as it was not explicitly mentioend earlier that Brodkorb mad an erroneous age assessment.
- Rephrased
link "rare earth element"?
- Done
Later analyses of rare earth elements within the fossil demonstrated that the Texan Titanis derived from Pliocene rocks of the Hemphillian stage, a period preceding the formation of the Isthmus of Panama.[15] – "Later analysis" but you cite the same 1995 source? What is the later analysis here?
- Fixed, was MacFadden et Al (2006) source
which are around 2.2–1.8 million years old from the Blancan – could be worded a bit better. Maybe "… years old, and therefore from the Blancan age".
- Reworded

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. AFH (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All implemented* AFH (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems you did not address all of them though? It is quite difficult for me to check what you fixed and what not. Maybe you could add a short comment to each point, explaining briefly what you did (or not) for the more complicated ones, that would really make it easier? So, you did not made any changes to clarify the localities as far as I can see? What about the Waller issue I pointed out? If you disagree with my suggestions or if I miss something, just let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though for many decades the internal phylogenetics of Phorusrhacidae were uncertain and many taxa were named without justification – "without justification" seems to be a steep claim. What does the source say precisely (I had a look at the sources but can't find it).
- Done, used phrase based on the common pattern of researchers like Ameghino & Moreno naming species without detailed analysis or reasoning.
They had an elongated skulls – "an" too much?
- Done, not needed
Titanis itself coexisted with a variety of placental mammalian predators and contended with them – do the sources cover the claim that all of these genera "contended" with Titanis? I can't find it supported for Arctodus, at least. Co-existence does not necessarily imply competition (because there could have been niche-partitioning), that's why I am asking.
- Done, was based on unpublished information I know of.
However, it differs from these in having a shorter, thicker neck – Which is your source here? You indicated source 3, but this can't be since it only describes the foot.
- Done, was misinterpretation.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this should be all of the suggestions. What else is needed to pass? AFH (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks good, but I still cannot make sense of the localities, even after reading it multiple times. You write Titanis has been found in three more sites within Florida since the discovery of the holotype but then apparently talk about other, additional sites? So there are actually more than "three more sites"? That does not make sense. I will try to get to the rest of the article shortly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes, hoped thsi helped. AFH (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit better but still unclear. Inglis 1b comes out of the blue and was not listed beforehand. Inglis 1a and Citrus County are mentioned at the beginning but apparently never mentioned again. Maybe you could improve the structure of the text somehow, presenting the information point by point instead of starting with two separate lists of sites (river sites and other sites)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, had the locale name wrong. Should I remove “ Titanis has been found in three sites in Florida beyond the Sante Fe River since the discovery of the holotype: Inglis 1b, Citrus County; Port Charlotte, Charlotte County; and a shell pit in Sarasota County.” Entirely? AFH (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I would simply include the Santa Fee river localities in this list. Why keeping them separate? I still do not understand that. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be better now. Thank you! AFH (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more steps left till promotion? @Jens Lallensack @FunkMonk @Mike Christie AFH (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the coordinators, and reviewers who haven't yet supported or opposed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am travelling but will try to get my review done during the next days. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens. Sorry to be harassing you, but it's been a week. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay once more. Here are my final comments:
The "paleobiology" section seems to have been copy&pasted from the Kelenken article, and presents the research that has been carried out on other, better known taxa. Not that you should necessarily change something here, but applying summary stile might be worth considering to reduce redundancy a bit. One think should be changed in any case though: as was also the case for other large phorusrhacids such as Kelenken – should it be "such as Titanis" for this article?
There are abundant remains of avifauna, with thousands of fossils known, including birds of prey, teratorns, and turkeys. – The teratorns would be the most relevant to this article, maybe they deserve a bit of elaboration.
The Great American Interchange took place over a long period of time – "over a long period of time" is very vague and can mean anything. Can we be more specific?
A hypothesis made by MacFadden et al. (2006) – write "in a 2006 article" or similar to be style consistent.
Titanis is not the only large animal to have done this – need a "possibly" here since this is not certain.
saw the extinction or extirpation of many groups – what is the difference between extinction and extirpation here?
though this would not finish until the Late Pleistocene. – formulation is a bit strange. And does this mean that no groups went extinct from the Late Pleistocene onwards?
was originally theorized – "hypothesized" is the word.
that radiated in the same ancient terrestrial ecosystems – what do you mean with "radiated"?
Brodkorb's original mistaken aging of Titanis as being from the latest Pleistocene, an error followed by later studies, postulated that it – I think this is poor wording, as only a human can postulate something, not an "mistaken aging".
demonstrating that the genus was endemic to the Pliocene and earliest Pleistocene – is "endemic" really the correct term here?
late Pleistocene, – "late" or "Late"?
making the extinction of Titanis and Phorusrhacidae as a whole a mystery. – on what information in the source is this based on? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions implemented. AFH (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, again, that you implemented some, but not all, of my comments. Could you re-check, and, where applicable, leave a reply explaining why you choose not to implement it? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason not all of my changes are going through, but I’ll see what I can do. AFH (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented all suggestions, should be good now. AFH (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok now, thanks. Supporting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2023 [6].

Asimov's Science Fiction[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the few important science fiction magazines to be launched in the last fifty years. Scores of award-winning stories have appeared in Asimov's over the years and it was at one point one of the most prestigious markets in the genre. There's not as much written about the last couple of decades, perhaps because sf in magazine form is no longer the cutting edge of the field, but I've included what I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

" with circulation of 108,843 for the first year, a little higher than Analog's." If this is cumulative for all issues, I might add "total" before "circulation".
It's for just one issue -- whichever issue was selected from within the first year or so to report circulation, which every magazine has to do at least once a year. I made it "reaching 108,843"; does that make it clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After pushback from the authors Moloney turned over manuscript editing to McCarthy." Perhaps a comma after "authors".
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as an increase in total text of 10%, with no price increase." I would avoid the second "increase" with a synonym.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Asimov's soon became known for humorous stories; the only touch of humor in the first issue was Clarke's story, "Quarantine", which was a very short story originally written to fit on a postcard, but more quickly appeared." Since the second part of this sentence stands in mild contradiction to the first, I'm not sure they should be joined by a semicolon.
Changed to a full stop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"but Davis Publications did not waiting to risk alienating the young readers which they knew formed part of the magazine's audience." "Which" should probably be who.
I made it "whom", which I think is right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"orangutan" is rendered orang-utan in the lede and only linked in the body.
Fixed and linked in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and Robinson's "The Blind Geometer", about a blind mathematician," I might vary the description a bit, since the title in this case is descriptive.
I can't think of anything else useful to say about it, without rereading it, so I just cut the description -- as you say the reader gets the idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything on how Asimov's death affected the magazine/ability to use his name?
Not mentioned in the sources -- I would guess it would be up to his estate but I have nothing I can use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

“reaching over 100,000 circulation within a year”: this reads a little oddly to me. “reaching a circulation of over 100,000 within a year” seems more natural, but this may be an ENGVAR thing.
No, I think that's just clumsy on my part. Took your suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an American topic, should it be “favored” rather than “favoured”?
Sigh. Yes, fixed. Thirty-plus years in the US but old habits are hard to break. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more recent than 2020 for circulation figures?
These come from Ashley, who has nothing past 2020, but I know he got them from the audited circulation statements that the US requires all magazines to provide once a year (to help prevent defrauding advertisers about the circulation). In theory I could get the 2021 and 2022 figures from whichever issues of the magazine carry them, but I don't have copies and I hope it's OK to stick with the book source's limitations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

“While Davis searched for a buyer”: it can just be “he” here
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“price did rise again”: “price rose again”?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scithers

Should the ellipses in the Asimov and Shirley quotes conform to WP:ELLIPSIS?
Done, I think -- I always forget that one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Asimov's readership included many readers who”: you can just say “included many who” to avoid the double “reader”.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy

“canceled” rather than “cancelled”?

Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s my lot: I hope these help. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful; thank you. All done except where noted above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy this meets the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the diagram, and see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Used upright=2.5 on the chart. I think the use of colour is OK, since all the information conveyed by it is also given in the text (in the bibliographic details section). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added the date information to the caption of that grid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usual parade of nit-picks below: please take as you find, and many are very much within individual taste and discretion. On the referencing, I'll return the compliment of averring that the system used is not totally mad, though I can't see a good reason not to do the citations to e.g. Ashley via the SFN template. A good piece of work; I never knew how cut-throat sci-fi editing could be! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Making a start below; more tonight since I don't think I'll have time to finish this morning. The compliment is of course appreciated (I think my choice of "utterly mad" was because of this work of art). I have never used sfn, partly from inertia but also because it used to be very unfriendly with the visual editor, which I'm addicted to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

and switching to monthly publication within a couple of years: is this seen as a sign of success? If not, suggest splitting into a second sentence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- more frequent publication requires readers to spend more so reader support has to be stronger. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scithers favored traditional stories without sex or obscenity; along with frequent humorous stories this gave the magazine a reputation for printing juvenile fiction, despite its success.: two nits here. Firstly, how "traditional" is sex-free sci-fi, or indeed are sex-free stories: should this word be cut, or is there more context (were sexy, obscene sci-fi stories becoming a trend?) Secondly, juvenile can mean full of sex and obscenity as well as for children; suggest rephrasing as those are quite substantially different. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut one use of "juvenile"; another is in a quote which I think is worth keeping, and a third use refers fairly directly to that quote so I'd like to keep that too. Re your first point: genre sf began in the pulps in the 1920s and 1930s, when even the sexiest stories had to content themselves with phrases like "the swelling glories of her firm breasts", and the sf magazines were much tamer even than that. By the 1960s sex was showing up, sometimes quite explicitly, in some sf (e.g. New Worlds which published what became known as New Wave science fiction) but this was very controversial within the field. Per Vanamonde's suggest below I added Ashley's comment about Scithers wanting to avoid New Wave sf: perhaps that link helps? So yes, some sf (particularly in book form) was starting to include four-letter words and to include sex as much as any other genre might, but someone who was a fan of "old-fashioned sf" would be someone who preferred the sexless protagonists of 1940s and 1950s magazine sf. I can source most of the above, but it seems to me too long an explanation to be inserted directly into the text. Do you think a footnote with a compressed form of this is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help. There's a potential elision in the word traditional between "what's seen as the norm in sci-fi" and "what's seen as the norm in society", which a footnote to that effect would help to tease out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief note; let me know if that's not enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good footnote; I'd just suggest giving a chronological range to the pulp era. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Isaac Asimov's connection with the magazine isn't actually set out in the lead: we have "Asimov defended McCarthy's choices in an editorial", but that seems to be the first mention of him. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I've added a mention in the second sentence. Is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is still a bit buried: the key point to get across here, I think, is that Asimov is basically only a name (and an editorial or two?) as far as the running of the magazine is concerned. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking for. (Asimov did write editorials for most issues for many years, but Ashley doesn't come out and say anything like that so I didn't mention it.) Essentially the magazine wanted to use his name for marketing, and no doubt they paid him for the privilege, but he had no offical editorial function except for writing editorials. He might have been listed on the masthead with a figurehead title of some kind. The lead says the magazine used his name, and that he gave consent. Are you saying that it should be clearer he was never the editor? The editorial succession is given in the lead but it's true that the reader wouldn't know that Asimov was never the editor until the end of the lead. I don't think I ever thought about conveying that point, but doesn't the fact that the first editor is named in the first paragraph do that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose an uneducated reader would assume that a magazine called "Asimov's" had, well, something to do with Asimov: we end up realising that he had almost nothing to do with it, but that comes really by process of elimination, as we hear about all the things we're not told he was doing. From the article, I'm surprised even that he wrote regular editorials: the text presents his one on the editorial controversy as something unusual. Can we get a comment in to the effect that "although the magazine bore his name, Asimov had little formal involvement with it other than writing [occasional? the?] editorials?" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Looking back through the sources, I found one that attests he was given the title of "editorial director" and mentions his editorials. I've added that to the lead plus a supporting sentence in the body in this edit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have vol I/4 at hand and can confirm that Asimov was listed as the editorial director at the beginning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a leading market for science fiction writers: not sure market is quite the right word here; it would normally mean something like "set of customers" in this context. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the word used in the trade and the sources, so I'd like to keep it. From the point of view of a writer, markets are places where one can sell one's work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I started to realise as I read on that it does seem to be the term used in this context. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dozois' tenure: one of my least favourite parts of the MOS, MOS:POSSESSIVE, would prefer "Duzois's". Ditto, later, a few examples of e.g. Scithers' refusal. We do follow MoS for Willis's, so should be consistent whatever we decide to do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The last "s" is Dozois is silent so there's clearly no reason not to have the extra "s" there. I could have sworn the MoS had an exception for names ending in a voiced "s", but apparently not, so I made the change for Scithers too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We never actually say in the lead that Sheila Williams took over as editor in 2004, which is odd given how carefully every other editorial transition is sketched out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to move that into the last paragraph of the lead (which is a little short) to keep the chronology in order, but I can also see the merits of doing the editors as a block. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to leave it where it is -- the last paragraph is just about the ownership and I think that excuses the chronological shift. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

Isaac Asimov visited the offices of Davis Publications: Suggest clarifying that these were in New York, as it's important for the Scithers story later. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asimov was concerned about the potential impact on the two of the major science fiction magazines of the day: should be on two of the..., I think, or on the two major... UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink Condé Nast?
I ended up cutting it; see the next reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This took longer to achieve: suggest cutting; it adds little and it's not obvious in context what the comparison is here (longer than what?) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it I cut the mention of Analog here completely; the transaction is important in the history of sf and of Davis Publications, but it had little effect on Asimov's. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a local team of first readers to help read the incoming manuscripts: first readers might be WP:JARGON: is there a wiktionary link or explanation that can be made? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to publisher's reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sheila Williams, then an editor at Penny Press, these subscriptions were valuable because "they came direct to the publisher instead of going through a middleman. They didn't increase the number of subscribers, but they were very good for the bottom line": this is quite a long quotation, but doesn't seem to be saying much: Williams seems to be simply saying that this measure did not significantly affect the number of subscribers, but ensured that the publisher could keep more of the proceeds by selling without an intermediary. Would it be better paraphrased than quoted? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rereading I agree. Shortened and paraphrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception

Second ellipsis in the first quote has an extra dot. I'm not sure it's necessary to start a quote with an ellipsis here (few readers would assume that it was the first words of the piece otherwise), but very much a matter of individual taste. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which was later turned into a film, Millennium.: worth including the date? There's quite a long gap, so good to dispel any assumption that the publication and the filming were too closely linked. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"spoofs and parodies and occasional limericks": are we quoting Ashley here? It's not totally clear in context: suggest putting Ashley's name before both quotes if so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's from Ashley -- restructured a bit to try to make that clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scithers bought the first published story of many writers over his tenure: This sentence doesn't feel right to me. For one, I think we need the plural stories ("Scithers bought the left kidneys of many writers..."). However, it still sounds a bit odd: maybe we could rework and say "Scithers bought stories from many writers who had yet to be published"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "stories" -- I think both are acceptable grammar, but I'm OK with the plural. The sentence is difficult to recast: the term "first sale" is the common way to refer to this, but that's used later in the sentence. The subject of the verb really has to be Scithers, so the only option left is a circumlocution, but that slows down the sentence even more than "first published story" does. Can we leave it as is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. Point taken on "first sale" as a term of art (similar to "market" in another example here). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand four-letter words in context and see the link, but MOS:NOFORCELINK advises against this one. Suggest "profanity" or similar. We should also drop the preceding comma unless we mean that everything Scithers published was either traditional or a four-letter word. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "profanity" and removed the embarrassing comma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing too challenging or revolutionary".: should really be attributed in text per WP:NONFREE. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Unto the Locust: we normally decapitalise prepositions under 5 letters in title case, even (MOS:CONFORM) if the writer doesn't. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks odd to me that way, but done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
letters poured in objecting to the language: a slightly buried lead; it would be good, if we can, to explain exactly what Like unto the Locust does wrong. Given that we use the word bullshit in the next few sentences, I don't think we should be worried about mincing our words here! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed per Vanamonde's comments since you wrote this, I think -- now says "profanity". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of Ashley in this section. Appreciate that the source base might be limited, but has anyone else ever written an opinion about this magazine?
The only other sources are not really survey works in the way that Ashley's books are. Almost every issue of the magazine will have been reviewed in Locus, the sf publishing trade journal, and there are probably reviews to be found in the competing magazines too. There might be comments in the various annual "Best of SF" anthologies about the magazines, including Asimov's, but again those would be specific to that year. He's been doing research into sf magazine history for nearly fifty years, and since he's the expert he gets called on to write chapters. For the older magazines I've written about I've found quite a few other sources -- memoirs by 1930s and 1940s figures in the field, and so on -- but nothing that covers the last forty years. Until his last book, The Rise of the Cyberzines, I had very little to draw on for most of the magazine's life -- just the online SF Encyclopedia entry, which he is the main author of too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be worth including if any writers in Locus or so had an opinion vastly different to Ashley's (say, for instance, they made a comment about how crushingly serious everything in Asimov's was getting), but I appreciate that it would be a rather massive endeavour to comb through the source material. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest wikitionary-linking schlock. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
author reaction to her habit of heavily editing their manuscripts: Could we be clearer on reaction: it sounds like we're hinting that this was generally a bad reaction? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they hated it. The more common practice in the magazine world is for the editor to send back the ms with a list of what they think needs to be fixed. Apparently that's not the case with book editing. Authors don't like having to rewrite, but they generally like it better than seeing their beautiful prose mangled by an editor who did not consult them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two stories in the next issue featuring street violence: Norman Spinrad's "Street Meat", and Octavia Butler's "Speech Sounds", and McCarthy introduced: once you've split off a clause with a colon, it's got to be the last clause. You can separate the clause with dashes instead, or simply break the sentence after "Sounds", which makes for a shorter and so more readable set of sentences. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took the second option; you're right, that was clumsy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am... unconvinced... about the square in the title of "Press Enter", but will swallow my discomfort if secondary sources use it in this kind of prose. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do -- in fact having checked a handful I can't find one that doesn't use it. It's supposed to be a computer cursor as they appeared on old 1980s computers -- here is an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
appeared in all that year's "Best of" anthologies: this doesn't sound very precise: I assume it didn't appear in the Best of British Nature Writing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it "Best of Science Fiction". I was hoping this would be obvious from context, because the actual titles of these annual anthologies varied in trivial ways -- "The 1985 Annual World's Best SF", "Best Science Fiction of the Year 14", "The Year's Best Science Fiction: Second Annual Collection", "Terry Carr's Best Science Fiction of the Year", to name the four from 1985. I think it's OK expanded, though, and as you say the short version allows a misinterpretation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a 1995 review of Butler's collection Bloodchild and Other Stories described it as "one of the genre's undisputed classics: assuming that it is "Bloodchild" (rather than the whole collection), suggest swapping. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd decapitalise "Cutting Edge" whatever Duzois (or Ashley) do (MOS:CONFORM). On which, it's not clearly stated in the text who said this, and it needs to be for WP:NONFREE. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decapitalized. I can add inline attribution if you insist, but NONFREE says "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline)". I think the "or" means you can either attribute or cite. Of course it has to be unambiguous -- three cites after a quote don't tell you who said it -- but here I don't think a reader could interpret this any other way than that the quote is from Ashley. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in this context, NONFREE means "attributed or cited [depending on which of the two is required by the specific context]." Going into the details, the "unacceptable" uses include Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source, with no exception for brevity; WP:CLOP then has Limited quotation from non-free copyrighted sources is allowed, as discussed in Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. Quotations should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author. It's not beautifully clarified in NONFREE, but I think attribution is still needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think this can lead to very ugly sentences, such as when a section on the critical reception of a film gives four or five short quoted phrases in a sentence. Attributing each one inline makes the sentence unreadable. I might start a conversation at one of the relevant talk pages though I know the interpretation you give has its partisans. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement with any of that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly's column, "On the Net", began in 1998, and Silverberg's "Reflections" started in the July 1994 issue.: suggest swapping the names so that these go in chronological order. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer chronological order for this sort of thing, but this was deliberate, so see if you still think this needs to be switched when I explain. If I switch the order I have to say 'Silverberg's column... Kelly's "On the Net"' to avoid repeating "column", since I have to use it for the first one I mention. Then the second sentence more or less has to repeat "Silverberg's column". This struck me as ugly enough to justify the inversion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
Dozois's editorship was well-regarded in the field: drop the hyphen, as it's not in opposition with a noun ("Duzois was a well-regarded editor" but "his editorship was well regarded".) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
according to Ashley and science fiction critic Peter Nicholls: we've earlier referred to this source by its title; there's no problem with giving the same source two different names, but it seems a bit odd. There's a typo in the quote as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the typo and made the references to the source conform. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Williams seems rather short, given that she's been there nearly two decades. Most obviously, it's missing the parade of names and titles we saw with the other editors. Do we know why she won two Hugos - what were her particular achievements? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look at The Rise of the Cyberzines and there's not much there. Ashley quotes her plans for the magazine, but doesn't cite any stories; he just says she brought back the letter column and an occasional new non-fiction column but "otherwise Asimov's sailed on as strongly as before". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do Hugo awards come with any sort of blurb or citation? Appreciate that there may be a sourcing issue here: that some of Williams' career simply postdates Ashley's research, and he's the main source for nearly all of this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No -- see here for the official page listing one of Williams' awards, for example. The nominations are made by votes submitted by the membership of that year's World Science Fiction Convention, and the final vote is made by balloting the same group; there's no recommendation process that generates any text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally priced at $1.00, and as of 2023 each double issue is priced at $8.99.: sounds as though we're missing some price changes in the middle, unless things got a lot more expensive this year. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried adding details of price changes to magazine articles but once you're into the 70s and 80s the price changes can be almost yearly, and it's not that interesting to the reader to list. Price changes can be very important to a magazine -- dropping the price can launch a magazine's circulation into the stratosphere, as happened with Munsey's Magazine, and a price increase can tank circulation. Here the increases mostly reflect inflation over the last four decades. Ashley does mention some page size/price management that was done by Penny Press and that's covered in the publication history section, though without mentioning the actual prices of the time because they're not needed to make that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we say something like "rising steadily to $8.99" to be clear that this is a series of changes, rather than just one? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done; the existing citations were good enough for me to do this easily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these -- I really appreciate a close reading like this. I will tackle these tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few replies with some thoughts, but I'm mostly happy here - a very interesting article and impressive work of making the best of limited sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another pass completed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And over to you one more time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support: the Asimov (lack of) connection was my last real sticking point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk[edit]

Looks like others got to the prose, I'll do a source review. No spotcheck needed, will focus on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a translated title for Barcelo 2015?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wl Mike Ashley, Isaac Asimov, and Norman Spinrad in the sources
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 4, 8, 11, 16, 26 are listed as dead but aren't dead for me
I fixed 16 and 26, but left the others and marked two more (22 and 29) as dead even though they're not. I can change this if you think it's necessary, but the issue is that the URLs for that website are autogenerated from a database and use sequential numbering, which means that as more entries are made in the database and the pages are regenerated, the URLs still work, but show different data. So the "live" version of the URL will probably never go down, but is unreliable as a reference. I don't think marking them as dead is a great way to handle this but I can't think of a better option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see- that seems like the most practical way to handle it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All citation titles must use the same casing per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
Not sure what you're referring to here -- maybe to Barcelo? If so, shouldn't I follow the capitalization appropriate to the language? I did use English title caps for the translated title I just added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, I was referring to the casing differences between the various cited websites (e.g. ref 28 uses sentence casing but ref 22 and many others use title casing). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- I didn't notice that but you're right. I've always thought of CONFORMTITLE as relating to the weird emphasis or allcaps that you sometimes see in web titles and newspaper headings, but I see now that it explicitly talks about sentence case vs. title case. Would it be OK if I left it on the basis that the TV one is a news source and the others are web sources? In fact it's that way because I didn't notice, not because of any conscious decision, but saying that allows me to leave the titles as they are formatted on the source, which I would like to do. If you don't think that's appropriate I'll make the Wood TV8 source title case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok to leave it as is- I myself was confused about this rule recently, and a discussion at the FAC talk clarified it for me after I made this comment. All good now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 28's publisher should be written "WOOD TV8" since it's a TV station
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 39: What exactly does the sentence following "Barcelo 2015" mean? I've never seen this in a citation before
The information cited is in Barcelo, but the Google Books preview doesn't give page numbers, so the intention is that the user follows the link and then uses the "Search inside" feature of Google Books to find the supporting text. I've seen similar approaches to citations a couple of times. I don't think it would be right not to give a page number and also give the reader no way to find the supporting material. I'm open to any other way to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, makes sense now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Galactic Central reliable?
See here -- Stephensen-Payne runs the site and he is a highly respected bibliographer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, that's all I got, nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-permanent marker from TR[edit]

I suspect this review will attract quite enough contributions to carry it into FA, but if any more should be needed, please feel free to prod me. Tim riley talk 18:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim -- always glad to see your comments and appreciate the offer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

There isn't a shortage of attention here, but it's too interesting to pass up. Comments below, I dropped in a few wikilinks, but please feel free to remove these if you dislike them. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Davis asked him not to submit fiction to any other magazines." A quick perusal of Asimov's bibliography shows several works of fiction in other magazines; mostly Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine, but a few SF ones as well. Is there further detail you can supply here?
That detail comes from Asimov's autobiography. EQMM was Davis's so I've changed it to "competing magazines" (I was avoiding the word because it's what Asimov uses in the source, but it's really needed for clarity). For the sales that were to competing magazines, there's nothing more about it, unfortunately. I don't know if some of the other published stories were already promised or sold, or if the agreement was relaxed or ignored, so I don't think I can say more. I thought about adding something to the effect of "though in the event he did publish sf elsewhere" but I don't think it's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think a note of the sort you were considering would be very helpful, but it's not a huge deal.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Ashley has some speculation about the substance of the disagreement between Dozois and Scithers; I wonder if that's worth summarizing, perhaps with in-text attribution to Ashley?
I thought about this quite a bit but was unable to find a natural place for it. I think if it goes anywhere it would have to be at the end of the first paragraph of the section on Scithers, after the "As a result ..." sentence. I could make it something like "... despite the competitive rates of pay. Ashley suggests that when Dozois left the editorial staff after only a year, it was because he wanted to acquire stories that were more sophisticated than the material Scithers preferred." It's reporting speculation, but Ashley is the best source possible for this. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds good; as you say it's speculative, but speculation from the recognized authority is admissible when informative I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you favor a double space after the period, but it's not entirely consistent; I fixed a few.
Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest breaking up the sentence beginning "Scithers had been announced..."
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Moloney...relied on McCarthy for much of the editorial work. At first Moloney edited the stories heavily..." this is a seeming contradiction?
I cut the first sentence -- I think when I wrote it I had not yet given the details of the proof editing and the resulting protests, which led to Moloney relying on McCarthy, so this is a summarizing sentence which is no longer needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
"She was succeeded in May 1985" you've explained every other editorial succession; do we not know why this happened?
Ashley gives no details, unfortunately. I tried some sources on McCarthy but found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"eliminating the thirteenth issue each year," is somewhat redundant to the rest of the sentence; could be condensed, I think.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"with no change in price." this seemingly contradicts the price increase just covered...
That price change was in 1996; this sentence refers to 1998 -- is that not clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is upon re-reading, no issue here.
"but this was not always the case" I'm not entirely able to follow this.
I see this is a bit compressed. De Camp, Clement and Williamson were "older writers" who could fit in with Scithers' constraints; Pohl was also an "older writer", but he did not fit in with those constraints. If I made this "... by another writer of the older generation, Frederik Pohl ..." would that be clearer? Or is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would certainly help, but I think what's throwing me is that the "this" could refer to older writers fitting Scithers' preferences, or to those three writers specifically producing material that could fit in a 1950s magazine. I'm not able to think of an easy fix, but perhaps you could expand that fragment into "but the stories of other older writers were sometimes at odds with [something]"? Again, only a minor hangup.
I've had a go at this; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betraying my ignorance here, but was it typical for non-editors to write editorials? Or was Asimov's a one-off?
As a general rule, either there was no editorial or the editor used it as a soapbox of one kind or another. Guest editorials certainly happened, but a situation like Asimov's where a non-editor wrote regular editorials was unusual, but then the title of the magazine made the relationship unusual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If sourceable that may be worth mentioning, but I suspect it is not...
Not, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley has an interesting fragment about "It was not to be one full of stories trying to put the world to rights, nor to be full of experimental or New Wave material." I wonder if that's worth incorporating?
I take this to be Ashley's summary of Asimov's editorial in the first issue. The article quotes a bit of that: 'In an editorial in the first issue, Asimov said "... we will lean toward hard science fiction, and toward the reasonably straightforward in the way of style .... We will have humorous stories and we will have an occasional unclassifiable story".' Ashley quotes this too, on the same page; I didn't want to dwell too long on the point because the whole paragraph is about the style of the early stories. Still, I agree it's a nice quote. I could add it with some connective tissue if you don't think it would make the paragraph too long. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be nice to have...I don't love the "hard science fiction" label, as you're probably aware, and while Asimov clearly had a specific meaning in mind it would be nice to illustrate it a little more.
Had a go at this. I broke the paragraph there since it was getting a bit long. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"February 1983, the second issue with McCarthy's name" to the lay reader, "February 1983" seems like a date, and one needs to re-read the sentence to understand it. I wonder if this could be rephrased.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence beginning "Allen Steele and Mary Rosenblum..." strikes me as very different topically from the rest of its paragraph (you taught me to watch for stuff like this...) I can't think of a better place to slot it, but perhaps you can?
Nice of you to say so! Yes, it is, as written; I meant it to be another angle on Dozois's tenure. I've turned the sentence around so it starts with Dozois; does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a lot smoother.

That's all I have, I would support on prose and comprehensiveness. The nature of the subject makes searching for sources difficult, but I did a sweep and found nothing, FWIW. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; very useful, as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, sourcing, and comprehensiveness, notwithstanding a couple of minor replies above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- a couple more replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2023 [7].

Gento (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Abacusada (t • c) 18:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start this review with a line from the song: Di ka basta-basta makakita ng gento. [You just won't simply find something like this.]

Indeed, featured articles are a sight to see (and to mention, the effort to promote one is not easy!) This article is about a song recorded by Filipino boy band SB19, released just last May to support their second EP. It is their first single to reach multiple record charts, and for me, that is a great achievement for a Filipino act, considering the country's music industry is not as established as the West.

For background: I am interested in pop culture (especially Western songs), and some songs I listen to have corresponding Wikipedia articles of FA status. I noticed that Wikipedia articles of Filipino songs never attain such an assessment, even (what I believe) the country's most famous entries, "Buwan" and "Tala", so I decided this has to change. I nominated this for FAC because I believe it has its potential to be considered as one of the wiki's exemplary works.

This is my first FAC nomination (and I can already tell this review could get a little hectic), so all types of feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions are welcome and much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers who will put their time and effort here. – Abacusada (t • c) 18:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination[edit]

Hi Abacusada, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is noted. Thank you for the notice! – Abacusada (t • c) 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk[edit]

Hello again, nice to see you're taking this to FAC! Happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, precede Pablo with "The band's leader,"
Done
"The boy band" is used 10 times in the article in the article, try to mix it up a bit- perhaps "the group" or likewise
I have reduced its usage down to five (and used synonyms in other areas), hope that will suffice since I think its usage is essential where I left them
Other members added that their upcoming release... - to me, "their" makes it seem like the other members are releasing something different; "the" would work fine
Done
...and they continued to "test the limits... - insert "that" before "they", since the claim is made by someone else. Same with ...and the song's lyricism manifests...
Done
SB19 debuted on two of Billboard's music charts with "Gento", with the media considering it as a hit. Using "with" twice in close proximity sounds odd (imo)- changing the order might help (e.g. ""Gento" was SB19's debut on two of Billboard's music charts, with the media...")
Done
The video is grungy-themed, with SB19 in custom clothing resembling miners. The video depicts the boy band mining for gold and delivering a choreography in a large quarry. - imo, these would sound better combined (also, I've never heard "delivering a choreography"- dancing is fine), something like "The video is grunge-themed; the group members resemble miners looking for gold and dancing in a large quarry."
I paraphrased it now, let me know if it looks fine for you
They embarked on their second world tour with Pagtatag! World Tour (2023)... - "the" is needed before "Pagtatag"
Done
In my opinion, "Impact" would be better as a subsection under "Reception", since most of it is about the song's reception on social media
Done
All citations should use consistent casing (title case or sentence case) per MOS:CONFORMTITLE; seeing as most citations use sentence case, I suggest you convert all title case titles to sentence case
Done
Update: I switched the titles to be in title case as seen from other song FAs

Abacusada, that's all I have, very nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time here! I'll address your comments right away. – Abacusada (t • c) 08:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Hi! Once again, thank you for your review. Just finished addressing your comments. Let me know if you have anything else. – Abacusada (t • c) 10:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support- excellent work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 14:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments

I would condense this part, (wrote the song by himself), to just "wrote the song" as the "by himself" part is unnecessary as that is already clear in the prose since no other songwriters are mentioned. This comment applies both to the lead and the article itself.
Removed
This part, (A pop and hip hop track about empowerment, its lyrics), is not grammatically correct. The opening depending clause is tied to the subject of the sentence (in this case, the lyrics) so the sentence literally reads that the lyrics are "pop and hip hop track about empowerment". This would need to be revised.
I revised it as suggested and split them off into two sentences, would that suffice?
I have revised that sentence further, but feel free to revert anything I edit of course. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks good to me!
This part, (contain a metaphorical comparison between efforts in obtaining success with mining gold), reads rather clunky to me. I think something along the lines of (uses gold mining as a metaphor for obtaining success) would be better.
Revised
Apologies for being nitpick-y, but I would condense this part, (as the lead single from the EP), to "as the EP's lead single".
It's fine, don't worry! Done
This part, (the versatility), from the lead is not clear to me.
It refers to SB19's versatility. I replaced "the" with "their".
I have made a slight copy-edit to this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me!
I have a comment on this part, ( Described by the media as a hit). I have always been told in the past that using the word "hit" in this context is too informal so I would use something else.
Removed and added that "Gento" is their first entry on two Billboard charts.
For this part, (at numbers eight and 11), avoid mixing two different ways of representing numbers in the same sentence. I would spell both out.
Done
I have a few comments for this sentence, ( The boy band followed the song's release with a live performance on All-Out Sundays, and the song was featured on the set list of their Pagtatag! World Tour (2023).). The "following the song's release" part reads awkwardly to me, and I would avoid repeating "the song" twice in the same sentence. I would instead revise this sentence to something like: "SB19 promoted the song with a live performance on All-Out Sundays and included it on the set list of their Pagtatag! World Tour (2023)."
Revised. I also indicated that they have other live performances aside from one TV appearance and touring.
I have removed the All-Out Sundays part from the lead as I do not think it is notable or noteworthy enough to warrant a mention in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a-ok!
The first few sentences of the "Background and release" section uses tour in various ways, including touring, and that makes the prose seem repetitive. I would find a way to avoid that. I also think that a lot of this information could be condensed. For instance, I do not think this sentence, (While touring, they opened up about working on a new project.), is necessary as you could just lead right into what they were announcing about their future music.
Removed
I would avoid having released/release in such close proximity for this part, (SB19 released a trailer revealing the title of their second extended play (EP), Pagtatag!, and its release date on June 9)
Revised
For this part, (It marked the boy band's new material since), I would say "It marked the boy band's first new musical release since". I would honestly avoid using "material" in this context anyway as it is rather vague.
Done
There are two sentences in a row in the "Background and release" section that use "X announced Y", and I would avoid that as it makes the prose read very repetitively. Also why not combine these two sentences? I do not see the need to have separate sentences for the date announcement and the title announcement. I do have a question about the need for both sentences in my comment below anyway.
Revised
For this part, (Ultimately, "Gento" was released via Sony Music Philippines on May 19, 2023), I would remove "Ultimately" as it is not an example of high-quality writing. Also, if the song was released on schedule, what is the point of the previous two sentences on the announcements? Those two sentences read more as filler and do not really add anything in my opinion.
Removed
I am not convinced that the block quote at the start of the "Composition and lyrics" section is necessary.
Removed
For this part, (collaborated with his brother Joshua Daniel Nase and record producer Simon Servida in handling the production), I would instead say (for the production) as it is more concise and I think the current wording reads awkwardly.
Done
For this part, (others described the song as an EDM pop track), it is unclear who "others" is referencing.
Added "other sources"
That is still really vague. Are these sources music critics/music journalists, etc.? I would further clarify what type of "sources" these are. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced "other sources" with "other journalists"
For this part (to SB19's career and their undertakes since their debut), I would remove "and their undertakes since their debut" as it reads really awkwardly to me and is redundant as it is already covered by saying it is about their career.
Removed
The "them" in this part, (suggest that success is as rigorous as excavating them), is not clear. I was guessing you meant gold, but that is singular.
Revised

I hope these comments are helpful. My review will only be focused on the prose. My above comments are for everything up to the "Reception" section, and I will continue to go through the article once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being here, Aoba! I will be addressing everything by tomorrow afternoon (PST). – Abacusada (t • c) 16:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. Take as much time as you need. There's absolutely no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi! Thanks for your in depth prose review. Hopefully I addressed all your suggestions. I'm not quite sure if I did some of your suggestions to your liking. Let me know what you think. – Abacusada (t • c) 09:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one remaining question about the "other sources", and once that is addressed, I will collapse my comments and continue with my review. I have made multiple edits to the article, and you can of course revert any that you disagree with. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for the CE! Those look good to me. About the "other sources" thing, I replaced it with "other journalists". I didn't specify which type of journalists they are since they cover various topics apart from music. – Abacusada (t • c) 18:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this point. That makes sense to me. I will collapse these comments and post more of my review later today. Thank you for your patience with my review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a clarification question about this part, (added that despite the song's playfulness, it did not affect the message). I am just not fully grasping the contrast as presented here. A song can be playful and have a message.
Revised: It now mentions that the song has an empowering message while retaining its playfulness. Will that work?
That looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid one-word quotes like "effortlessly" as it does take away from the more meaningful ones. I would instead paraphrase these parts like the one cited above.
Revised: I expanded this part with full quote from the source. Will that work?
This quote, ("test the limits with their unconventional sound and unbounded talent"), should be more clearly attributed in the prose. In the sentence, three separate publications are mentioned (Daily Tribune, BusinessMirror, and GMA Network) so it is unclear who said this quote.
For this one, all three publications have the same quoted material. Apparently, BusinessMirror and GMA articles are identical, while the Daily Tribune is a shorter version of those two.
Then only one of the sources should be used as it is the same article. The prose is misleading as listing these three sources separately like this makes it read like they each had different reviews and/or articles, which is not the case based on your explanation. I would go with the Daily Tribute as it was the first published of the three. Since the "strength and versatility" aspect is no longer supported by multiple critics, it would have to be removed from the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: removed BusinessMirror and GMA articles, and removed "strength and versatility" in the lead.

As I said with the lead, I would avoid using the word hit as I have been told that it is too informal for Wikipedia. Something like "a success" would be preferable.
Removed: I used Allan Policarpio's insight instead.
I have a comment on this part, (with the media considering it as a hit). I have been told in past FACs to avoid this sentence construction (i.e. with X verb-ing). I do not have any strong opinions about it either way, but I still wanted to let you know as it is a note I have seen often enough in FACs.
Removed: I'll take note of this in the future!
When discussing the charts, the prose should explicitly say what the dates were for the peaks (i.e. the peak on the Philippines Songs chart happened for the week of June 24, 2023).
Done
For this part, (debuted at number eight on the World Digital Song Sales chart), it should be explicitly stated that it debuted and peaked at this time as the prose is unclear.
Done
I would remove "Ultimately" from this sentence: (Ultimately, the song peaked at number 11 on the Philippines Songs chart.) It is not the best word choice and it is unnecessary.
Removed
I do not think this song has made enough of an impact to justify an "Impact" section. Commercial success and a TikTok trend are not enough evidence to support that in my opinion. I would instead remove this section and move the information to different areas. The opening sentences on the song's success can be merged into the paragraph about the charts and I would make the TikTok trend a separate paragraph in the "Promotion" section.
Partially done: I removed the “Impact” section as suggested, although I think the info about the TikTok trend is a better fit for “Reception” than in “Promotion” since it involves other people’s responses to the song, and it was not something that the boy band do to promote the track. Let me know what you think.
I disagree with the placement of the TikTok trends. It is not a review and a trend like that is more focused on promoting song and is not unrelated to the reception (both in critical and commercial senses). The band may have not been involved, but it was still something done to promote the track. See how "Made You Look" did it as an example of what I mean. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, makes sense to me now. Done

For this part, (and was released on the same day as the song on YouTube), just use the date so readers would not have to go back to previous sections to find the date again.
Done
If miners is going to be linked, I would also link gold mining in the lead and the article.
Done
Citation 29 (i.e. the Manila Bulletin interview) goes more in-depth about the video's fashion and the planning around that so I think more could be said about these factors in the article.
Added
I have a comment on this sentence: (John Legaspi of the Manila Bulletin described the video as a "bop".). It is not particularly insightful and the one-word quote is not entirely helpful. Isn't there anything more substantial that can be said from this source? If not, then I would just remove this sentence as it is not doing much of anything.
Removed
The second paragraph of the "Promotion" section uses performed way too much. I would also not use performed and performance in the same sentence. This paragraph in particular reads as very repetitive and less engaging as a result.
Revised
This part, (of which "Gento" was an opening act.), should be "an opening number" or "an opening song" as a song cannot be an opening act.
Good point! Done
I am confused by the "Controversy" section, but it is likely a cultural difference. This is common in the American music industry. Record companies, songwriters/producers, etc. always have to approve if a song can be played on a show and the people involved would have to be paid. I fully understand that this may not be common in the Filipino music industry, but it just seems odd to me that it was such a surprise. Like I am not sure how this part is a joke, (Ganda jokingly expressed how playing it on the show will now require a fee). Could you clarify this for me? It could be fine as it currently stands by the way.
I’m happy to elaborate to the best of my knowledge. Not sure how music royalties work here exactly but we do have FILSCAP for that. For context, the show aired the song on an earlier episode before this happened and at that time they weren’t forbidden to do so. Probably because of tight budget, they refused to play the song on air once Sony caught to it. For the joke part, the source said Ganda said it on a "jocular manner".
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, (SB19 was criticized online regarding the controversy), I would clarify who was criticizing the band. Music critics, social media users, etc.? I guessing it is social media users, but it is not immediately clear to me at least.
Done: It was social media users.
For this part, (Singer Sam Concepcion and record producer Thyro Alfaro participated in the discussion), I would make sure to clarify that they discussed this on social media as I was uncertain where this discussion was occurring.
Added: I have added "online" in the sentence, will that work fine?
Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful, and thank you again for your patience with my review. I believe these comments should be for the rest of the article. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do the best job I can as a reviewer. I appreciate seeing non-English music represented in the FAC/FA space, and I hope this will encourage other editors to nominate articles like this in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Aoba! I appreciate your time and effort here. I will address some right away and, hopefully, everything should be done by tomorrow afternoon (PST). – Abacusada (t • c) 15:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi, Aoba! I finished addressing your comments and left my responses above. Sorry if it took me awhile. Let me know if you have anything else. – Abacusada (t • c) 18:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I just have a few points above, specifically about a use of certain citations and the placement of the TikTok trend. Once these points are addressed, I will collapse these comments, and I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi again, Aoba! I have addressed your remaining points. Let me know if you have anything else. Thank you for the review! – Abacusada (t • c) 08:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "grungy-themed" wording reads a little awkwardly to me.
Revised: I used [adjective] + [noun] in the lead, while I replaced the one in Promotion section with "A grungy video"
I am still on the fence on the "grungy" word choice, but I will leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try come up with a better way to say this, thanks for pointing that out!
I do not think parenthetical in this part, (and YouTube (music video) views), is the best way to represent this information.
Revised

I believe this should be all of my comments for this FAC. Thank you for your patience with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi, Aoba! Thanks for taking another look at the article. I have addressed your remaining comments (hopefully you like them). You have been helpful and welcoming in this review and I appreciate that. :) Let me know if you have anything else. Thanks! – Abacusada (t • c) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you have addressed everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 00:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude[edit]

Comments (haven't checked if any of these duplicate anything above)

When you say the video is "grunge-themed", do you mean grunge (the music genre)?
Reworded: Nope, it was supposed to be grungy.
Update: This wording has been removed.
""Gento" is three minutes and 52 seconds long.[10] Pablo wrote the song" - no need to link Pablo again, you linked him in the previous section
Done
"added that despite the song's playfulness, it did not affect the message" => "added that the song's playfulness did not affect the message"
I revised this part per Aoba's suggestion.
"the song has amassed over 30 million combined Spotify streams and YouTube (music video) views in the song's first two months since its release" => "the song amassed over 30 million combined Spotify streams and YouTube (music video) views in the song's first two months since its release"
Done
"began posting videos of them dancing" => "began posting videos of themselves dancing"
Done
"of which "Gento" was an opening act" - an individual song is not an "act". Not really sure what you mean here - do you just mean they performed it early in their set?
Revised: Yes, it was the opening number for the tour. It has been addressed per Aoba.
"they performed a street performance of the song on Hollywood Boulevard on July 30, 2023.[34] They also performed the song" - can you avoid using three such similar words so close together?
Revised: Addressed per Aoba's suggestion.
"Ganda jokingly expressed how playing it on the show will now require a fee" => "Ganda jokingly expressed how playing it on the show would now require a fee"
Done
"was criticized online regarding the controversy,[36] describing them as "greedy"." - this doesn't make sense grammatically, but it's heard to advise an alternate wording without knowing who did the describing
I think I have addressed this per Aoba's suggestion by adding who criticized and described the boy band.
"Twitter users raised concern, summoning discussions" - you don't really "summon" a discussion in English. I would suggest "leading to discussions"
Done
"and the hosts's remarks" => "and the hosts' remarks"
I saw this from one of your reviews! Removed
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your time here, Chris! Apologies, I didn't notice you have left your insights while addressing Aoba's suggestions. I believe I have addressed your comments, some have been mentioned by Aoba above. Let me know if you have anything else. – Abacusada (t • c) 18:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Hi! This is just a courtesy ping; not sure if the first ping went through. – Abacusada (t • c) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did, and I mentally filed it under "I'll give it another look later when I have more time".........and then promptly forgot :-) I will take another look this evening, you can quote me on that :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response! I'll be looking forward to hearing from you soon. – Abacusada (t • c) 16:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 23:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

This is just a clarification question but is Pablo related to Joshua Daniel Nase? The similar names kind of jumped out at me, and it might be beneficial to note this in some way if it's the case.
Yep, they are indeed brothers. It was noted in the "Composition and lyrics" section, but I didn't mention it in the lead. I suppose if I precede Pablo's brother with "brother", it can confuse readers that Simon Servida is also his brother. Can something like "co-produced it with Joshua Daniel Nase—his brother—and Simon Servida" work? Let me know what you think.
I hadn't noticed it is mentioned in the Composition section. That seems good enough.
"uses gold mining as a metaphor for obtaining success" - super nitpicky but could this be "achieving success" instead of "obtaining success"?
Done
The link to Billboard charts is not necessary in the lead since most people might be familiar with the concept. "The single was the boy band's first entry on two Billboard charts" might be enough.
It might be, but I think in the Philippines (which I think most readers are from), having record charts is probably a foreign concept (i.e., we don't have local charts) and is something that the local industry not working on or familiar with. Although the Philippines Songs is a chart in the Philippines, it was only established recently.
Makes sense. It might be more obvious to someone like me who focuses more on Western articles.
"other journalists described the song as an EDM pop track" - I would avoid using "other journalists" since no specific journalist is mentioned in the first part of this sentence. Maybe "some journalists described the song as an EDM pop track".
Done
"The lyrics—themed around empowerment—draw inspiration from "transformational change" - I don't think "transformational change" is a song lyric so it is unclear who is being quoted here.
Yep, it isn't. I surrounded it with quotation marks since it's like something they describe the song in a certain way, although I think the quotation marks can be dropped. Let me know what you think.
Go for "He" instead of repeating Bautista's surname in two consecutive sentences.
Done
"They reprised the song during their appearance on the Wish 107.5 Bus; an accompanying performance video was released on YouTube" - Assuming the video released on YouTube is the performance itself, this can be condensed as "They reprised the song during their appearance on the Wish 107.5 Bus; which was also uploaded to YouTube".
Not really (I think). The song was performed in public (and is part of a recurring event), surrounded by large crowds. I compare this to performing on a stage in public, but in this case, it's done inside a bus with speakers outside. Let me know what you think.
This is still not clear to me but I will defer to your expertise on this topic.
"They embarked on their second world tour with the Pagtatag! World Tour (2023), of which "Gento" was an opening number" - I would likewise condense this: "Gento" was included as the opening number on the set list of their second world tour, the Pagtatag! World Tour (2023)".
Partially done: Opted for "'Gento' served as the opening number of their second world tour, the Pagtatag! World Tour (2023)."
I think the last paragraph of the Promotion section is well-written *wink*
Thanks, good to know!
"variety show It's Showtime dated June 10, 2023" - I believe there should be a comma after the show name
Done
Ref 32 should be repeated after the sentence containing the quote "respect local artists"
Done

Highly impressed to see someone going for a Four Award with their first FAC. Good luck with this!--N Ø 18:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being here, MaranoFan! I'll get everything addressed right away (and yes, I'm excited to apply for one!). By the way, congratulations on having "Mother" (Meghan Trainor song) promoted to FA! – Abacusada (t • c) 02:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Hi, MaranoFan! I have addressed your comments, except the ones I have responded with. Let me hear your thoughts. Thanks! – Abacusada (t • c) 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article for promotion. Well done!--N Ø 06:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass)[edit]

File:Gento by SB19 cover art.jpg has appropriate FUR for usage.
File:SB19 - Gento.ogg length permitted per WP:SAMPLE and provides contextual significance.
File:SB19 during soundcheck Pagtatag! World Tour.jpg is taken from a video available under the CC license. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pseud! Thanks for your review! – Abacusada (t • c) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version and qualifying that I know next to nothing about the reliability of these sources. Source formatting seems mostly consistent with available information.

2: "Revolve around" may be a bit too similar to the source. Where is it said that it's a homecoming, anyway?
"Revolve around" has been paraphrased, and details about the article being a homecoming concert conference have been removed.
5: OK.
7: OK.
8: OK.
9: Where is "rhyming" there and 19 May?
Thanks for pointing out the "rhyming" part; it's now removed in the latest revision. I assume "19 May" meant the day of publication? In the article, the date can be seen below the author's name near the title, shown as "05.19.2023" (mm/dd/yyyy).
10: OK.
11: OK.
15: I am not sure which of #14 and #15 sources "multiple critics".
I am also not exactly sure what you meant. I assume by that you meant the "The song was met with positive reviews from music critics" part? It's a summary of the reviews that the song received (similar to what has been done here), so it is not supposed to be sourced by either #14 or #15. #14 and #15 were supposed to support that the song was described as catchy.
16: The quote does not appear in the source.
I am pretty sure it does: "Five years since their debut, SB19 continues to test — and break — limits with their unconventional sound and unbounded talent" (3rd paragraph from source article). I missed adding the entire quoted material, which I fixed in the latest revision.
18: OK.
20: Is "P-pop" a synonym for "Philippine pop"?
Yep, it is.
21: OK.
22: OK.
23: On which basis were the influencers picked out? Also, isn't it a TikTok dance challenge rather than an online one? "Online" implies at least several platforms.
Thanks for pointing that out; it turns out it may have been a neutrality problem from my side, which I have now removed, so as "online".
24: OK but the source text is quite similar to the article text.
I will see what I can do the next day.
26: OK.
29: 2 or 3 August?
Per the source, it mentioned SB19 appeared on the show on "Wednesday morning (US time)", and judging that the article was published the same week as the group's TV appearance, it would be on August 2 (US time, around August 3 in the Philippines).
31: OK.
32: OK.
34: OK.
Hi, Jo-jo! Thanks for stopping by for a source review! I will address everything by tomorrow (PST). – Abacusada (t • c) 18:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heading up that you may need to wait until next weekend for my reply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the notice, that has been noted. Have a lovely vacation! I have addressed your comments, and I have left some remarks above. Let me know if you have anything else after your wikibreak. – Abacusada (t • c) 16:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update on "I will see what I can do the next day."? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi, Jo-Jo! Apologies for not able to address that part as promised and a delayed response. Classes in the Philippines was recently opened for another academic year, which is why I am currently busy. I have a plenty of time tomorrow and this coming weekend, so I will make sure it will be addressed by that time. – Abacusada (t • c) 14:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi! I think I have done my best to rephrase that part. Let me know if you have anything else. – Abacusada (t • c) 15:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like a pass, subject to my usual qualifier about not knowing the topic well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Jo-jo! – Abacusada (t • c) 13:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 August 2023 [8].

2022 Tour Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2022 edition of the Tour Championship snooker event. First FAC failed as I ran out of time! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass[edit]

Images are all appropriately licensed as I had identified during the first nomination. Will try to dip back in for a prose review later :) N Ø 09:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Feel free to challenge. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wst.tv sources are inconsistently cited, variously as wst.tv, World Snooker, or World Snooker Tour. I'd suggest using "World Snooker Tour" as that's the branding.
- This is now consistent. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be dashes rather than hyphens in "The Coral Series - Everything You Need to Know - WPBSA" and "Tour Championship snooker 2022 - Latest results, scores, schedule, order of play, Ronnie O'Sullivan and Judd Trump"
- Scripts should have solved this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 missing date. Archive link is from 2018 and talks about the 2020 event. (Current page title is just "Tour Championship", not "Cazoo Tour Championship" but that will probably be sorted if the right archive version is linked)
- fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2, from 2018, does not verify "was the third and final event in the 2021–22 Cazoo Cup series,"
- No, that's covered by 3. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2 should have "WPBSA" removed from the title; the site is mentioned in the website parameter.
- Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3. Current page is dated 3 April 2022, not 28 March. You could add an archive link and an access date.
- changed the date. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 is to the provisional calendar; you could add something like "was scheuled to be" before "the 15th and penultimate ranking event" but I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to find a source from after the event.
- added a ref that doesn't say provisional. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5 seems to be a repeat of ref 2, but with a diffrent access date so you could just name and re-use one after the issue above is sorted.
- Done 10:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Ref 6 - remove snooker.org from title; the site is mentioned in the website parameter. IMO, snoooker.org is a reliable source for snooker articles.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 seems to be the same as Ref 1, but with a different access date. I'd suggest combining them.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9 - website is listed as cazoo.co.uk rather than as Cazoo; I'd suggest changing it. (I'm not suggesting the same for snooker.org as that is how the site is known.)
Three references for "it was sponsored by car retailer Cazoo" seems like overkill.
- I mean, I guess, but we don't generally inact WP:CITEKILL for three or less cites. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 12 - the doc doesn't seem to be titled ""Snooker Calendar" on the pdf
- Changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The participants were determined by the points won in the ranking tournaments preceding the Tour Championship, from the 2021 Championship League to the 2022 Gibraltar Open" - where is this verified in the sources cited?
- So I've moved the citation about where the players come from to state this. The other citations show what tournaments are included in the one-year ranking list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 14, 25 and 50 - I think that "World Snooker Live Scores" should be removed from the title and added to the website parameter (in place of livescores.worldsnookerdata.com)
Prize fund: "Highest break: £10,000" and "Total: £380,000" not verified by source.
- Removed the high break. I'm sure it is in Snooker Scene, but I don't have access. The total is a WP:CALC Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Higgins, who narrowly qualified for the tournament after both Ricky Walden and Kyren Wilson were unable to win enough points during the Gibraltar Open" - it looks from the article cited that Walden could have taken the place, but I can't see it saying that Wilson could have done, only that wilson defeated Walden.
- Removed Wilson Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16 - missing author.
- Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 19 - missing author. Looks like Eurosport changed the page title after it was cited here - I know they often do change page titles. As the archive link is geoblocked, consider whether this ref can be updated to reflect the live page, for verifiability.
- Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 20 missing article date.
- Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23 missing author.
- Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 26 - what maked livesnooker.com, which seems to be essentially a gambling site with news items etc, a reliable source? Seems like their business model is all about generating leads which are then passed on. If retained, I'd suggest identifying the website as Live Snooker, rather than livesnooker.com, for consistency.
- I've done the consistency. I believe livesnooker was on our list of reliable sources, I'll see if I can find the source somewhere Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 27 seems to be a repeat of ref 22.
- combined/ Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 29 date is 31 March, not 30 March
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 30 is missing the author. I think "LIVE" should be "Live"
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 35 is missing the author.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 36 is missing the author.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 37 is missing the source name and date.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 38 is missing the authors.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 41 is missing the author.

- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 42 is missing the author.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 45 has a different title. (It might have changed - there's no archive link provided here.)
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 46 seems to be the same as ref 45.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 47 is missing the author. It' another one where the title seems to have changed, but the archive link is geoblocked.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 49 has a different title. (It might have changed - there's no archive link provided here.)
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cazoo series - the World Snooker Tour source only has totals, not the breakdown across the three events in the table.
- Removed the bits. I'm not convinced the series is all that important now, but the WST website at least mentioned it, so it is here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cazoo series " For all three events, qualification is based on players' rankings on the one-year ranking list. Coming into the final event, only O'Sullivan and Neil Robertson were in contention to top the series earnings. However, O'Sullivan was defeated by Robertson in the semi-finals, meaning that Robertson was guaranteed to top the series rankings" is not verified by the World Snooker Tour source cited.
- Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Could be helpful to wikilink "ranking list" at the first instance in the lead.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could add a cuegloss link at the first instance of "session"
- Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"potting the pink when cannoning into the pack of reds." - could cuegloss pink and red; also, later, black.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The scores from the final is shown below" should be "The scores from the final are shown below"
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of 33 century breaks were made during the tournament" always seems an awkward formulation to me ("A total" and "were") but may be correct. Otherwise, maybe something like "There were 33 century breaks made during the tournament"?
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve ever played against him”, stated O’Sullivan - has curly quotes
- fixed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the final table, is there a reason why century break totals are in italics?
- As far as I am aware, when people make these tables, they have bold for most, and italics when they are the same. I can't say I agree that it is helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUPLINKS has become more liberal, but I think a second link to 2022 Gibraltar Open in the Format section is unnecessary. (I'm taking a harder line than I did during the GA review.)
- I'm back in the UK on Wednesday, I'll take a good look at this all then. Thanks for your comments. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done the prose stuff, it's taking a tad longer than expected to do up the reference stuff. Hopefully I'll get some time later today :).
    - That should be your lot now BennyOnTheLoose. Thanks for your patients. I shall have a look at the Live Snooker ref and change if appropriate. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a proper look in the next couple of days, but a couple of items caught my eye. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

remove snooker.org from title; the site is mentioned in the website parameter is marked as "done" but doesn't seem to be
- Done now Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9 - website is listed as cazoo.co.uk rather than as Cazoo; I'd suggest changing it. (I'm not suggesting the same for snooker.org as that is how the site is known.) hasn't been responded to
- Changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations 2 and 3 in the opening sentence of format could be moved to the end of the sentence. (As the "the third and final event" is not verified by the citation following it, but by the one after). Having the first citation after the closing parenthesis is per guidance as it's following puncutation, but IMO it would be more pleasing to the eye to have all three citations at the end of the sentence.
- Moved Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prize fund - as noted above, the source didn't include the highest break prize, so the total of the sourced prize money by WP:CALC is £370,000 not £380,000.
- Changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cazoo Series - the source makes it clear that the amounts are in pounds, so we could add £ symbols to the table here.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re livesnooker as a source, I seem to recall supporting it as reliable previously, but at the moment I'm leaning against this since finding out more.
- I did have a look at this. Might need a couple more days to find the archive. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"CALENDAR 2021/2022" and "TOUR CHAMPIONSHIP 2022: NEIL ROBERTSON WITHSTANDS COURAGEOUS MARK ALLEN FIGHTBACK TO REACH SEMI-FINALS" shouldn't be in all caps.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve ever played against him”, stated O’Sullivan - has curly quotes - marked as fixed above, but doesn't seem to be.
- Fixed now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BennyOnTheLoose, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Gog the Mild, I'm waiting on a further response from Lee Vilenski about the livesnooker.com point, then will have another look, but I can't envisage there being much more to say. The article is lacking anything from Snooker Scene, which is probably the go-to reliable source for snooker tournaments, but it's likely that their coverage would cover largely the same ground as the reports from BBC, Eurosport etc. There's also quite a reliance on World Snooker Tour's own sites, but I didn't see anything controversial that would benefit from an independent reference. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi, I've gone ahead and removed that ref, and replaced with a ref that covers that item. Will eventually find that discussion and we can talk about the site in general. As much as I love snooker scene, I would just be adding it to back up existing sources at this stage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox both still have the prize fund as £380,000.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could wikilink ranking event or ranking list at the first mention in Format.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could wikilink to century break from "century" in "his fifth century of the match"
- We could, but we already link it as "centuries" earlier. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could run IABot, which I think would take out the recently-dead links to worldsnookerdata.com (and add archive links for snooker.org "Calendar 2021/2022" etc.); but doing this might also add some more duff (geoblocked) Europsort archives.
- Done/ Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of which, the archive links at refs 3, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 39 and 43 are geoblocked/unavailable, so might as well be removed
- I have removed them, although I suspect IABot will just readd them the next time around. I need to get that fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think both the "| World Snooker Live Scores" instances (refs 13 & 24) should be removed as they are site rather than url titles, but not a big deal.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski - just a couple more. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That should be the lot BennyOnTheLoose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Don't think I'll have much more to add. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Format: Qualification

The archived link doesn't support the amounts shown in the table. (e.g. it has Trump on £514,000).
- Fixed. Also put as "unfit". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested adding the £ in the Cazoo Series table, which was done; I'd suggest adding it in the table here too, maybe with a tweak to the wording as pounds are points.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, Snooker Scene has the high break prize being £10,000 which was removed earlier for no source. ("Where the money went", Snooker Scene, May 2022, p.19)
- I knew it would be there, I just can't get access (for whatever reason, they aren't answering my emails). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final

I note that the Snooker Scene tournament report starts with "There has never been a recovery from the brink of defeat in a major final like Neil Robertson's over John Higgins in the Cazoo Tour Championship...". Of course, they aren't constrained by having to write in an encyclopedic tone, but I wonder if something to this effect, or a bit more highlighting of the scale of the recovery is worth including? (I haven't specifically checked other sources to see if they emphasise this.)
- It's a little bit overblown for my tastes, as we've seen many a match come back from this sort of range. 1991 Masters for example. I think Robertson's quote is enough, unless there is a suitable quote to include from Snooker Scene. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament draw

Either change "numbers in brackets showing players seeding" or the template used.
- I've rewritten. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

I'm not an expert on tables, but I think they need captions and may need row/column scopes. (MOS:DTAB)
Looking at H:TABLE, it seems the use of fixed widths is discouraged, but if they are used then they should be like style="width: Xpx;" or style="width: Xem;" rather than width=X. (I'll need to look at tables in articles I've worked on regaarding this!)
- Oh, I think I read that somewhere. Can't say I've made many tables before. Both points fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look at this one in such detail BennyOnTheLoose. I think I've covered all of the above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ[edit]

I'll review this article soon. Please ping me when the above review has been completely addressed.--N Ø 20:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- I've covered the above from Benny MaranoFan/ Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest making sure that all ” are converted to " and all ’ are converted to ' per MOS:CURLY
- I think I got all of these Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is probably the best he has ever played against me and the best I’ve ever played against him”, stated O’Sullivan." - I would invert this sentence since it is a bit jarring to start directly with the quote, so something like "O'Sullivan stated: "It is probably the best he has ever played against me and the best I've ever played against him".
- I agree. Changed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sentences should not have a comma:
- "Williams fell 47 points behind in the penultimate frame, but won it on the colours to force a decider"
- "Williams responded that he enjoyed the quality of the match, but said "I could and should have won"
- "Robertson attempted a maximum break, but missed the final blue ball."
  - Changed. Must be a nervous twitch I have when writing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks tremendously well-researched and the prose is interesting and high quality. Just a few nitpicks from me.--N Ø 16:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all done now MaranoFan. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Caption: "with his opponent describing his long potting as "frightening"." The double use of "his" leaves me with no clue as to who is speaking and who is "frightening.
- So I've made a change here as that quote isn't sources and I don't know where it came from. See if you prefer this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"made his debut against John Higgins". Does this mean that it was the first time he had played Higgins? Or that this was the first match of the tournament? Or something else?
- It means he made his debut in the Tour Championship event, where he played Higgins. I've reworded this to make this more obvious. The word debut is used too much in sports, I agree. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"who also made his debut in the event." "also" - as well as whom? (Trump?)
- Changed the wording. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and four other half-century breaks". Delete "other".
- I would, but I'd argue it makes slightly different meaning. Saying someone makes two century and four half-century breaks, technically means they made four breaks of 50+, with two of them being 100+. This is clarifying that they made four additional 50+ breaks to the ones already mentioned. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that the image captions adhere to "Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments ... Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text."
- Sure, but generally when we have images they are to show things about the specifics of the subject. In cases such as these they are used to break up prose. If I'm honest, image captions that are super short are not really all that helpful to readers as they are the same as alttext. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Very smooth prose that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild. Thank you for your kind words. I've made some changes and replies. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, as we are at unanimous support so far and we've had the source and image reviews, any chance I could put another item up for FAC? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure we're quite at that point -- BennyOnTheLoose, as well as passing the source review were you supporting for promotion overall following your general review? Obviously no requirement to do so, this is just for clarification... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I'll have another look, as my earlier review was focused on sources rather than the article as a whole, but I certainly have no big concerns at the moment. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BennyOnTheLoose, did you have any chance to take a look? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, not to try and expedite the process, but I don't think I'm far off here, no outstanding issues (as far as I am aware). As it's been six weeks (or so) anychance of a reassessment of my request? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Any ideas if there was anything else required on this one @WP:FAC coordinators: ? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

Add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
I'd put refs in number order, but that's up to you

Support - I have no other comments, and the above two are minor; very nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look MyCatIsAChonk - just a note, I have a thread open about making a script for putting refs in order at WP:SCRIPTREQ, which had some pushback. I'd appreciate your input. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: FYI "References need not be moved solely to maintain the chronological order of footnotes" per WP:TSI. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2023 [9].

Ludwig Ross[edit]

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first (real) head of the Greek Archaeological Service, the meticulous, scholarly and complex Ludwig Ross. One of the many Germans to make the journey to Greece in the early years of independence, Ross played a major role in the establishment of the practice of archaeology in Greece and the early restorations on the Acropolis of Athens. He is also something of a tragic figure: he considered himself a foreigner in his native Denmark, was eventually rejected and effectively exiled by his adoptive Greek homeland, and died in misery having never really managed to integrate into German academia during the final phase of his career. I've reviewed the article recently but wrote it a little while ago; it underwent a thorough and thoughtful GA nomination conducted by User:Mike Christie. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Got them all now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text
- Again, think I've got them all now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ludwig_Ross_-_Imagines_philologorum.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
- Is that a problem, given that we've got publisher information (Alfred Gudeman, 1911) which puts it into the public domain regardless of who the author is? If it's from Imagines Philologorum, it will be a portrait by someone else that Gudeman collected. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The image currently has a tag of author life+70; unless this was a work for hire I don't think publisher can substitute. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but we can replace that tag with {{PD-US-expired}}, surely? As it's a photograph, it's got to be at least 170 years old (the subject died in 1853), which I think covers us for life+70. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PD-US-expired covers US status. You could replace the life+70 with PD-old-assumed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:AcropolisatathensSitePlanPeripatos.svg is missing a data source
- Yes, it is... which is a problem given that it's a source for quite a lot of other valuable images. Swapped for [:File:Plan Acropolis of Athens.svg], which has good sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hansen_Athena_Nike_1836.png: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Ludwig_Ross_by_Georgios_Varouchas_1870.jpg
- On the Hansen painting: Hansen donated his work to the library of the Academy of Fine Arts in Copenhagen after his death in 1883. Haugsted says he exhibited much of his work from Greece in 1857, but doesn't explicitly say which paintings this includes. Equally, I can't find any evidence that it was published until its current web iteration (it might be in Haugsted?), so might we have a case for PD-unpublished? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - When does the web iteration date to? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2010. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Varouchas: I don't have my physical copy of Haugsted for the next couple of weeks; that might have some information on the portrait, though I suspect we'll find that we can only show that it's been exhibited within the university, which probably isn't enough to count as publication? I'm fairly sure that one has been in print (I'm almost certain it's in Haugsted). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's hold off on answering this until you have Haugsted and can see what it says. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Haugsted has nothing on either image, interestingly. I think our most likely case is going to be via PD-unpublished for both, given that I can't find any sign of either of them being put into print before the very recent online sources we have referred for them here. What do you think? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Athens_University_Museum.jpg needs a tag for the original work
- Now has one. I forgot that Greece doesn't have FoP. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bibliothek_des_Deutschen_Archäologischen_Instituts_Athen_14_(cropped_2).JPG: what is the artist's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea; I can't find any information about the artist at all. There's an old photograph here, but in the absence of a definite date I don't think we're likely to get far here. Removed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought I'd done rather better than that; thanks for picking all these up, Nikki. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: All changes made per the above. Does that sort things on the image front? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bneu2013[edit]

~~What exactly does "reconstruction" of the Indo-European language family refer to? Does this mean reviving an obsolete language?~~
- Yup: or at least, working out what the extinct language was like. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Article says his publications were used by contemporary scholars. Are they still used?~~
- They've generally been superseded by more complete corpora, though people still cite them in the interest of showing their scholarly workings. You wouldn't generally reach for one of his books when starting a course of Greek epigraphy, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Last lead sentence is borderline run-on; I suggest splitting.~~
- Split; still not sure it's great. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's good. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fourth sentence in the second paragraph of "Early life" is a run-on.~~
- Split.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - Second split sentence is kind of long, but reads better. I think we can let this pass. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Inconsistent use of single/double quote marks around "Fund for the Public Benefit"; double seems right.~~
- Agreed; done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Should ref 14 be moved to after "1830;"?~~
- I don't think Minner included the date: from memory, the key thing there was Nitzch. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't checked, but I'm guessing ref 1 covers the date.
Will Template:Inflation work with the monetary figure. Also, it looks like the 2023 value is not cited.
- I'm not sure how to get it to work properly with currencies that no longer exist, but I'll gladly take a steer here. I can't actually remember where I got that from; it might well be Haugsted, in which case the year should be 1996 (I might then have inflated it manually). I don't have my hands on Haugsted at the moment, but will check when I do. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. You might want to ask someone who understands this template better than I do. I've only ever used it with existing currencies.
    - When I get hold of Haugsted, I'll see if there's a good way to resolve this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found Haugsted; no idea where I got that sterling conversion from, but another source gives a skilled male mason's annual wage as ~300 rigsdaler, so I've added a gloss that it was about twice that and cited the new source. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Citation error in the last sentence of the last paragraph of "Early life".~~
- That was ugly. Fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological career in Greece

(edit conflict) - ~~"He was made deputy curator of antiquities at the Archaeological Museum of Napoleon, then capital of Greece..." - this reads like the museum was the capital.~~
- Not sure about that one (compare: "King Charles lives in Buckingham Palace, a huge, gilded waste of money with fourteen bathrooms"). Can't see an obvious rephrase that doesn't make a mess, but happy to take a suggestion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean. Considering that this wasn't a place (or city) that I was familiar with, as opposed to Buckingham Palace for example, I was initially confused. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - A capital is, by definition, a city (or at least a settlement), so I'm not sure there's a real ambiguity here; I'd quite like to keep the museum's proper name rather than something like "the archaeological museum in Nafplion". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~First sentence of second paragraph is a run-on.~~
- Do you mean Tension existed between the Greek state's aim of conserving Athens's ancient monuments, the Acropolis's role as a military fortification, and the needs of the expanding city.? I'm not seeing that if so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I was referring to Ross travelled to the Mycenaean site of Tiryns.... Bneu2013 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes: split. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the Acropolis of Athens

~~Space after ref 34.~~
- Gone. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is the colon after "archaeological park" supposed to be a semicolon? Same as in next sentences.~~
- No; the colon helps to reinforce that there's a strong relationship between the two clauses (in the first case, that the second is the opposite of what might have been expected). Second one is now a full stop. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Should "palm-tree" be hyphenated?~~
- It's a bit old-fashioned, perhaps, but intentional and fits common usage. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suggest changing the colon after "August" to a period.~~
- Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Stray period after "Megali Panagia; looks like it's supposed to be a comma.~~
- Fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second sentence of final paragraph is a run-on.~~
- Split and slightly rearranged. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sentence that begins with "At a time when relatively few Greek..." is a run-on.~~
- Split. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Naval Records Affair" and resignation as Ephor General

~~First sentence is borderline run-on. Suggest splitting.~~
- Split. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Link "Athenian navy" to "Athenian military".~~
- I've linked it to the redirect which goes there, in case someone comes along and makes that page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professorship at Athens

~~Should we include an inflation adjustment for Ross's salary?~~
- Better to contextualise; I think: simply putting it into Euros is often unhelpful, as it doesn't account for spending power. I've contextualised with an EFN which seems to fit the general scholarly sense that this was reasonable but not lavish. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Citation error in first sentence of fourth paragraph.~~
- Fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"sufficiently fluently" doesn't sound grammatical; suggest rewording to something like "in which he was sufficiently fluent"~~
- I'm not sure; it's equivalent to sufficiently well (adverb modifying adverb), and often used in HQRS. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an American, I don't recall hearing people use two consecutive -ly adverbs, but maybe this is common in other parts of the English speaking world. I think we can let this pass. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Link "Asia Minor" to "Anatolia". I would also split this sentence.~~
- Done on both counts. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Swap "who opposed the presence of foreigners in Greek public life" and "as Prime Minister in 1841".~~
- That reads slightly wrong, given that who really wants to stand as close as possible to its antecedent, but I'll have a think about how to rephrase the whole thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I see now. I think we can let this pass. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~In first sentence of final paragraph, I would change second 1843 to "of that year" or something appropriate.~~
- Done.

Professorship at Halle

~~Who/what is Humboldt in the first sentence? Is it the person mentioned later in the paragraph?~~
- Yup: reordered.
Link to Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia.
- Frederick William IV of Prussia is linked in the preceding sentence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...but therefore shouldn't be given two names in two sentences. Fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Typo in the link.~~ Bneu2013 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second sentence of third-to-last paragraph is a long run-on. I see this being split possibly into three sentences.~~
- Split in two; I think it's better now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life, death and legacy

~~Per MOS:SEASON, replace "spring of 1847" with something else appropriate, like "early 1847 or the month this occurred (I know this is sometimes complicated by what the source says).~~
- I'm actually not sure it is the Spring; the source says Frühjahr, which I suspect is more like "early in the year" than "Spring" (Frühlingzeit). Changed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Was Ross's illness a reason for his suicide?~~
- This is one I'm not happy touching too much; the source to which this bit traces back goes into quite considerable detail about Ross's methods and alleged motives, but not from, as far as I can tell, any position of knowledge. They attribute it to generalised misery and Weltschmertz, but I strongly suspect that mostly comes from a desire to romanticise Ross as a tortured genius and to give him some grandeur in death. One might sensibly infer that his increasing pain was a contributing factor, but I don't think we can ever know - he never explained himself - and frankly I think it's a bit irresponsible to be too speculative about "justifying" suicide. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fair. If the reason were known, I would say include it, but if not, I say leave it as-is. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good eye and good points throughout: thank you for these and for taking the time to review. I think I've replied to all of them: mostly straightforwardly done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome. I just need to review the sources, and then I should be able to support. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

~~Add |via=Google Books and |via=Internet Archive to all of the sources that were retrieved through these sites.~~
- Done for all those with an url= to those sites. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do we need to include the full date for the footnotes that cite The Spectator Supplement, instead of just the year?~~
- ~~The Spectator is published every week, so I think so: there would have been about 52 different issues that year. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)~~ I musunderstood: yes in the biblio, not sure it's necessary for the footnotes (neater with just the year). On the grounds that we wouldn't necessarily expect to be able to identify the source from the sfn alone, changed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending a citation for the present-day valuation of the defunct currency. Glad to review, and hoping someone will be willing to pick up one of my FACs. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Golden[edit]

I wouldn't wikilink German in the first sentence per MOS:OVERLINK.
- Agreed (especially as it makes a double-bluelink). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
independent Kingdom of Greece - Is "independent" necessary here?
- It's a bit of a tautology (there never was a non-independent Kingdom of Greece), but it's important to establish that a) Greece is newly independent and b) Greece is newly a monarchy. I don't think we should rely on our readers' knowing that the establishment of the Greek monarchy followed, with a short but important delay, Greece's independence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While at Kiel, Ross met his friend and future travelling companion, the philologist Peter Wilhelm Forchhammer. - It is not clear whether he became friends with Forchhammer during or prior to this meeting. Can you clarify it?
- I can't; one assumes that they became friends at university. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with a foreword by his friend Otto Jahn. - It would be interesting to learn more about Jahn and his friendship with Ross. —
- It would; sadly, I have yet to do so or find anyone else who has done so and written about it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one reference that the two met at Kiel; honestly, I wouldn't hang my hat on it, but Jahn did study (and later teach) there, so it seems like the most sensible place for it. Added that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden ^talk 13:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies, UndercoverClassicist. Happy to support. — Golden ^talk 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Some minor prose suggestions:

"When Ludwig was four years old, his father moved to the Gut Altekoppel estate in Bornhöved, which he managed and later acquired. Their five sons and three daughters ..." Suggest "his father moved the family" or "the family moved", so as to provide a nearer referent for "their" in the next sentence".
- Yes, that one was a bit wonky. Gone with the first option. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Ross's work on the Acropolis began in January 1835, and has been described as the first systematic excavation of the site." If the source is authoritative enough, could we make this "was the first", rather than hedging?
- It's a bit hedgy. The problem is that it's very much not the first archaeological work on the Acropolis: most notoriously, you've got Elgin who, fairly systematically, removes sculptures from most of the major temples from 1801. The Ottomans also undertook a lot of building and repurposing, such as the construction of the Parthenon mosque, which must have involved excavation: we might say that this wasn't scientific study as we understand it, but you could probably level the same charge at Ross. Ross was definitely a more careful and methodical man than his predecessors, but I'm a little uncomfortable drawing a sharp line to say that what he did was "systematic" and that nothing before "counts": I'm also not keen to dive completely into the myth that the story of Greek archaeology starts with independence in 1821. Perhaps I'm being a bit precious about this one, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I think that's useful background. If you can summarize something like that in a couple of sentences in a footnote I think that would be worth it. Otherwise I think the current wording sounds more definite than it really should. Perhaps it could just be cut, if we can't give it appropriate context? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I've added an EFN which, I hope, clarifies the contrast being made while framing all the value judgements as "have been described as...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You link disiecta membra, but it seems an unnecessarily obscure way to say fragments, or remains. I've read quite a few archaeology papers but haven't run into this term before. Is it the standard term for this site? Or does it have a specific meaning that I'm not picking up from the linked article?
- It is the general term used in this particular context (the partial bits of an ancient monument left after time and looting have done away with most of them). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  OK in that case -- just wanted to be sure the usage was justified., Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~The link to assistant professor seems not to be very useful; you say "German-style" but there's nothing to explain that in the target article.~~
- It was a bit of a fudge, because Palagia uses the Greek: I've read around a bit more and it's fairly clearly equivalent to the German idea of Privatdozenten, so I've linked there with a brief explanation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~You redlink Bavarocracy in the body of the article; suggest linking it in the lead too.~~
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"He took a leave of absence for about half of 1839 and all of 1842": suggest "He took leaves of absence".~~
- Yes - done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive me for putting my oar in here, but "leaves of absence" looks rather odd to me, and I'd vote for "he took leave of absence..." Tim riley talk 17:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's right: leave here in its technical meaning of "permission to lapse from normal expectations". We'd certainly be fine saying '"he took leave twice, in 1839 and 1842", though that sounds more appropriate to a military context. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit it's not the most natural usage; I don't think it's technically wrong, but I don't mind being outvoted here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've removed the a, which I think fixes the problem you identified, Mike: I think we've ended up with a third option rather than a head-to-head vote. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The project was financed by the Prussian Ministry of Culture and Friedrich Wilhelm, to whom Humboldt had recommended the project." Can we avoid the repetition of "project"?
- Very easily; done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose for this, but I would suggest linking to the Danish Wikipedia's article on Haugsted rather than to the Wikidata page, which is going to confuse most readers who follow the link.
- Done. I went through a phase of linking to Wikidata on the grounds that we were really doing ILLs for article creators, and that Wikidata usually gave you a few initial options to choose from when crafting a new article, but I've come much more in line with your view more recently: most non-editing readers can hit the Google Translate button, but might not be comfortable navigating around a Wikidata page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that he "died in misery" in the introduction to this FAC, but I don't see anything to that effect in the article -- is there anything solid enough to add?
- In the Greece section, we have "he entered a severe depression during this period which continued for the remainder of his life", his status as an "isolated figure" in Germany and "he developed the beginnings of a health condition, which gradually reduced his strength and mobility and caused him increasing pain and discomfort.". Perhaps more could be done to emphasise quite how miserable he seems to have been towards the end of his life, but I don't want to fall into the trap of repeating trite rationalisations and cod-psychoanalysis from contemporary not-really-observers. Will have a look over the sources and see if there's good material there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. All minor points; a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The point about his "misery" came up because when I was reading the "Personal life ..." section I noticed there was nothing about his depression there, having recalled your mention of it in the nomination statement, but I didn't remember at that point that it was mentioned earlier in the article. A depression that lasted the rest of his life seems worth mentioning again in that last section but it's a judgement call; I leave it up to you. Also just making sure you saw my follow up to the "systematic excavation" question above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small comment that his depression continued: I'd quite like a source to link it to the deaths of his brothers, but none have, as far as I can see, and I don't actually have one for John other than the photograph of his tombstone. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...looking at those dates, I realise that John is almost certainly not Ludwig's brother, but I now have absolutely no idea who he was. Fixed caption. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Two minor suggestions, neither of which affects my support:

Lead

He was also a significant figure ... was particularly significant" – I remind you of the good advice in Plain Words about "significant": "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' (There's another stray "significant in the last sentence of the article, too.)

Work on the Acropolis of Athens (1834–1836)

Throughout his excavations on the Acropolis, he published his results – this far through the paragraph it's a long time since we had Ross's name mentioned, and perhaps it might be helpful to add it here.

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, and I have no hesitation in adding my support for the elevation of this article. It's a cracking read (I lost count of the number of times I muttered "Good Lord!" when reading it), well and widely referenced, evidently balanced and neutral and admirably illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these, Tim. You are quite right on significant: all three now changed. I've actually split that long paragraph at the sentence you indicated, and added Ross's name there. Many thanks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Sources are reliable; I queried the wordpress one in the GAN and am satisfied with the answer there. Links all work as far as I can test them -- I am getting unusably slow responses from archive.org at the moment so have not verified those. A couple of minor formatting points:

Missing a publisher location for Giraud (2018).
What rule are you following for translating chapter titles, book titles, and journal titles? For example, Goette (2015) has the book title translated but not the chapter title and Brandl (1987) has the same, but for "Historical Einleitung" you translate the chapter title but not the book title, and Lehmann (2003) is the same. For Blau (1855) you translate the article title but not the journal, and Junker (1995) is the same; it looks as though that is consistent for journals.
- The theory is that I've tried to translate all primary titles: that is, the title of the thing actually being cited (so the book if it's a book, the chapter if it's a chapter in an edited volume, the article if it's in a journal), and so on. If you're happy with that as a philosophy, I'll go through and make sure it's consistent. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That's fine; any approach that is not utterly mad is fine so long as it's applied consistently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  "Not utterly mad" is one of the stronger endorsements my work has received. Goette fixed (it actually was the chapter that was translated, but I'd used the wrong parameter name): I think this is now consistent now. A small exception made for Ross's work Erinnerungen und Mittheilungen aus Griechenland: this first appears as the volume title for Jahn's foreword and later is cited in its own right, and it felt weird to leave the title untranslated the first time but translate it on second mention, so I've translated it on first use as well. If this is truly offensive, I suppose the best fix would be to translate everything (or at least all book titles): it feels a little wrong to translate journal titles when they are universally referred to in the language of writing.
  
  Giraud fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay getting back to this -- yes, the translations all look consistent now. I did just notice one more minor thing -- you give the Greek name of the publisher for Mallouchou-Tufano (2016). Per MOS:ROMANIZATION I think this should be transliterated. And of course if you ever want me to provide a reference that your sourcing is not utterly mad I'd be glad to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a transliteration in square brackets. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hello UndercoverClassicist, thanks for this interesting article. I have a few nitpicky comments and suggestions...

Hello Jenny - thanks for these. I've made a start as below: more to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

short description - move to top
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(22 July 1806, Bornhöved – 6 August 1859, Halle an der Saale) - should probably remove those two locations (or someone else will) (per MOS:BIRTHPLACE "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates.")
- Done (the more you know...) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bavarocracy – - move italics markup back to before nbsp
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
on Aristophanes' Wasps,[10] supervised by Nitzch - typo Nitzsch
- Good eye; fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aristophanes' Wasps, - only use of apos s without extra s, intentional?
- Yes, but no longer consistent with how this article works, so changed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with Nitzch's support - typo Nitzsch
- Fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
zeal … to keep everything - fix ellipsis
- Done (quite why we have that character is a mystery to me) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
deemed to be of no "archaeological, constructional or pictureseque" - typo picturesque
- Fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to allow the construction of Hermes Street; - is Ermou Street (Athens)?
- Practically certainly: linked, but I've kept the English name as that's what's in the source, so it allows someone to correct us if there's (for example) another or a former Hermes Street. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Venetian siege of 1687 -refine link to Siege of the Acropolis (1687)?
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of heavy lifting equipment - compound hyphen, heavy-lifting equipment?
- I thought about this, but as it's both the equipment and the lifting that's heavy, I don't think it's appropriate here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in the harbour of the Piraeus uncovered - the Piraeus intentional?
- Yes; it's invariably the Piraeus when talking about the ancient site (and, more generally, to classicists): Piraeus is used for the district of Athens, but the Piraeus is considerably smaller and more specific. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until 1838, Pittakis and others continued to write hostile articles against him - Ross
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The regent Armansperg promised to restore Ross's status as Ephor General, but failed to do so, cooling relations between himself and Ross - slightly ambiguous, did Armansperg cool relations or should it be 'which cooled relations'?
- Fair enough: changed as suggested. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
known since 1932 the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens - known since 1932 as the
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just parentheses, not link, on National and Kapodistrian University of Athens seeing Othonian University is same target
- I'm not sure about this one: both are printworthy and could theoretically be full articles (if, for instance, the material on the university's Othonian period became so copious as to justify a split-off article), so I think it's more in line with WP:ENDURE to anticipate that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ross was one of 7 Germans out of 23 teaching staff - drop "out"?
- That doesn't read right to me: I'm happy to be counter-argued with examples of this usage in good sources, but it doesn't feel idiomatic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
inscriptions that he had discovered himself - not sure "himself" is needed?
- Agreed that it's not needed as such, but it does have an emphatic function which I think is justified here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1834, he published the first volume of Inscriptiones Graecae Ineditae - this section is "Professorship at Athens (1837–1843)". Move? or add "had" ie 'In 1834, he had published'?
- Added the "had". It's not great that it's out of chronological order, but it doesn't fit well into its "proper" place in the preceding section, as that's all about physical archaeological work, and to some extent the real focus here is Ross's dithering between 1834 and 1842 on the second volume. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the surveyor Karl Ritter - is not the geographer Carl Ritter?
- Yes, though that's not apparent from the source I had. I've found another one and added it plus a bit more detail. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
island we possess … for more - fix ellipsis
- Fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He subsequently travelled through the Greek islands - Ross
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
University of Halle - Martin Luther University of Halle–Wittenberg the dash instead of hyphen is causing redlink
- Should be fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ross died by suicide[10] on 6 August 1859. - add location so it's cited
- Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note b Earlier removals of archaeological material from Acropolis - the Acropolis?
- Fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

78 Junker 1995, p. 755–756. - pp
80 Fatsea 2017, p. 65–68. - pp
91 Berlin-Brandenburg_Academy_of_Sciences 2015. - remove underscores

Bibliography

Kitromilides, Paschalis M. - tweak alpha order
Baumeister, August - add authorlink
Kunze, Max - editorlink
Vanavalis, Panos (ed.) x2 - is different fellow to Panos Valavanis?
- Nope, he's a typo. Fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box

Ephor-General of Antiquities 1834-1843 - I don't understand the dates?
- Should have ended 1836 - now does. There's an interregnum after Ross; I think I'd mistakenly put his end date as Pittakis's start date. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poss cats

Category:People from Segeberg
Category:German expatriates in Greece

Hope all that is understandable! JennyOz (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- All very understandable and reasonable. All ref and cat points acted upon. Thank you for a very sharp set of comments: you've picked up things (such as the Valavanis typo) that got under the radar in a few previous visits to this process! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, very happy with all above and so to add my s'port. JennyOz (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2023 [10].

John Oliver[edit]

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Praise be to our favorite hostus mostus, megareverend, sewer plant, koala chlamydia ward, singer, debt buyer, hornbill, and Reddit icon. John Oliver is one of the most iconic news comedians of our time, having been credited with influencing US law and culture, a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect" and impacting things from net neutrality to DC statehood. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments

Article seems to be missing references to scholarly sources such as: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, thanks for finding these- some have been added, the others weren't particularly relevant or helpful to this article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article cites International Business Times, which is considered unreliable per WP:IBTIMES. IDK if it's syndicated, in which case it might be reliable, but it's there... so... I thought I might point that out. Pamzeis (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cut- thanks for bringing it up! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

"In addition, Oliver co-hosted the comedy podcast The Bugle with Andy Zaltzman, with whom Oliver had previously co-hosted the radio series Political Animal, and hosted John Oliver's New York Stand-Up Show on Comedy Central from 2010 to 2013." The word host is used three times in such short proximity.
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"For his work on Last Week Tonight, Oliver has won fourteen Emmy Awards and two Peabody Awards and was included in the 2015 Time 100" - was his inclusion in the Time 100 specifically because of the show? I believe it played a big hand in that but I would say such inclusions are because of an individual's overall influence in a given year.
- The Time article honoring him mainly discusses his contributions to the Society of Women Engineers. This is from an episode of LWT about the Miss American pageant, where he exposed false claims that Miss America was the leading provider of scholarships to American women; at the end of the episode, he encouraged viewers to donate to other organizations instead, specifically the SWE. As a result, the SWE received a $25,000 spike in donations in the days after the broadcast. So, the reason he was honored is connected to LWT, if not indirectly. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Oliver received Emmy Awards for outstanding writing" - do we have a Wikipedia article for the category? If yes, I would link it.
- Linked. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2008, Oliver played Dick Pants in The Love Guru, being his first film role" - prose redundancy. The sentence would still be correct and mean the same thing without "being".
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"During the summer of 2013" - see MOS:SEASON.
- Used the month instead. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One example of Oliver's investigative work is a segment on the Miss America organization, which bills itself as "the world's largest provider of scholarships for women." See MOS:LQ for the full stop within the quotation mark.
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thank you very much for your review, think I've addressed everything. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

"For his work on Last Week Tonight, Oliver has won fourteen Emmy Awards and two Peabody Awards and was included in the 2015 Time 100, being described as a "comedic agent of change...powerful because he isn't afraid to tackle important issues thoughtfully, without fear or apology". - This sentence is too long imo.
- Split. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a subject's full birth name is supposed to be repeated once in the first section of the article; in this case, "Oliver was born on 23 April 1977 in Birmingham, England" should be "John William Oliver was born on 23 April 1977 in Birmingham, England"
- Added. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sentences should not have commas, for example:
- "Oliver attended the Mark Rutherford School in Bedford, and learned to play the viola as a child."
- "The two married in October 2011, and have two sons"
  - Both fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a random spotcheck and ref 4 doesn't seem to back up that Oliver joined the Daily Show in July 2006 or that he was the "Senior British Correspondent". I am seeing that he played an "on-the-road correspondent", though, and the source backs up the bit about Gervais.
- Added citation to that sentence. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Oliver received Emmy Awards for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Series on The Daily Show" - did he receive the awards on the Daily Show or for it?
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Oliver says he has full creative freedom, including free rein to criticise corporations, given HBO's ad-free subscription model" - I'm not sure this should be present tense. Something like "has stated" might be better.
- Fixed tense. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New York City is included as an example of locations that do not need a wikilink at MOS:OL
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Oliver and Last Week Tonight were accused of liberal bias" - have these accusations stopped now? This sounds like the type of sentence I would expect to be present perfect: "Oliver and Last Week Tonight have been accused of liberal bias"
- That makes more sense- fixed tense. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore, a study conducted in 2018 found ...", "Ultimately, the FCC enacted ..." - I've been told to avoid words like "Furthermore", "Ultimately", "Therefore", etc. if possible.
- Cut those instances. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tables should have captions.
- Added. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've limited my review to prose. Even though I haven't done a comprehensiveness check or looked at any scholarly sources, there don't seem to be any glaring omissions in the article. Great work.--N Ø 18:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Thanks you very much for the review- think I've addressed everything. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for promotion. Bravo on the prompt responses! I really respect editors who are able to take BLPs to FAC as it is no easy task. Regards.--N Ø 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks- and also thanks for the table caption fixes, was shaking my head when I saw the error! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Looks good, I can't see any major issues. Feel free to challenge any of my points below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Think I've addressed everything, thanks for the thorough review- you raised many helpful points! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me)

(also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. I'm satisfied with the responses to my comments and that the article meets the criteria. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to include citations in the lead? (MOS:LEADCITE) (I think British-American follows from place of Birth and later citizenship, but I guess a citation in the lead for that isn't bad if it's not explicit in the article body.
- Ref 3 is there due to the quote and ref 2 is there because Oliver is widely to be an exclusively British individual; he was, after all, the "Senior British Correspondent" on TDS. Ref 1 is for the middle name. I now realize I addressed these points backwards- oh, well. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Middle name- is there a better source than biography.com? No consensus on reliability at WP:RSP.
- I cannot find another source that states his middle name. Not sure if it matters, but the site says it was published by A&E Television Networks. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He commented in an appearance on Late Night with Seth Meyers, - "In an appearance on Late Night with Seth Meyers, he commented," seems better to me but I make no claims to being a good writer and you can treat any prose suggestions from me as optional.
- Makes sense- fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver revealed in a later Seth Meyers appearance that one of his first paying jobs was writing for the British morning show The Big Breakfast - "revealed" seems a bit much considering what he was talking about.
- Think it was to negate redundancy from the last sentence- fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2009,[30] 2011,[31] and 2012.[32] - great for verification but I think it would look nicer to have all the citations at the end.
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1985–2005: Early career and 2006–2013: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart seems lacking much in the way of how his various early career endeavours were received. Are there any reviews in major outlets that could be mentioned? (I haven't read the sources for reception sectione in Legacy, but looks like they are likely commentary on his later career.
- The paragraph just before "2014-present" discusses his well-received tenure on TDS, and that references many reviews but does not actually quote any or name any reviewers. Sadly, for his earlier stuff, there is very little content on even their existence; I relied heavily on dead websites that were there when I started revising the article for that time of his career. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"(season twenty-five, episode twenty-one)", "(season one, episode three)", " (season one, episode three)" seems like a bit too much detail for the text. I'd suggest moving those details into the later table, and adding the years in the text. (e.g. "as Booth Wilkes-John (2014").
- That looks much cleaner- implemented. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "Title card for Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" image adds much.
- Well, there's no other images available for this period that are particularly relevant or not used elsewhere in the article, so it seemed to add a splash of color (also, it was a suggestion from the GA reviewer, but I agree with the suggestion). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 2018, Oliver began working as an executive producer for Wyatt Cenac's Problem Areas until its cancellation in June 2019. - reword.
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver lives in New York City - probably uncontroversial, but the source is from 2010. Is there any more recent reliable source?
- Added another source. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.[1][95][96][97] - consider using WP:CITEBUNDLE
- Added. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver has a younger sister who lives in Australia - source is from 2015, is there any more recent reliable source for "lives in Australia"?
- Can't find one, he shares surprisingly little about his personal life (outside of immigration status and RNC conventions). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His Anglicanism lapsed when he was aged 12 because of the death of a school friend and an uncle, and a feeling of not having received any useful answers from his church - maybe add the equivalent of "he said" at the start.
- Added, and plugged the iconic Terry Gross too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how well Brexit and Boris Johnson are known globally; consider adding brief descriptions unless you're confident they are generally known.
- I understand adding a clarification to Boris, but I think Brexit is very well-known; if the reader in unaware, they can always click the wikilink. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Oliver has expressed support for.. - so many citations, but seems reasonable to include lots here and against the relevant things. I'd suggest slightly expanding (by a few words each) some of the issues/causes though. I'm looking at immigration/criminal justice reform/police reform; my guess without reviewing the sources is he probably tends towards a more liberal approach, but the current wording doesn't indicate which way he leans.
- Well, the difficulty with saying whether it's liberal or not is that I could get dangerously close to OR. Most of the sources just regurgitate what he said in the episode, something like "Oliver slammed lethal injections". Matters that are partisan issues are easy to deduce- supports abortion rights and gun control? Liberal. In my opinion, the political status would be hard to put, but I did clarify some of the issues. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the film table isn't sorttable? I appreciate it's a lot smaller than the TV table.
- It's not sortable because of its small size- really no need to sort it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bneu2013[edit]

Staking a claim - will have comments tomorrow. I'd appreciate if someone would be willing to review one of my FACs. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013, polite reminder :) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. As all my comments have been addressed, I am lending my support. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay. Note that I am back in school once again, and so my schedule is very dynamic and constantly changing. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013, completely understand, no worries. I've implemented everything you mentioned. As for guest appearances, the LWT section doesn't only cover his time on the show but all his career activity from 2014 to now; LWT is just the name of the section. Same idea with how the 2006 to 2013 section is titled "The Daily Show" but isn't exclusively about that. Thanks for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, "Dr." was not implemented. Oxford English standards state that Dr is not followed with a period. And, dual nationalities is typically hyphenated, per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does "British-American" need to be hyphenated?

Dr. Ian Duncan.

Why is the paragraph about Oliver's guest appearances in the Last Week Tonight section? Isn't this kind of off-topic?

and ~~one~~ the other born in 2018

Change "30 October 2009" to "three days prior" or something equivalent.

Flip refs 100 and 7 in "Personal life". Ditto 140 and 138 and any other instances of this.

the FCC received ~~with~~ 3.7 million comments on the subject

MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Danbury, Connecticut".

Source review - pass[edit]

Looking at reliability first.

~~Biography.com is of uncertain reliability; see WP:RSP. Can it be replaced? (It's used twice.)~~
- Originally thought it wasn't, but found another source that stated his middle name- it's been replaced
  It's still used for the marriage date. Searching Google Books finds a mention of the marriage date (2011, but not the month) on p. 217 of Curt Hersey's A History of Television News Parody. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for finding that, I forgot about the grouped citation- it's been replaced
What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~tellyspotting.org~~
  - Cut
- ~~popcultureclassics.com~~
  - First, it's the only source I could find that explicitly states he acted on People Like Us. The about page of the site says it's written by a common journalist for a number of sites, and the source in question (which is an interview) was conducted by this guy. See his verified MuckRack profile here.
    The fact that he's written multiple articles for reliable sources certainly helps, but those sources are reliable by virtue of their editorial control. I don't think we can say the same for Freeman's own site. Is there evidence that popcultureclassics.com is treated as a reliable source by other sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not sure. I've cut it and replaced it with a streaming service that does list his role, but if this isn't proper usage, let me know
    I think that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~splitsider.com~~
  - Splitsider is a division of New York magazine
    The acquisition was in 2018, and the cited article is from 2013, so we need to know it was reliable before the acquisition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source from 2014 discusses the site in detail and includes comments from its founder in a positive light. I don't really have anything else- proving something is reliable is rather difficult for me
    That helps, but FAC requires high-quality reliable sources and I think we need a bit more. Finding examples of reliable sources treating splitsider as reliable is a good way to do it. Direct discussions of the site, e.g. in a history of comedy, can also be helpful. As it stands I don't think this quite meets the bar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie, here's a mention in a 2014 book (see pg 260). Here's an example of Splitsider being cited in a book two months after the New York mag acquisition. As for the network that owned Splitsider at this time (The AWL network) here's a number of sites covering them: NYT 2010 (which details the ownership of Splitsider), The Verge, NiemanLab, and The New Republic. Is this sufficient? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that does it -- thanks for digging those up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~comedy.co.uk -- the about page says it's "fan-run".~~
  - Cut. I had to cut some statements because I couldn't find anything else to back them.
- ~~blogcritics.org~~
  - Cut
- chortle.co.uk -- I can see this is probably regarded as reliable now, but per our page about it the site was originally a one-man operation, and this is a 2007 citation so might well predate the site's expansion. Was it reliable then?
  - Cut
- HuffPost -- see the discussion of "HuffPost contributors" at WP:RSP. All three uses of HuffPost seem to be straightforwardly factual, so are probably OK, but if you can find better sources I would suggest doing so.
  - Most are double cited to back small pieces of info in the prose- in my opinion, the usage is appropriate
- ~~military.id.me (The Sitrep)~~
  - It is the only source I could find that explicitly stated he sometimes wears the pin. I see nothing to suggest it isn't reliable, and the evidence is provided in the article
    I'm not keen on videos provided by sources that are not themselves reliable, but that might be OK if the video were still available. I just get "video unavailable" when I go to that page, though, so we do need positive evidence of the source's reliability. I think the Letterman video (linked from the other source you give) suffices for most of what you say, though it doesn't say she was a combat medic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut the source, wasn't sure if the Letterman clip was enough but it's good to know it is

I'll continue with the review once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Think I've got everything, thank you very much for the comments thus far. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 04:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Got everything again, thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, I've responded to the Splitsider concern above- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have been unexpectedly busy IRL. Will try to get back to this tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at formatting next.

Check for consistency in use of publisher locations -- e.g. Hersey in FN 89 has a location, as does Krutkowski in FN 138, but Happer et al (FN 110) does not.

More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed- thanks again! Take all the time you need, no rush at all. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was able to get to some of this tonight. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Looks like some more inconsistency in use of location with cite news. It's OK to e.g. have the location only when it's not clear from the work, so you could put London in for the Daily Telegraph, but not bother for the New York Times, for example. Here you have just two or three locations among scores of them. It should be consistent; probably the easiest thing would be to remove the ones you have.
What's the reasoning behind your use of the publisher parameter for websites? For example, FN 202 uses publisher but not work/website; FN 151 has the reverse.
For iamjohnoliver.com you use the domain name, which you don't do elsewhere; any reason not to use the website name, which is just "John Oliver"?

Can't see any other formatting issues. Will check links tomorrow and scan the citations again as I go through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the locations (I think, let me know if I missed one) and fixed John Oliver's site (my reasoning was that it may be confusing if the pub is the name of the article, but it's probably fine). As for publishers, I used the publisher parameter for non-works (e.g. an article covering the Peabodys in Deadline Hollywood would use the work parameter, but the Peabodys profile for LWT on their website would be the publisher). If there's any specific sites where you think the publisher should actually be the work (or vice versa) let me know. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one more location. Re the publisher: I'm not sure what distinction you're making -- the "work" and "website" parameters are actually the same thing; they're synonyms. That doesn't mean you're wrong to draw this distinction, but I don't think I understand it -- can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I confused myself between the cite news and cite web templates, sorry about that.

For cite news: If the article's subject is part of the organization that released it (e.g. the WGA releasing the WGA Award winners) then WGA would be the publisher. If the article is covering something unrelated, it goes in the work/name of publication parameter (whichever is appropriate).

Cite web: Same as above, just the same for the publisher parameter and using the website parameter instead of the work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I don't think I've run into that approach before, but it appears to be consistently implemented, so no problem. Will look at links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links. Footnote numbers refer to this version. The Internet Archive is responding very slowly for me so I've only checked a handful of the archive links.

FNs 35, 51 & 159. need to be marked as dead.
FN 53 is either dead or there's something else wrong; I can't check because I can't bring up the archive link either.
I doubt the rottentomatoes.com links are actually dead but none of them are responding for me; can you check you can access them?
Suggest marking FNs 96, 119, 158 & 160 as subscription required.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, I think 53 was usurped- it and the others have been marked as dead. Rotten tomatoes works just fine for me. Added subscription tags. Thank you very much for the thorough review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for coords[edit]

May I open another candidacy? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 August 2023 [18].

Radoje Pajović[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radoje Pajović dedicated his life to studying the history of Montenegro and taught history at what is now the University of Montenegro for forty years. The author of twelve books, and editor of more than twenty, he mainly concentrated on the history of Montenegro during World War II, but in his later years he wrote about earlier periods. He was notable for his resistance to the historical revisionism aimed at the rehabilitation of collaborationist WWII Montenegrin Chetniks like Pavle Đurišić, which became a trend during the 1990s. He first came to my attention when I was developing the Đurišić article over ten years ago. After Pajović died in 2019, I thought that it was time to improve his article. It has gone through GAN and the Milhist A-Class review process recently, and I think it is ready for a run at FA. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

Reviewing soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has been dubbed "the most prominent Montenegrin historian of [the World War II] period" by the Montenegrin historian Srđa Pavlović: I find it strange that this quote is in the lead (without citation), but is summarized in the body. Should it not be the other way around?

Or the same, which is what I have now done. A quote in the lead doesn't need to be cited if it is identical and cited in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"His most notable works were...": I would replace "were" with "included".

That reflects the academic consensus as provided in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pajović married Ljilja...": You mention Ljilja as if she was brought up before, but this is the first time the reader has heard about her. I would introduce her ("Pajović married a woman named Ljilja...") and perhaps mention more. Do we know how they met? Do we know any details about their relationship prior to marriage?

No, sadly. We don't. Changed as suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not necessary, but link medieval?

I avoided it to avoid two linked terms together. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...the most notable of which were...": This teeters towards NPOV; do the reliable sources state that these publications were the most notable?

Yes, Miljić should know, and I think the quotes from Petranović and Morrison support this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...difficult period of the breakup of Yugoslavia": While I am sure that the breakup was difficult, calling it such in a neutral encyclopedia might be too opinionated. Just a nitpick.

I think it is WP:BLUE. It resulted in multiple wars, over 120,000 deaths and many crimes against humanity. I doubt anyone with a knowledge of what occurred would challenge it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"... in which Amfilohije stated that Montenegrins were "oxen", "faeces", and "bastards" of the World War II Montenegrin Partisan leader Milovan Djilas": I did not understand this?

I've re=read it, and the translation was a bit clunky. It is hopefully better now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet. I cannot give an opinion on the sourcing of the article, but I can confirm that the prose and coverage generally seem in good quality. Wonderful work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Unlimitedlead, see what you think of my responses and edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very far from it[edit]

This article uses several unreliable sources. I tried very hard to explain and present detailed arguments, but my comment received nothing but one big fat "ignore" by our admin. PM, alongside some weird admonishment directed at me. Not only there was no proper response, reaction, the comment was archived, neatly, weeks before article's GA review. Not cool.

Sorry, but using such unreliable sources in your GA or FA is not acceptable. -- Ranko Nikolić (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your claims were addressed, or were invalid POV-pushing. This is a transparent attempt to re-litigate because your POV pushing was not accommodated. There was a source review at Military History A-Class and it found all the sources to be reliable. Other reviewers are encouraged to look at your comments, which were archived because they were addressed or invalid, and the responses and draw their own conclusions about who is interested in the Wikipedia pillar of neutral point of view, and who is pushing a POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you addressed - nothing. My POV? What are you talking about? I presented a number of reliable sources in my lengthy comment while all you did was stonewalling. Why is that? It beats me.

Just a few weeks after my post, you had the audacity to archive the same comment, which included independent reliable sources from Montenegro which clearly show that some of the sources and authors you are using were very unreliable.

It seems to me that the reviewer did not see my comment at all, because, oh well, it was neatly archived just after a few weeks. Since I do not contribute to en.wikipedia daily and I was busy, it went under the radar. We can ask the reviewer if he did examine my comment. Last I check, such actions are not welcomed on Wikipedia. I hold en.Wikipedia to higher standard, on principles.

My previous comment in a nutshell: Peacemaker is using sources from Montenegro which engaged in spreading conspiracy theories and false information about the covid and which are heavily involved in promoting Montenegrin nationalistic views and, even more so, he is quoting a 'historian' (he holds a law degree) who falsely claimed to hold a PhD in history, he presented false data to public and was heavily criticised by other historians. In Montenegro, he is considered to be a nationalistic pseudoscientist and more of a politician.

If you do not want to take it from me, for whatever reason, take it from probably the most prolific Wikipedia editor to come from Montenegro.

Google translate will do it for you. I guess that you don't speak Serbo-Croatian, do you? All in all, it sadens me that this type of work passes under the radar and is able to get GA or FA status. It seems to me that reviewers and other editors do not know much about this part of the world, they assume good faith, and then, what do you know, tabloids which were active in spreading false information about covid get used as reliable sources in GA.

Secondly, you added randomly selected views of this particular historian and some of his comments. When it comes to statements about problems Serbs in Montenegro were facing (there is a great overlap with problems of Aboriginal Australians), you presented no context, no additional information, no NPOV, just random bits out of context. That is not the way to do it, and no, sir, that is not my POV, that is how NPOV works. We do not copy selected statements, which probably are hate speech, we present them with context. readers would think that those statements came out of the blue, but the context is far more complex.

Opinions of other editors are most welcome. And the article's GA status should be checked again. -- Ranko Nikolić (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If what @Ранко Николић says is true, I may have to reconsider my support. While reviewing the article, I did notice slight undertones of pro-Montenegrin sympathies, but @Peacemaker67 is a respected editor, and I think they know better than to use biased and unreliable sources in an A-class/FA article. As the nomination progresses, I will take into account the opinions of other reviewers and make a final decision then, but for now, I see no reason to revoke my support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true, Unlimitedlead. After 12 years editing articles relating to the former Yugoslavia and with major contributions to over 50 Featured Articles on subjects relating to WWII in Yugoslavia (see WP:BORA) I can spot a POV pusher when one appears. Here is the link to the thread Talk:Radoje Pajović/Archive 1#One more comment if you want to read it in all its misinformational glory. We don't not refer to Montenegrin Wikipedia editors on Serbian Wikipedia for an opinion on Pajović or any source used in this article, Ranko. I addressed all of Ranko's points in the linked thread. Most of his post on the talk page, is, as I have noted there, "very poorly sourced, original research, catastrophises minor errors, or uses other stuff exists arguments". Ranko claims Dragutin Papović is a "proper Montenegrin historian", except that Papović is a politician, who was a teaching assistant (a job he disparages when performed by Adžić, but perfectly fine when it is Papović) for ten years before a single year as a part-time lecturer in history at the university in Nikšić. He then joined the government for a couple of years as a public servant then became a politician. That is all from his bio on the skupština website. Yes, he got a PhD at the very end of his ten years as a teaching assistant, but barely used it before going into government. Hardly a stellar academic career as a "proper Montenegrin historian", Ranko. Stipe Kljaić (a professor of history at the Croatian Institute of History)'s review of Papović's book Intelektualci i vlast u Crnoj Gori 1945-1990 in Časopis za suvremenu povijest (Papović's book is basically the publication of his doctoral thesis) isn't exactly glowing, it seems pretty muted to me, stating that its main idea is something that seems obvious, that historians during the communist period were restricted in what they could say or write by the dominant ideology. Well, duh... Adžić is a current PhD candidate who has a masters in history, and co-authored a three volume series with Šerbo Rastoder on modern Montenegrin history, published only three years ago. Ranko claims Rastoder did all the heavy lifting on the series, but has produced zero evidence of that. On the other hand, Nada Tomović (head of the history department at the University of Montenegro)'s review of Rastoder and Adžić's 2020 three-volume series Moderna istorija Crne Gore 1988-2017. od prevrata do NATO pakta in Historijski pogledi is very positive. If Adžić is as bad as you say, what on earth is a respected professor like Rastoder doing sullying his name by co-authoring a book with him, and if he has really falsely claimed a PhD, how is he even working for a university at all? And why did their jointly authored book get a great review from Tomović? You did not respond at all to my post from September last year, so it is hardly underhanded to archive it. Maleschreiber conducted the source review of this article at Milhist A-Class review and concluded that the sources were reliable. Ranko, the one thing you ARE right about is that a higher standard is required on en WP. You are an admin on sr WP, and you have edited the sr WP article on Adžić which is an absolute disgrace for a BLP. Why have you, as an admin, done nothing about it? There is no way an article like that would stand on en WP, any admin worth the name would have deleted almost all of it as unsourced or poorly sourced conspiracy theories and potential defamation as soon as they saw it. I certainly would have. I mean, you reckon IN4S is reliable for the claim about the PhD? That would be laughable if it wasn't so serious that sort of conspiracy theory is given air on sr WP. Give me a break... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adžić holds an MsC in history and is a PhD candidate in history. By definition, he is a historian. His article is a summary of views held by Pajović in public debates. Per WP:RS, for the claims which are related to Adžić, there is no issue with using his article as the context has to do with the views of Pajović and his stance towards comments made by Amfilohije: Pajović also spoke out against the 2015 rehabilitation by the Serbian Supreme Court of the World War II Chetnik leader Draža Mihailović, which Pajović considered unfounded.[8] Pajović belonged to a group of Montenegrin historians who consistently advocated for the independence of Montenegro and affirmed Montenegrin ethnicity. He also claimed that historical evidence confirms the existence of an autocephalous Montenegrin Orthodox Church, and that it had been unlawfully abolished by force by Prince Regent Alexander of Yugoslavia in 1920.[2][8] He also wrote that Montenegro had been violently annexed by the Kingdom of Serbia in 1918. Pajović advocated for Montenegro to be a "free, civil democratic, socially just and multi-religious and multicultural society".[8] In January 2019, Pajović stated that Serbian clero-nationalist circles were spreading false information claiming that the human rights of Serbs in Montenegro were in danger. He roundly condemned as gross and false propaganda the 2019 assertion by the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Irinej, that the situation of Serbs in Montenegro was worse than in the genocidal Independent State of Croatia during World War II. Pajović also condemned the insults made by Amfilohije, the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro towards Montenegrins who asserted their Montenegrin identity, in which Amfilohije stated that such people were "bastards" of the World War II Montenegrin communist and Partisan leader Milovan Djilas. Amfilohije also described these Montenegrins as "oxen" and "faeces".[8] Pajović accused the same clero-nationalist groups of historical revisionism against the anti-fascist struggle in Montenegro and its legacy.[8] The source describes statements by Pajović and Amfilohije as they occurred from the perspective of each involved party. PM carefully attributed specific statements to Pajović and avoided the use of wikivoice. PM didn't promote the opinion that Montenegro had been violently annexed by the Kingdom of Serbia in 1918, he attributed it to Pajović as this is what the author supported. NPOV in such a case can't mean anything more or less than the attribution of specific statements to their authors. On the other hand, the general assessment about Pajović's career is not based on attitudes generated within Montenegro - although this would be legitimate as well - but on the assessment of his work in international academia. It seems to me that the concerns which were raised, object the assessment of Pajović's work internationally, but the article can't reflect anything less than this assessment, hence the review should proceed as is - IMHO. --Maleschreiber (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I was traveling and I do not have this page on my WL. A courtesy ping was in order.

0) Ha, I see now, PM, you are writing your GA and FA articles about antique submarines and what not, and after publishing a number of those neat little articles and building a reputation for yourself on Wikipedia based on it, you are tackling biographies. Btw. I have authored more GA or FA, and all the other stats work in my favor, but I think that bringing that number up is infantile. Just wanted to kindly ask you not to humiliate other editors' work. It's not okay.

And so, because other editors have very little knowledge about the subject or the Balkans in general, you are able to get away with almost anything when it comes to biographies of people from this part of Europe, which you often use to shed a positive light on ideologies or viewpoints which you hold to represent the imaginary "good guys". The same observation was shared by another editor on this talk page, as he mentioned your pro-Montenegrin sympathies. On the other hand, you write borderline hatched jobs about historians which you think are or were "doing a bad job", like Milorad Ekmečić, a FA article which gives almost zero content about his work, scholarly achievements and his great books published in the 80s and earlier, but goes at length about his political views and role in the Yugoslav war and criticism of his work. Milorad Ekmečić and Radoje Pajović are two sides of the same medal which your work on Wikipedia represents. Do not get me wrong, I assume good faith, I believe that you believe that you are doing us all a service, but that' simply not the case.

And what about that little ping, calling your associate for a helpful comment?

All of that is not important, what's important is the fact that Montenegrin sources and fact-checker claim that you are currently using media portals which were active in promoting conspiracy theories.

1) Rather than addressing claims I made, you attacked me as a POV pusher, based on thin air, and you went on to make wild claims that "you have the experience" to recognize "my kind". Quite a strange claim. Your viewpoints and comments about Serbian Wikipedia are quite irrelevant and off-topic. Do not muddy the water, please.

2) All that aside, once again, you can not have your FA using unreliable sources.

Portal AntenaM is unreliable and here is why:

We have this portal called "Raskrinkavanje" (Unmasking). It operates in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. We use it for fact-checking etc. and it is one of the best tools for such actions in the country.

A) AntenaM introduced false information and "manipulated facts" in order to present the impression to their liking. Link 1

B) AntenaM is listed amongst the tabloids, like the notorious Serbian tabloid "Alo". They introduced false information stating that Sweden has removed elderly people from their welfare system. Link 2

C) AntenaM posted, alongside other tabloids, false and pseudoscientific claims that golden [sponge]] found in Montenegrin sea has a potential to create a great "anti-COVID medicine". This article and others in line with are spreading false information to the public.

D) The portal is active in weaponizing history, just like I said. For example here they claim that the Serbian Orthodox church is not an institution which is 800+ years old.

E) Their "twin portal" operated by AntenaM's owner Darko Sukovic, who also often uses slurs and insults against individuals who do not think like him, has the habit of publishing chauvinistic "funny articles" like this one, which attempts to portrait Serbs as "Turkish bastards".

Still good for your FA?

3) A PhD historian with published work seriously criticized the publicist Adzic (who holds a law degree and a master in history). Rather than accepting that he is not the best choice for FA article, PM went at length to diminish his career and academic work.The same publicist Adzic, falsely claimed to hold a PhD. PM ignores this and attacked a portal which he dislikes. Quite strange, yet again.

4) Other mistakes in the article:

A) Sandzak is not officially a region of Montenegro. The proper name is Sandžak, if you are using it.

B) Metropolitan's title is not properly used, see Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral. It existed since the Middle Ages. Did you mention that there are viewpoints held by historians which claim that viewpoints promoted by Pajovic about the "the existence of an autocephalous Montenegrin Orthodox Church" are fringe and revisionism?

C) Diocletian academy is not official organization backed by Montenegro. It should be noted, otherwise it's misleading.

D) You gave no context as to way Metropolitan Amfilohije called Montenegrins to be "bastards". Not a single source outside of the Balkans, and maybe you, will understand that statement fully. You never mentioned that he apologized for his statements. On the other hand, you found time and space to explain Racic's actions. On that note, there were no Croatian or Serbian politicians at the time, only Yugoslav Croat, Yugoslav Serb, etc. It's the basics, old chap.

E) Legacy and death section mixes viewpoints on history, Pajovic's political viewpoints, criticism and some information about his death. I suggest that you work on the title.

And now, try to discuss and talk nicely and do not accuse other editors of "pushing their POV" and other nonsense.

Pinging you guys @Ljleppan, CT55555, and Gog the Mild:: I have no wish to waste my precious time posting detailed comments, like all editors should, with proper link and everything, if you gentlemen are going to promote articles which are using local Montenegrin tabloids for your next FA and you think that labeling people who comment as "POV pushers" is polite or normal. Take care. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have precisely zero idea why I'm being pinged here. Ljleppan (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not consider myself a party to discussion or disagreement about sourcing or point of view pushing. I think editors who have allegations plus evidence of misbehaviour should take those issues to the relevant notice board. Until now I made one comment that the article needed more balance. I'd rather stay out of the POV allegations and the sourcing debate. CT55555(talk) 19:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This answers none of my points, and just repeats the same stuff from the talk page thread and the original thread here. Repeating something again and again doesn't make it accurate. My point about reliability is exactly the point Maleschreiber made, in that the question is whether the source is reliable for what it is being relied upon for. In this case, Adžić is restating what Pajović said during his life about various issues. It is in no way being couched as Adžić's views, or those of the editors of AntenaM. What are you saying? That Pajović didn't say those things or hold those viewpoints? On what basis? Some responses to 4):

A "region" doesn't have to be "official". Herzegovina isn't "official", yet it is commonly used to refer to an area of BH. In addition, Montenegro wasn't a country when Đurišić massacred people there, the area was part of occupied Yugoslavia. Are you suggesting that it should be worded something like "that part of the Sandzak region of Yugoslavia now forming part of Montenegro" or words to that effect? Or what exactly?
Anyone who wants to know the "official" title for the Metropolitan can click on the link. There is nothing misleading in the way I have referred to the Metropolitan. Who are the historians who claim Pajović's viewpoints are fringe and revisionist? Please provide reliable sources for your claims.
There is no requirement that the basis for the existence of an organisation has to be provided when linking an organisation. It is hardly germane whether an organisation is approved or "official" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Doclean Academy (DANU) was formed in 1998 by highly respected Montenegrin scholars and artists (like the painter Dimitrije Popović, author Sreten Asanović, linguist Vojislav Nikčević, the historians Šerbo Rastoder (mentioned above) and Pajović, the physicist and now ambassador Slobodan Backović, and the law professor and judge at the European Court of Human Rights Nebojša Vučinić) who considered the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts at the time to be dominated by Serbian nationalists and basically a branch of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The group wanted to establish an independent Montenegrin academy of sciences and arts, and it is highly regarded. See this article in Science for some background on the dim view the government took about the machinations of CANU towards DANU in 2012, and here is the congratulatory message from the President of the Parliament of Montenegro to DANU in 2019.
The context is provided. He was referring to Montenegrins who asserted their Montenegrin identity (instead of identifying as Serbs) as "bastards" of Djilas. Where did the Metropolitan apologise? Link please. As far as the Croats, Serbs etc, ethnicity is critical to the understanding of the events described, which is why is has been included. The name of the country at the time was the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, not Yugoslavia.
The section heading has been commented on by other reviewers, and adjusted to its current formulation. They appear happy with it and so am I. It does not have to be chapter and verse of all the content in laborious detail.

Thanks, Ранко Николић. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also replaced several citations to Adžić in AntenaM to a similar article by him in Vijesti a few days earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

What is the presidency of the Association of Historians of Yugoslavia?

Ah yes, a classic communist collective leadership structure. Various Yugoslav public bodies had "presidencies", which were usually a collective leadership group, although sometimes a single person. For example, see Presidency of the 8th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. There was even a "President of the Presidency" of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the main one being Tito). It is like a board, effectively. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No publisher location for Pavle Đurišić: kontroverzni četnički vojvoda?

Good grief, no idea how I missed that. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pajović ... consistently advocated for the independence of Montenegro and affirmed Montenegrin ethnicity ... Pajović advocated for Montenegro to be a "free, civil democratic, socially just and multi-religious and multicultural society"." Do we need to effectively say the same thing twice?

They are not the same thing at all. One is about Montenegrin independence and ethnicity, the other is about the civic values of Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a new paragraph at "According to Miljić"?

Sure, done.

Are there no negative comments from RSs about his work? (Which may make him unique in academia.)

I'll do another check. There is known criticism which I haven't included, and that is from the revisionists themselves. Firstly, given much of this view runs counter to the overwhelming evidence, and is not widely held, it would be IMHO WP:UNDUE as I don't think that it has sufficient weight to be considered a "significant view" per WP:NPOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Gog, I had another look and found a credible criticism of Pajović regarding his attitude to the crimes committed by the Partisans at the end of the war. I've added it, hopefully it makes sense? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from CT55555[edit]

I'm new to FAC reviewing, so take these as amateur comments, not expert critique:

This article appears to glowingly praise him throughout. Did you find any criticism of him that could be included? Most people have strengths and weaknesses.

Other than that comment, I found the article comprehensive and did not identify any other flaws or reasons to oppose. I'm too new here to support or oppose, so just leaving this as a comment. CT55555(talk) 02:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Per Gog's review, I'm looking for any critical observations about his work that can be added. As I noted above, there are some critics I am aware of who are the same revisionists he opposed. They obviously have criticisms, but in my view they are fringe views and not significant enough to warrant inclusion on the basis of NPOV. I will report back on the results of my search. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CT55555, I had another look as promised, and found a credible criticism of Pajović regarding his attitude to the crimes committed by the Partisans at the end of the war. I've added it, hopefully it makes sense? I have been unable to find any credible criticisms of his actual academic work though. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CT55555(talk) 12:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CT55555, just as general feedback, here and elsewhere your comments seem insightful and on the money. Formally supporting or opposing is entirely optional, but the sort of prose summary you provide in this review is helpful to us reviewers, so thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. My thinking was:

I should see how this nomination goes, I'll learn from that
I should see how the various FAC I have commented on go. I have thoughts about if I should oppose or not, and I wanted to keep them to myself, see how the consensus goes, see if consensus matches my comments, see what feedback I get about my comments, and then self-assess if I'm good enough to support or oppose.

So this feedback nudges me towards offering oppose/support opinions on future. I'll remove not being so bold here just yet.

Regarding this article, I remain hoping for more balance, but if none exists after extensive searches (which seems to be the case here) I have no further critique of the article. CT55555(talk) 15:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

"Pajović also edited more than twenty books" is cited to Radio Televizija Crne Gore, but I don't see it there.

Whoops, not sure what I did there. Cited to the journal obit by Miljić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He was a founding member of the Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts" is also cited to Radio Televizija Crne Gore, but I don't "founding member" part there. It is in the other source offered, Miljić 8 June 2019, so perhaps just remove cite 1 there?

Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources used appear to me to be reliable and of appropriate quality. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Translations of book titles should be in round brackets. See MOS:BRACKET.

Hi Dudley, I find this confusing. I acknowledge what MOS:BRACKET says, but WP:MOS-BIBLIO says you can use the cite book template, and it uses square brackets, so by using round brackets elsewhere, there would be two different types of brackets being used for the same thing in the one article. Which is not usually preferred on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, WP:MOS-BIBLIO is about citation in lists of works and in the bibliography, not in the main text. To me, round brackets in the main text and square in the bibliography looks right, although I cannot explain why. I think round in the main text is usual, but it is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just keep it consistent, if you don't mind. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He was among those Montenegrin historians who refused to engage in historical revisionism to rehabilitate the World War II Chetniks who collaborated with the Axis powers, despite this being a trend in the 1990s." "despite" and "trend" sound wrong to me in view of his politics. How about "In the 1990s, some Montenegrin historians attempted to rehabilitate World War II Chetniks who collaborated with the Axis powers, and Pajovic was among the historians who opposed this politically motivated revisionism."

Far better, thanks, and done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pajović worked at the Institute of History for forty years from 1958 until his retirement in 1997.[1][2] As a historian, he mainly concentrated on the modern history of Montenegro". "As a historian" is superfluous. I would delete.

Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"specialising in World War II, for the latter of which he was "highly respected both at home and abroad". "for the latter of which" is clumsy and superfluous.

Yes, not sure what I was thinking there. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"for his contributions to science". "science" is an odd word here. Did the people giving the award regard history as a science?

Yes, this was a peculiarity of terminology regarding history in the communist-era which has actually continued (to a limited extent) into the present. Here is the 2023 award announcement. The award is actually the "Trinaestojulska nagrada" literally the "Thirteenth of July Award", and in Pajović's case was "za nauku" ie "for science", although it could be translated as "knowledge", so given the context I could render it as "for his contribution to historical knowledge"? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite a short article, so I think that adding an explanation of the use of the word science would be an interesting addition to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to get too far off-topic, I've opted for a cited note explaining the conception of historical science in socialist ideology practiced in the former Yugoslavia. This had a long history going right back to Marx. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In a paper published in the journal History, Čagorović criticised Pajović for quoting Petar II Petrović-Njegoš – Prince-Bishop of Montenegro from 1830 to 1851 – in his defence of the crimes of the Partisans at the end of World War II, namely that Pajović stated, "committing evil in order to be protected from it, is not evil at all".[10]" This is clumsy and obscure. I would leave out the prince bishop and explain what evil actions Pajovic was defending.

Have removed the Prince-Bishop. Will add something about the end of war crimes by the Partisans to provide context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley, have now added something from Tomasevich about the Partisan killing of Montenegrin collaborationist troops at the end of the war, which is what Čagorović was referring to. Is this sufficient to place the issue in context? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pajović belonged to a group of Montenegrin historians who consistently advocated for the independence of Montenegro". I think that a sentenc or two on the history and dates of Montenegrin independence would be helpful. Did his advocacy go beyond historical writing to political campaigning?

Thanks Dudley, I have been wracking my brain about what might be missing here that I am not including and which has been perceived by you and other reviewers. At least part of it is context about the history of Montenegrin national identity and the split between those who emphasise a separate Montenegrin identity from those who see Montenegrins as "the best of Serbs" (as they have been called). I will find a couple of sources and add some needed context here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This provided to be a tough nut for me to crack, but a necessary one. Thanks for raising this issue, as it made me think more deeply about how to structure Pajović's work within his later advocacy for Montenegrin independence and identity. I think I might have managed that now. Interested in your thoughts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He roundly condemned". I would leave out "roundly" as pejorative and POV.

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the insults made by Amfilohije, the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro towards Montenegrins". Maybe "the insults by Amfilohije, the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro about Montenegrins"

Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of his books been translated into other languages. Was he monolingual?

AFAIK he was monolingual. His works were published in both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts of Serbo-Croatian throughout the former Yugoslavia and its successor states. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"His works were published in both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts of Serbo-Croatian throughout the former Yugoslavia and its successor states." I think this is an important point which should be added to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting article, but it gives the impression of being a partisan description of a supporter of one side in a polarised profession, with no analysis of criticism of his work apart from one comment. Did the praise for his impartiality all come from people who shared his views?
I get the impression that Montenegrins are almost equally divided between supporters and opponents of Serbia. Is this correct? If so, it should be explained. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This goes to your point above, which I will address shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly done, just working through the best way to integrate it into the narrative. Should be done in next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Dudley. I think I may have addressed all of your points now. Please re-read, esp the newly retitled section "Views on Montenegrin independence and identity", as I have tried to integrate his work and views in the context of the history of Yugoslavia and Montenegro. There is no doubt he was an advocate (particularly in the latter years of his academic career and in his retirement), however I have tried to use the context (and the work of historians and social scientists working in the same space) to step through the key points of his work. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
""Old Montenegro" – an area around Cetinje largely free of Ottoman incursions which developed specific Montenegrin characteristics – meant that significant parts of the population did not closely identify with Montenegrin statehood or identity." I am not sure what you are saying here - which parts did not identify?

Quite a lot of the new population identified more as Serbs and Muslims. I have added this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

autocephalous. This is an unusual word. I suggest explaining it in brackets or a note.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"proponents of the autocephaly of the CPC claim that church, which had already enjoyed de facto independence for a considerable time, fulfilled all the canonical conditions". The grammar seems to get lost here. "claim that that church"?

changed that to the. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the paragraph on the CPC and SPC difficult to follow. I am not sure what the solution is but I think you need to spell out that it was an argument between proponents of a separate church and a wider Serbian one.

Sure, have had a crack at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the SPC says that the majority of Montenegrians are members. If this is correct I think you should say so.

It is a rather POV article that does not properly explain the contested nature of the split, but I have added what the US DoS says about it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not explain what KSHC stands for.

"Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KSHS, Yugoslavia from 1929)" the king changed the name as part of an attempt to suppress the question of the various "nationalities" within the country. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is vastly improved on the background but there still seems to be a contradiction between the praise for his impartiality and the summaries and quotes from his works which are very partisan. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Dudley. I believe I've addressed the rest of the additional comments, but I'm not sure what you are referring to as "partisan" here, can you elaborate? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are comments on his impartiality such as "Pajović has been praised for his objective writing about collaboration with the Axis powers in Montenegro", but in your description of his writings he seems to be portrayed as far from objective and condemning collaboration. His comment "committing evil in order to be protected from it, is not evil at all" seems highly partisan. Of course, there is nothing wrong with condemning collaboration, but I find the portrayal of him a bit confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Dudley, thanks. His writings on the collaboration of the Chetniks are consistent with the academic consensus outside the former Yugoslavia. Prominent international historians, political scientists and others working in the field, such as Jozo Tomasevich, Stevan K. Pavlowitch, Marko Attila Hoare, Matteo Milazzo, Sabrina P. Ramet and Walter Roberts all came to the same or similar conclusions about the Chetniks, and many of them, like Hoare (who is still alive), are on the record opposing the same historical revisionism about the collaboration that Pajović opposed (most, if not all of them, cite Pajović's work in their books). Frankly, the revisionism movement adopts a fringe view and is not at all supported by the academic consensus outside of Serbia (and perhaps some Serb-dominated parts of Montenegro), where it is tied up with the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s and Serb nationalism. I'm not sure what I can do to make that clearer, but I'm open to suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a summary of what you say above would be helpful background if you can provide citations by the international historians. Clarification of what was meant by his "objective writing" would also be helpful - that even though he was a partisan of one side he did not make allegations unsupported by strong evidence? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Dudley Miles. When it comes to the Chetniks (which is central to the importance of his work, and his first two key works include them or key Montenegrin elements of them), he truly is not "partisan" at all (perhaps he is accused of being that by fringe Serb academics, but mostly by populist journalists and politicians, whose output is tendentious in the extreme, but their views really are fringe and aren't credible enough to be included on WP). They continue to claim the Chetniks were not collaborators, despite the truly overwhelming evidence that they were. His work in respect of the Chetniks has been praised by local and international academics (this is already in the article) and forms part of the academic consensus on them. So, he wasn't "partisan" as you suggest, I need to better understand why the article gives you the impression he was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"committing evil in order to be protected from it, is not evil at all" seems a clearly partisan comment, and in the discussion of the CPC and SPC you use the word "claim" for the views of both sides, implying to me partisanship on both sides.
- OK, I think I understand this better now, we were working off slightly different concepts of partisanship, and with your clarification below, I think I am at peace with the description. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"writes emotionally but without passion about the opposing ideology". I do not understand the distinction being drawn in this quote.
- AS mentioned below, I have checked the translation, and improved it, which hopefully helps with the clarity. No idea why I didn't do that earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have quotes in the sources, which I have never seen before and I strongly disagree with it as it makes it very easy for readers to miss them. Why not in the notes?
- It is in the template, but a fair point, especially regarding the lack of context for the quote. Moved to notes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now moved the other one, and worked through the translation again and improved it (including fixing the tense...). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to "Roberts" in a quote in the sources, but there is no other reference to him or explanation of what work is being discussed.
- fixed at the same time as the point immediately above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on whether Pajovic is partisan, but that is probably just how we interpret the word. I would take the view - which I think is widely held - that all historians are partisan in that they support a particular historical viewpoint. I read once a preface of a book by a pro-Anglo-Saxon historian praising the broad-mindedness of the pro-Norman historian who had commissioned him to write the work. A good historian does not carry partisanship to the extent of distorting the other side's views and actions or ignoring inconvenient facts. I take it that Pajovic was a good historian in that sense, even though he was particularly partisan because he was on one side in a vicious political dispute, but this seems to be distinction which you disagree with. It will not prevent me supporting promotion, but it is a point I wanted to make. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PM, how are we going with these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Dudley, I hope I have addressed your comments now. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs looking at? This has been a very useful exercise, and I have greatly appreciated the questions and challenges you have posed. It has made me think more deeply about some of the concepts, and about how to formulate any future articles on historians from this part of the world. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate article. BTW do you know the detective stories of Rex Stout? They are set in New York, but the detective, Nero Wolfe, is Montenegran born, and The Black Mountain and Over my Dead Body are about Montenegran politics. I obviously have no idea how accurate the portrayal is. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2023 [19].

Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale[edit]

Nominator(s): Isaksenk (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Elizabeth Murray, Countess of Dysart and Duchess of Lauderdale. She was an active member of the Royalist cause during the English Civil War, a prominent Scottish noble and responsible for much of the 17th-century collection at Ham House today. Isaksenk (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

I enjoyed this article. A few minor comments:

Early life

"Murray was the eldest of the four daughters of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart, a close friend and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I; and his wife Catherine Bruce" – the semicolon mucks up the syntax. You might consider using parenthetic dashes to make your point clear: "Murray was the eldest of the four daughters of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart – a close friend and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I – and his wife Catherine Bruce." Alternatively, and possibly better from the reader's viewpoint, you could split into two sentences on the lines of "Murray was the eldest of the four daughters of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart, and his wife Catherine Bruce. Dysart was a close friend and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I."

English Civil War and first marriage

"Elizabeth developed a reputation for charisma and beauty" – "charisma" seems an odd word here. Except in a theological sense the word was unknown until the 20th century, and in any case I'm not sure how being called "...a pretty witty Lass" makes her charismatic.
"likely when his army headquarters were located in nearby Kingston-upon-Thames" – as we are in BrE it would be as well to eschew this AmE construction. The normal usage in the King's English would be "probably when his army headquarters ..."
"visited Europe on multiple occasions" – rather a long-winded way of saying "often" or "frequently"
"the ability for female heirs to inherit" – unexpected preposition: one might expect "of" rather than "for"
"In 1660, when Charles II resumed the throne" – did he resume it? Not crowned or anointed (in England at any rate) before 1660 as far as I know, though I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.

Second marriage

"they traveled north to Scotland" – BrE "travelled" needed here.
"seeking advice for a new gateway" – another strange preposition: "about" would seem more appropriate.

In literature and art

"Her patronage of Lely extended over decades, with 4 paintings of her – usual to use words rather than digits for numbers under 10.

Those are my few quibbles. I hope they are useful. Tim riley talk 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciated @Tim riley. I've addressed all your feedback points except for one - the comment about charisma. Elizabeth was known in her time as both an attractive person as well as a great conversationalist. In fact it was her skills in conversation that made her a desirable sparring partner for Oliver Cromwell. I used the word charisma to try & represent that characteristic, but will cede to your expertise in identifying it as anachronistic. I didn't want to belabour the point with a slew of quotes - so wondering what word might you suggest in its place? Appreciate any advice you might have. Thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've answered your own question: as she was known for her beauty and the excellence of her company you could say just that. But if you prefer charisma I am not going to press the point. I'll have a final read-through tomorrow and return here to (I hope) support the elevation of the article to FA. Tim riley talk 20:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is well and widely sourced, excellently illustrated, appears comprehensive and impartial, and is an excellent read. Tim riley talk 10:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance & support @Tim riley! Isaksenk (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Elizabeth_Murray_(1626–1698),_by_Peter_Lely.jpg needs a US tag, and see MOS:CREDITS

File:John_Maitland,_1st_duke_of_Lauderdale,_and_his_wife_Elizabeth_Murry,_Duchess_of_Lauderdale_(3977704407).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nikkimariathanks for pitching in. I believe I've addressed your first point, but I'm struggling to understand the ask on the second point. I think you're asking for data to be added to the Image file on Wikimedia, but I'm not sure what precisely is requested. If you could kindly clarify I'm happy to oblige. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First one is fixed but when checking that I noticed |full name= appears to be broken - suggest correcting

On the second, the current tagging presumably reflects the reproduction of the image. However, what is missing is a tag indicating the status of the original painting. Presumably it is out of copyright due to its age, so we just need a tag added saying so. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Nikkimaria - I believe I've fixed the second one, but I'm unable to find the "full name" tag. I've looked on the page itself, the Wikimedia page for the painting and the Wikidata entry, and I can't find what's broken. Could you please provide a little more detail? Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a result of a change made to the template coding which has now been corrected, so no action needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks for letting me know. Isaksenk (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was also flagging up. Good to know that I wasn't hallucinating. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat[edit]

I saw this article at GAN, and am intrigued to see it here. Only a couple of comments at the moment:

MOS:NUMERAL permits either, but the lead and body are inconsistent between "eleven/11" children, which might be worth standardizing one way or the other ("eleven" probably more natural given "five survived to adulthood")
Her dedication to the cause also led her -- I don't know this is the sort of juxtaposition that requires 'also'
She and her husband were also granted the freehold of 75 acres surrounding Ham House in recognition of "the service done by the late Earl of Dysart and his daughter." -- MOS:LQ
Your last two sections are very short, and could be consolidated into a "Death and legacy" that flows more naturally; the paintings of her could be mentioned more naturally in discussion of her life earlier in the article, while her description in literature is clearly 'legacy'-based

I reserve the right to further comments, but that's all I'm seeing at the moment. Excellent work. Vaticidalprophet 05:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vaticidalprophet thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've addressed points 1 & 2 as specified. For point 3, I wasn't sure what was being requested - was it moving the punctuation outside of the quotes? If yes, I've done that. Finally, I have consolidated the final two sections as suggested. However I struggled to find a way to drop the paintings into an earlier section of the text, as she was painted many times over the course of decades. I chose instead to indicate that the highly notable double portrait remains at Ham, as another notion of legacy. Would that work? Isaksenk (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this slipped my mind -- I've been very busy running the GAN backlog drive :) I intended at some point to make further comments, but have forgotten what they were. Given that, will support here. Vaticidalprophet 07:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Vaticidalprophet greatly appreciated. Isaksenk (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Four books have publisher locations and three don't. This should be standardised.
- DONE
Seymour is listed under sources, but does not seem to be used as such.
- DONE
In the infobox and the text at least one of her date of birth, date of death or age at death is wrong.
- DONE
In the lead, why is her date of birth cited? Is it particularly contentious?
- DONE
"resumed her close connection to the restored court." "to" → 'with'?
- DONE
"In her own right she was the Countess of Dysart". From birth?
- DONE
"She was famous for the political influence she held". Can one hold influence? Perhaps 'exercised'?
- DONE
"She was famous for the political influence she held and for her support for Charles II during his exile, as a member of the secret Royalist organisation known as the Sealed Knot, which plotted for the return of the monarchy after the execution of Charles I." A bit of a long sentence. Perhaps break?
- DONE
"Full name" in the infobox needs sorting out.
- DONE
"Gentleman of the Bedchamber". Why the upper-case G and B?
- I looked in Rowell, which is a thoroughly academic source, and it's capitalised there, but if MOS requires lower case, I'll change it.

MOS:JOBTITLE is clear and succinct and worth reading. The usage of sources and external bodies is ignored.

OK, now DONE

"and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I". In his English or Scottish court? Or both?
- William was brought to England as a small child to be Charles' whipping boy, and remained at his side from then on. I'm going to assume it's the English court. But is this really critical for an article about Elizabeth?

I don't know - I assume that you are the editor who introduced it. As the first sentence of the lead states that Elizabeth "was a Scottish noblewoman" a reader is likely to assume that any court positions her father held were Scottish ones. In passing, are the sources clear that she "was a Scottish noblewoman", or is it more that she was a noblewoman who held Scottish titles?

OK, I see what you mean. She was considered Scottish, despite being born and raised in England. I've added a small edit to the lead to note that she was raised in English court circles - hopefully that makes it clearer.

"During the English Civil War ..." Just during the Civil War, or also during the longer Wars of the Three Kingdoms?
- William was only in service to Charles I, plus a short embassy in 1651 in support of Charles II. He never served Cromwell, nor was involved in any Irish conflicts. So, can it remain as is?

Of course. Just checking.

"in service to the king." Upper-case K, per MOS:JOBTITLES? Or is the reference to both Charles's?
- DONE
"Thomas Tollemache, Lieutenant-General". Why the upper-case L and G?
- DONE
I am not sure that the mini-biography "abandoned the family's devotion to the House of Stuart and became a key supporter of William of Orange (later King William III of England)" is helpful. It either needs to include more context or be scrapped.
- DONE
"Ham House near Richmond by the Thames". Perhaps locate Ham House at its first mention in the main article, rather than the third.
- DONE

I am not sure that it is. The first mention is under "Early life".

I've moved it to the second paragraph of the lead.

Anything in the lead needs to also be in the main article. I have added it in there, but if you object could you let me know here and pin me? Thanks.

Understood - I learn something new every day. :-) I've added the links back to ensure there's coverage in both the lead & the body.

"becoming suo jure ...". 1. This is the English language Wikipedia, why the lapse into a foreign - and dead - language? 2. Re the link, MOS:NOFORCELINK says "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." 3. Foreign language words should be in lang templates, not double apostrophes.
- DONE
"A few years later, she wrote to ..." Is "she" still Judith Isham?
- DONE
"an annual pension of £800 (equivalent to £100,000 in 2021)." This is cited to a work published in 2004, which raises an obvious difficulty.
- DONE
"Letters Patent". Again, why the upper-case initial letters?
- DONE
The lead says "her support for Charles II during his exile", which I have no reason to doubt. The only concrete activity given in the main article is her couriering some letters to the continent. This seems remarkably trivial, given the stress in the article on her support for Charles and her involvement in plotting for his return. Are no other overtly supportive actions known?
- Being a prominent royalist, she came under close scrutiny of Cromwell's agents. In fact, much of her correspondence was intercepted and now remains in national archives. Her travels would therefore have been dangerous - not to mention being nearly constantly pregnant. And I also make mention of her development of an invisible ink. I didn't want to delve too deeply here, but can expand a bit if warranted.

It's "your" article, so if you feel that it is balanced, then fine. If there is a little more concrete detail, and you feel it could be usefully added, then I think that the article could stand that.

OK, I've added a small expansion on the topic to further develop the level of effort.

"Her title as Countess of Dysart was secured by the grant of new Letters Patent on 5 December 1670, which also reaffirmed the ability of female heirs to inherit the title where no male heir existed." Just a suggestion, but if this were moved to the end of the section, it would maintain its chronological flow.
- DONE
"Soon after his death she became the mistress of John Maitland". Could benefit from being lightly rephrased. (I hope.)
- DONE (LOL)
"for the opening of Parliament". Perhaps specify the Scottish Parliament and Wikilink.
- DONE

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gog the Mildfor your inputs. I've started working through the list & have a few questions/comments:

Point 1 - done
Point 2 - that source was originally in an extended Legacy section, but I was told to remove it at PR. I've now removed the unused source.
Points 3-8 - done
Point 9 - Unclear what's needed. I'm looking at other FA articles, such as Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany and I don't see a "full name" tag used there.

An unfilled template was displaying, but it has now disappeared. So it seems to have resolved itself. (Which is strange.)

Point 10 - it's a formal title and the Wikipedia article referencing the appointment shows it capitalised.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. MOS:JOBTITLE applies.

Will have more time later to continue. Thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He resigned his government positions in September 1680". Delete "1680", the year has been established in the previous sentence.
- DONE
"Despite the efforts of Lord Tweedale's son and even James II, the dispute persisted until being settled in the Scottish courts in June 1688, who required Lord Tweedale to cover the debts, while assigning Elizabeth the responsibility for the funeral expenses." What dispute? You haven't mentioned a dispute in this paragraph.
- It's mentioned in the previous paragraph, but I've expanded it slightly in order to make it more prominent.
"Elizabeth had suffered from gout for many years". Avoid switching tenses. Maybe something like 'Elizabeth suffered from gout for many years prior to her death ...'?
- DONE
"keenly interested in the news from Court". Do you mean 'and she was keenly ...', or was it the friends and family who were interested?
- DONE
"The Duchess of Lauderdale died at the age of 72". The infobox says 71.
- DONE

And in the lead? :-)

Oops! Fixed now.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild I've addressed each point, but a few points for your guidance remain. Thank you.

A few come backs above. Rereading, it's a nice little article - good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild I believe I've addressed all your feedback to date, but please let me know if anything is outstanding.

All done, supporting. SC, over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Booking a place: will be here when Gog’s done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

"Protecterate"? Protectorate, linked as the Protectorate, seems the right version

Second Marriage

"she wrote to her cousin the Scottish architect William Bruce": I use commas a lot less than most, but I can see the benefit of bracketing "the Scottish architect William Bruce" in a pair of them, although I don't push the point too much

Death

"Despite that she": comma after "that"

That's it. Very scant fare after the work of others above and what was a good article to begin with. I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SchroCat All points addressed - thanks for your feedback. Isaksenk (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SchroCat, greatly appreciated.

@Gog the Mild I believe I've addressed all the open points, but if I've missed anything please let me know. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I formally supported two weeks ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review SusunW[edit]

Everyone else seems to be working through the prose part, so I will focus on the source review. Comments to follow soon. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments related to sourcing refer to: Special:permanentlink/1167748233.

All sources appear to be in title case with appropriate and consistent segmentation of ISBNs. Spot checks reveal no evident issues with copyvios.
spot check of [4] verifies info and no copyvios; however, it does not verify the conversion of £800. Seems to me that I recall there is some template that affixes a source for conversions (I am helpless with templates and usually ask Gog the Mild to rescue me), unless you used some other source? It would also be nice to have a conversion on note "a" of £1500 for consistency.
- I've removed the conversion rate entirely per a comment above. I'm reflecting on a comment from one of my History dissertation advisors, who said that conversions were pointless due to changes in the relative value of goods. So, hopefully there's no objections to the omission.

Your call, but I do find that it is helpful to the reader to have some sort of idea what the numbers meant at the time. this converter says for 1660 that £800 was equal to a skilled tradesman's wages for 11428 days (more than 30 years), but is a database a RS? This journal article says on pp 489-490 that "₤100 was a sum on which a bourgeois family could live for a whole year", so eight times the income of a merchant class family. Your call but I think some idea of what that number means helps the reader. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

spot check [5] verifies info and no copyvios
[17] is a dead link. Archival link confirms the information. What makes this a RS? Neither web registration nor publisher registration list an editorial board. Possibly this is a better source.
- I couldn't access the link you suggested, but I found a nice source from the NPG, which includes an image to boot.

Yes, it's a conundrum. I cannot open many British sources either. You might try to access it removing the ".mx" from the url address. My comment on the NPG gallery source is similar to the village website below, while I cannot verify that the site is curated, they are not likely to make a claim that would damage their reputation. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[25] quote is verified
[37] vs. [39] (I cannot find an accessible link for me here in Mexico). 37 cites Adshead as the author and Rowell as the editor. 39 cites Rowell as the author, but the source section lists him as the editor of the book. [51] gives Rowell as pp 116–122, so it looks as if he wrote an article, which we should know the title of, in addition to editing the book? Did Rowell write an article as well as serving as editor or were all of these citations to the article by Adshead? Citations should reflect the author, not the editor, where possible.
- Thanks for highlighting that. Rowell edited the definitive 2013 book and wrote several of the chapters. But Adshead did write one chapter that contains key info, so I've updated [10] and [13] accordingly.
[49] The archive link doesn't work and the original link is dead. Looks like they changed servers, as this link works. Not sure if the source is curated, but snippet views of the History of St. Peter's Church, Petersham, Surrey, p 38 and The Art and Architecture of London: An Illustrated Guide, p 400 confirm the information, even though this says there is no marker. Probably is reliable as I cannot imagine why a village government would distort information about who was buried in their churchyard, but the link needs to be fixed.
- I've found the current village website and linked it there.

Thank you for your work on her. It is very unusual to have detailed information on 17th century women and I appreciate you and your work on the article. It was a joy to read. Please ping me as my real life is a zoo and although I bookmarked the page, I miss things. (note, 2 "u"s and no "a") SusunW (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SusunW for your feedback and support.

I was hoping you'd address Gog the Mild's comments first as I saw no point in duplicating his comments on sourcing. I'm comfortable passing the sourcing at this point, but I do think you should consider putting the £800/£1500 into perspective. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SusunW for currency converter suggestions. I've added those in place now, and they do help provide some useful context. Greatly appreciated. Isaksenk (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Enjoyed working with you. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gog the Mild I believe that all points raised in review thus far have been addressed, however please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks Isaksenk (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2023 [20].

Never Forget You (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What song could manage to reach number three on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1994 with no live performances or even a music video? None other than a Mariah Carey single of course! Thanks in advance for any comments :) Heartfox (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass)[edit]

File:Mariah Carey - Never Forget You.jpg - has appropriate WP:FUR for its inclusion
File:Never Forget You Mariah Carey.ogg - meets maximum length permitted per WP:SAMPLE

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Thought I'd give the prose a review as well.

Perhaps it would be helpful to wiki link Strings, synthesizers, and percussion to their articles, similarly to other song articles link these.
Added
In the infobox, under songwriters, should Babyface be referred to as Kenneth Edmonds? or does the media notes refer to him as the former?
The notes refer to him as "Babyface" for both producing and writing

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

writer Dave Ferman reckoned her voice more restrained than on songs -- her voice was more restrained
Added
Would it be better if the prose for chart performance be a separate section i.e. "Commercial performance", and the table be "Charts" section? (similar to other FA song articles)
I would normally but I thought making a five-row table for only one country its own section seems a little excessive. I'm kind of treating it like an image that expounds on the adjacent text.

That is perfectly acceptable, given that is only one country. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall not much to say. A well-written article for one of Mariah Carey's lesser known gems. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the prose review, Heartfox (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine work and I am happy to support on prose. Btw if you have spare time and inclination, would appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Apologies in advance, but I have a clarification question. If "Without You" and "Never Forget You" were both released on the same day, what makes "Without You" the third single and "Never Forget You" the fourth? It is clear that "Never Without You" was a fully-fledged single, but I was just confused on the chronology here. The lead makes it sound like the songs were promoted at the same time. The article, specifically the second paragraph of the "Background and release" section, could be read as "Never Forget You" getting a later single release in the more vague "January 1994" radio date, but I would appreciate some further clarification here.
(Basically I could not find a physical release date for "Never Forget You", so I used the date it was issued as a B-side). Shapiro page 155 lists all of Carey's singles in chronological order up to 2000 and lists "Never Forget You" as the fourth single from Music Box, following "Without You". He does not list it as a double A-side. Likewise, a 1994 Billboard article refers to it as the B-side to "Without You", rather than a double A-side promotion. The US cover of "Without You" lists it as a double A-side, but the cover of "Never Forget You" does not. What is confusing people is that they charted together on Billboard charts. But that is only because of Billboard rules, not because Columbia necessarily intended for them to do so. Perhaps the third single would actually be "Without You/Never Forget You", and the fourth is "Never Forget You", but I think that is a bit too confusing to the average reader so it is easier to separate them. Also, it was only potentially a double A-side in one territory (the US), so there is another caveat there.
Thank you for the explanation. That makes perfect sense to me, and I believe this is represented as well as it can be in the article. Billboard rules can often be confusing, and you have a much firmer grasp on it than I would have to be perfectly honest. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear upfront, I highly doubt this would be notable enough to include in the article, but Mariah Carey did release a perfume named after this song (as seen here). I doubt anyone talked about it, but I still wanted to raise it to your attention just in case.
There doesn't seem to be any coverage of it in relation to the song
Thank you for checking into this one. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (After the 1992 release of her first EP), I would fully spell out extended play and link it for readers who are not as familiar with this kind of music jargon. I believe this is the only time the acronym EP is used (unless I am overlooking anything) so I do not think it is necessary to use it here.
Done
For this quote ("leaning toward the basic R&B feel while not forgetting the orchestration and polish"), I would attribute who is saying this as it is rather ambiguous and vague at the moment.
Attributed
The R&B link should be moved up to the first instance in the article that it is mentioned (i.e. the basic R&B feel). I have the same comment for ballad, which should be moved up to this part (traditional ballad productions).
Done
Since most of the instruments seem to be linked (including basic ones like percussion), I would also link bass just for consistency.
Done
I believe I know the answer to this question already, but I still want to ask. Aside from the one lyric already mentioned in the article, did any other music critic highlight other lyrics? I am leaning on that being a no, but again, I just like to make sure with you as it was something on my mind.
The Washington Post highlighted the lyrics given in the article, but I did not see any others singled out
Fair enough. Thank you for checking into this one for me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This part (Carey had wanted to collaborate after) feels incomplete and I would go with collaborate with him after, but let me know what you think of course.
Added
I do not think Hollywood needs a link as it is a very recognizable city to a majority of readers.
Removed
Link David Browne in the article and the citation. I do not know if it is a good or a bad thing that I immediately recognized his name and knew he had a Wikipedia article. I think that really shows how long overdue my wikibreak is.
Usually I look for links, but I missed that one :)
These are in my opinion the most pain in the neck ones to do so it is more than understandable to miss one. It was honestly just a surreal moment to be able to recognize it on sight alone. Again, not sure if that is a good thing on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am intrigued by how the chart performance table is used in the article. I do not mean this as a bad thing just to be clear. I genuinely think it is an interesting approach and I can appreciate it. I just wanted to note that.
I think it works nicely in this instance given there is year-end positions for almost all of the rows and the table is small enough to fit next to prose
Agreed. There is also something just visually satisfying about it, at least from my perspective of it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should cover everything, but once all of my above comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to just make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Apologies for only doing a prose review, but I am trying to be more mindful of my time on here and take a break. Wonderful work as always and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always, Heartfox (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article again, and I could not find anything else. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job with it! Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

"Credits adapted from the Music Box liner notes." I don't think it is necessary to cite in line. The actual citation contains the same information. (Or should. :-) )
Where should I move the citation?

I have had a go. Does it work for you?

Looks good

"Jermaine Dupri altered them for remixes." I may be displaying my lack of hipness, but what does "altered" mean in this context?
changed, remixed, adapted, etc.

Ok.

" "Never Forget You" is Carey's first single without a music video." Should "is" be 'was'?
Only one thing can be the "first", so I think present tense is okay
""Never Forget You" is a slow jam situated in pop and R&B music." What does "situated" mean in this context - ideally with reference to a reliable dictionary to support the usage.
Reworded to "Never Forget You is a pop and R&B slow jam"
The lead describes the romance as "unforgettable"; I cannot find this in the main article.
The lyrics given in the composition and lyrics section "No, I'll never forget you / I'll never let you out of my heart / You will always be here with me / I'll hold on to your memories, baby"; paraphrased this as "unforgettable"

Given that you are not quoting, that strikes me as OR from a primary source.

Removed

Books - standardise the ISBN hyphenisation.
Standardized

Short and sweet article. Just the minor points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Heartfox (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Just "unforgettable" left. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Ms Carey should ever read the article, I am sure that she will think that you have done the song proud. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, I note some slight inconsistency on which sources have pagenumbers and which don't. Also some broken ProQuest links. #49 citation probably needs a ref=none. Does the Gavin Report not have bylines? Can't find much on Loria, Keith at Arizona Daily Sun. This batch has a spotcheck only on request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a page number is provided for all sources that have a page number, so there won't be page numbers when it is not citing a physical article.
All of the ProQuest links work for me, can you let me know which ones specifically.
I don't know why there would need to be a ref parameter, is there an issue you are seeing?
I added the section editor for Gavin
If you click on the article link Keith Loria is "Associated Press Writer"

Thanks for the source review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Heartfox (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems like I mistook "login walled" for "broken" so nevermind on #2 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have I addressed your other comments, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Heartfox (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I didn't spotcheck anything and that I don't know the sources, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2023 [21].

The Birds (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For his fifth collection, Alexander McQueen presented The Birds, a collection inspired by the Hitchcock film of the same name. Where a lesser designer might have been satisfied with aping Tippi Hedren's classy dresses and pencil skirts, McQueen chose sex and violence: gratuitous nudity, tire tracks, and dead white eyes. Desperately poor, he was courting controversy in an effort to attract financial backing, and it worked. Although it was his next collection, Highland Rape, that made him a star, The Birds is a work of macabre genius that deserves recognition in its own right. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

Images are licensed appropriately.
Suggest adding alt text. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, now done :)

Aoba47[edit]

For this part, (Like his previous professional shows, the show was styled), I would avoid the repetition of shows/show in such close proximity if possible.

Yup, tweaked

I think a link to pattern cutting would be helpful in this part, (as a pattern cutter), to help readers who may not be familiar with fashion terminology.
For this part, (the masters-level course), a link to the master's degree in the United Kingdom article would be helpful as some readers may not be as familiar with academic terminology and it seems like the degree is different in the UK than elsewhere. If not there, it could also be linked later on at this part, (his master's degree in fashion design).

Above two both done

I am not fully convinced that the quote boxes in the "Concept and creative process" section are necessary. The first seems more general about McQueen's perception of himself as a whole as opposed to specifically about this collection, and while I get the second quote box is likely meant to convey McQueen's personality, I am still not entirely certain about it.

Lol, I wondered if someone would say something about that second one. I'd thought the "provocative" quote was c. The Birds and therefore relevant, but I double-checked my source and it looks like Watt pulled a quote from a few years later and just stuck it in decoratively and there I went following suit. I pulled the first one (swapped for a poster of The Birds actually), but I'm kind of attached to the second one and would prefer to keep it if there isn't too much objection.

Fair enough. My primary objection was with the first quote box anyway. The first quote box is still there on my end, but I do think swapping it out for The Birds poster would be ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow managed to not save the edits I made last night, but I've fixed it now.

It happens to the best of us. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would attribute this quote, ("Complete chaos and human vulnerability in the face of nature gone wrong"), in the prose as I am not entirely sure who is saying this.

Fixed

This is more of a clarification question, but did anyone discuss how it might be odd to invite your parents to a fashion show that is intentionally provocative and highly-sexualized?

No one did, no.

I figured as much, but it was just a question that popped into my head while reading that part so I wanted to pose it to you. Thank you for addressing it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would link Madonna. Also, would it be possible to attribute this rumor to anything, like according to X? I think clearer attribution would help to justify why a rumor is included in the article as I could see some people having issue with it.

Linked, but unfortunately Wilson doesn't attribute it, just says it's a rumor. I think it's worth retaining because it indicates that he was drawing attention - I've added that context now.

Thank you for the explanation. I think the fact that a high-quality citation is used would support its inclusion, and I appreciate the wording, which in my opinion further solidifies its inclusion in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a clarification question about this part, (arguing that his designs were meant to make women look "stronger"). Did McQueen explain further on how his designs were intended to signify this?

Speaking broadly, McQueen wanted women wearing his clothes to scare the shit out of men, whether that was because they looked sexually confident, untouchably armored, or even (early on) like they'd survived incredible violence. He was a witness to domestic violence, so when he depicted violence it was a kind of statement of defiant survival: "you can run me over and I'm still walking". Unfortunately, he's not very good at articulating himself during this period, so the best I can do is expand the quote.

Thank you for the explanation. It is one of those types of rationales that I could see getting very passionate opinions for and against, but I believe the revisions helps to better clarify and context McQueen's approach. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be the Met without a capitalized "The" if used in the middle of a sentence.

Fixed

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read the article a few more times just to make sure I catch everything. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, thanks as always for your comments. I've finished responding, let me know your thoughts :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

I'll do a full review later, but as McQueen was British and the show took place in Britain I believe it should be written in UK English per MOS:TIES, which means that "some models were covered in tire tracks" should be "some models were covered in tyre tracks" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, will there be more from you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I did a full review (and supported) immediately below..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Sorry Chris. I blame premature senility. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That being said Gog, is there anything else the coords are looking for at this FAC? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More commentsSupport from Chris[edit]

"Fashion designer Andrew Groves, who McQueen dated" => "Fashion designer Andrew Groves, whom McQueen dated"
"McQueen was able to secure the warehouse for only £500" - I would say "McQueen was able to secure the use of the warehouse for only £500" to avoid the implication that he literally bought the building
"there was a long line-up to get in" => "there was a long queue to get in"
"Other reviewers weren't so uniformly impressed" => "Other reviewers were not so uniformly impressed"
That's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris, these are all done! Thanks for your comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check only on request. I don't think we use ISSNs for New York Times. Beyond that, the source information seems to be consistent and all of it that's needed is present. I presume the heavy usage of British newspapers is unavoidable? I must say, "Daily Mail columnist" does not sound like a reliable source at all so I ask what makes "Champagne Supernovas: Kate Moss, Marc Jacobs, Alexander McQueen, and the '90s Renegades Who Remade Fashion" a reliable source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jo-Jo, thanks for the review. McQueen was a British designer who didn't really get big in the States until after this, so almost everything contemporary is going to be British papers. Callahan appears to be a reasonably qualified longtime journalist and author who has written other non-fiction books. Generally what she says lines up with what other sources have said, so I don't have significant concerns for her reliability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, with caveats about my low understanding of the article topic and lack of spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Putting down a marker: will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

I am a little confused by your use of capitals in the sources – some titles are capitalised, others aren't. Are they consistent?

No, I'm just a slob. I've made them all consistently sentence case now, I think

There are a couple of places where the refs are out of numerical order (eg [59][17] or [34][22][29])

Fixed

You don't need the nationalities for the participants (with the possible exception of McQueen); it doesn't matter where the rest of them come from - their roles are more important.

I caught Val Harland but I can't find any others - can you specify? (It's possibly that I'm overtired and just not seeing them)

"South African corsetmaker Mr. Pearl" and "Italian fashion manufacturer Eo Bocci" are the two others

Thanks, yeah, my eye was just glazing past them apparently. I've removed South African but I think Bocci's nationality is relevant as it resulted in all of McQueen's manufacturing being moved to Italy, where they have a lot of garment manufacturing - I've now added a sentence to that effect.

That seems OK to me.

Somewhat a matter of taste (although there is a slight element of BrEng too), but I'd avoid false titles like "British designer Alexander McQueen" and "Fashion designer Andrew Groves" "British designer Alexander McQueen" and "Fashion designer Andrew Groves": go instead for "the British designer", etc

If it's not hugely an issue, I'd prefer to leave out the "the", I just find it unbearably clunky and the rest of the articles in the series are written without it so it'd be inconsistent to have them just here

Concept and creative process

"a CSM instructor" --> "a CSM lecturer"

Fixed

"garden birds," --> "garden birds", (comma outside the quote marks)
"Groves was tapped to replace it": I'm not sure what "tapped" means, but I don't think it's an encyclopaedic term

Mmm, Wiktionary has it as usage 11 under the verb usage of "[[:wikt:tap#Verb|]]", as in "To advance someone for a post or job", and doesn't note it as informal

I wouldn't trust Wiktionary as far as I could throw it! The OED has it listed as "U.S. colloquial", so probably best change to something in BrEng

Yeah fair, swapped for "asked"

Reception

"achieved heights of lowdown style," --> "achieved heights of lowdown style", (comma outside the quote marks)

Both comma/quote things fixed

That's my lot – I hope they're helpful! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, many thanks for your comments. Responses above, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support My minor points have been covered and I'm happy this is as good as the others in this series. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2023 [22].

Ministerial by-election[edit]

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an oddity of the British constitution from the 18th to the 20th century. Separating the executive from the legislative seems like a very good idea, especially when the executive is not elected while the legislature is. While Americans took such a separation to its logical conclusion by fully banning executive-legislative fusion (with the rule-proving exception of the VP), the British saw keeping the ministry in the legislature as a good thing so adopted a half-measure rule that a legislator couldn't become a minister, but a minister could become a legislator. Thus was born the practice of the "ministerial by-election", where a minister got automatically booted from Parliament but could rejoin when he got freshly elected to it. It was hoped that this would serve as a check on the executive by allowing people in a certain constituency to vote on ministerial appointments.

But alas, even in the 18th century, this practice quickly became a formality as convention became to refrain from contesting these elections, and except for certain times of upheaval nobody quite seriously contested them. It also didn't help that when a party formed a fresh government from a general election, the ministers thereby empowered had to run for yet more elections in the immediately following weeks. These difficulties must be seen in the context of a time where parliaments could and often did last as long as seven years, so a stale government could be challenged in the meantime by these elections. Some of the thornier parts of the practice were reformed over time – a change in a minister's portfolio did not cause a by-election after 1867, the need for a minister to undergo a new by-election was suspended during the First World War, and they were abolished altogether within nine months of a general election after 1919. Nevertheless, they were ever an inconvenience to governments, and could make or break especially fragile governments in both Britain and the parts of the Empire where such by-elections were used (as George Elmslie and Arthur Meighen can attest), so as Parliament became shorter-lived the whole concept of such by-elections underwent more and more scrutiny, before they were abolished altogether in 1926 in Britain and by 1947 in the rest of the Empire – Western Australia was the last holdout, having had a unique tradition of actually contesting its elections and trailing the rest of the continent by 30 years.

This is a big reach out of my comfort zone, and I thank @Wehwalt and Sm8900 for their feedback in this article's peer review. I'll also ping @Horserice and Harrias from the peer review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Only issue is the collapsed infoboxes, which violate MOS:COLLAPSE, and I know it's discouraged to use multiple infoboxes in one article or infoboxes about a topic not synonymous with the article subject. (t · c) buidhe 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a big enough issue I can remove both infoboxes, but the collapsing is to make sure that they don't run each other over, and neither Act warrants its own article so IMO counts as "synonymous" for these intents and purposes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tbh I'm not sure what the infoboxes are adding for the reader. Any information not cited in the main text will also need an in-line citation.

On an unrelated point, I don't think that the Heritage Foundation is a reliable source, let alone a high quality one. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points to both; I'm sure minor UK legislation can make do without the infoboxes, and I've replaced the Heritage Foundation with a primary, but better, source. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I left detailed comments at the peer review. I've given it a quick glance over, all that I had time for tonight. Somewhat following on from my previous comments, I'd note:

It seems to me worth mentioning that Churchill fell to a ministerial by-election in 1908. I'm not sure if he was the only future British prime minister to have this happen, but there can't be many. He was then elected for a safe seat.
I see, possibly in response to my previous comments, that you mention that the Province of Canada had ministerial by-elections. But I still see no mention of the 1858 incident or "Double Shuffle" in which Macdonald used the requirement to cause the government to fall and take control of the legislature (as detailed in his article), as he did again in 1863-64. Behind the King-Byng affair, these are probably the most prominent instance where this requirement came into play in Canadian history.
- Added both stories. I'm a bit unwilling to cram this article with anecdotes, but these were one sentence each so perhaps it's not as big an issue. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More comments as I have time. I guess what I'm looking for reassurance on is the comprehensive requirement of WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the article needs to cover how ministerial by-elections worked and evolved, with some illustrative examples, to be comprehensive. It is not a list of prominent ministerial by-elections and the absence of any particular historical case is not indicative of a lack of coverage. I would tentatively go further and suggest that their may be unintended consequences of attempting to incorporate such a list. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about what I figured. Note that I've supported on all except comprehensiveness. I will continue to monitor to see if I can give an unqualified endorsement. Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, I am looking to close this. Any further thoughts, one way or the other? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be fleshed out more and I'll Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by indopug[edit]

Quick comment for now: you have a tendency to write very long sentences, exemplified by the lead sentence, which is 67 words long. A quick google search tells me 25 words is the optimal sentence length (and 30 the maximum), but here you can routinely see double that.

I've looked around and saw a few semicolons that I was able to "promote" to periods/full stops, splitting a few sentences into two, and can look for some more. On the other hand, I don't know if reducing many of the 40-word sentences is feasible, but I hope that my judicious use of punctuation and clauses improves readability in spite of that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) (For reference, my most recent FA, Lake Street Transfer station, routinely has forty-word sentences and even a seventy-word sentence, so I don't think the pure word count of a sentence is necessarily a good indicator of its suitability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

You should add some pics (maybe this for starters?). —indopug (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an especially illustrable concept (there used to be infoboxes for the amendment and repeal acts, but those were removed), but I've added the Act of Settlement image, which hopefully passes the image review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm greatly surprised to see no mention of the suffragettes or the Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, both of which groups used the existence of ministerial by-elections for further their cause. Their success in either getting ministerial candidates removed or their majorities drastically reduced, or just disrupting the proceedings, was one of the causes the practice was discontinued. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned the WSPU; re-reading Pugh, it appears that their effectiveness at getting ministers removed seems to have been exaggerated (perhaps the disruption was more important?). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think disruption was certainly part of the aim - I'll try and dig out some of my sources this weekend, but I'm not sure if they're still here or in storage. There is some mention of the LNA actions in the final paragraph of this section. I think I still have the sources if you think any of this is of use. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably also look at including Chris Bryant's Parliament - The Biography. Volume 2: Reform and Douglas Carswell's Rebel: how to Overthrow the Emerging Oligarchy, both of which have excellent information about the by-elections, both specific and as background. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look into those sources, thanks for bringing them up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley[edit]

I have only had time for a quick canter through the British section of the article, and I aim to return for a more leisurely and thorough reading soon. Meanwhile, three points that caught my eye:

In 1680, the House of Commons of England unanimously resolved ... This was a reaction to the actions of monarchs such as James II – as James did not become king until 1685 I think this opening needs a bit of work.
Additionally, note that the source for the above says that the 1680 resolution was adopted nemine contradicente which is not quite the same as unanimously – it means nobody voted against rather than that everybody voted for.
- I decided to Gordian-knot it and simply remove the relevant parts. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carswell … cynically asserted that their abolition was as much about the fear of the nascent Labour – the adverb seems to me distinctly editorial.

More shortly, I hope. Tim riley talk 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is Carswell's cynicism, not Wikipedia's. If you feel that reading Carswell as cynical is unwarranted from the relevant text I'd be happy to remove that word as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Capitalisation

I am well aware that attempting to apply capitalisation consistently is an infallible way of going insane, and I do not press the point, but I wonder why, e.g., Cabinet is (sometimes) capitalised as are Army and Navy and (sometimes) Parliament but members of parliament are not or why prime minister is not but Colonial Secretary, Treasurer, Auditor General, Attorney General and Solicitor General are.
- I've tried interpreting MOS:JOBTITLES for various sentences with little luck, so in the spirit of all my FACs I leave such correction as an exercise for the reader.

Lead

"From 1708 to 1926, members of parliament (MPs) of the House of Commons of Great Britain (and later the United Kingdom) automatically vacated their seats when made ministers in Cabinet" – I wonder about the two words at the end of this sentence. I have a facsimile of Whitaker's Almanack for 1900 in front of me, and the list of government ministers (p. 151) has 23 ministers in the cabinet and 33 ministers not in the cabinet. From the main body of the text I infer that any MP appointed to a government office, whether in the cabinet or not, would have to face a by-election.
- As the body states, some offices required by-election, others were barred from the Commons completely. I simply replaced "Cabinet" by "government".

Britain

"This nominally would provide a form of government quite similar to that of the United States" – as we are in 1701 it might be as well to make it clear that the American model was in the future
"By the mid-19th century, the solidification of responsible government" – I am not at all sure what this means
- Essentially, it means that the government had become de facto responsible to Parliament rather than to the monarch, which was not necessarily the case in the 18th century.
"made any concern of ministers being more loyal" – curious preposition: do you mean "concern about"?
- Changed to "fear of"

Reform and abolition

"Aside from the embarrassment" – unexpected AmE "aside" rather than the usual BrE "apart".
- Subtle, but done.
"could likely be lost" – ditto: "likely" rather than "probably" is not the customary BrE form
- To my American ears, at least, "probably" means that a loss would, in fact, happen barring a miracle rather than be simply more likely than not. I considered changing it to "possibly", but I still think "likely" better encapsulates the "distinct possibility" edge without being presumptuous about how likely a loss would be.
"although it is dubious how much this was an issue in practice" – says who?
- Says Pugh, duly elaborated.
"Arthur Balfour approached prime minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman" – clunky false title that can be remedied with a definite article
"An exception was The Times, who" – are newspapers treated as people rather than insensible objects? "Which" rather than "who" might be more natural here
"but due to the government's unpopularity" – in AmE "due to" is widely accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer

Was vaguely familiar with that, done.

"aggrieved by various betrayals of the ministry" – more than a bit tendentious without examples and citations

I don't want to pad the sentence with detailed otherwise-irrelevant examples, so changed to "felt betrayed by various actions of the ministry".

"In that year, the second Baldwin ministry stood at a by-election" – do ministries stand at by-elections?
- In an arguable manner of speaking; changed to "~~stood~~fielded a candidate at" if that's not even worse.
"introduced by Conservative backbencher Christopher Clayton" – another false title, easily remedied

More to come. Meanwhile I hope these suggestions are of use. Tim riley talk 21:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything done unless otherwise stated. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comments on the prose of the rest of the article and as I am 100% ignorant about the contents of the Canadian, Australian and elsewhere sections, I'll sign off for now. So far as the British section of the article is concerned I think it is of FA quality – we can agree to differ about the minor drafting points outstanding from the above exchanges – but I'll wait to see if there are comments from better-informed reviewers about the other sections before I sign up to supporting. I'll put this review page on my watchlist and await developments. Tim riley talk 11:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting: see below. Tim riley talk 22:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Good evening @Tim riley, SchroCat, Indopug, and Wehwalt: is there more to come on this one? I ask because it is coming up to its three-week mark with no indications of support, which causes coordinators to start thinking dark thoughts about timing out. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Gog! This seems to me an important and impressive article, and though I'd have preferred to wait to see what reviewers better informed than I about the colonial sections think, your note leads me to add my support, taking the non-Brit sections at their (impressive) face value Tim riley talk 22:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that like others, I'm waiting for someone to take the plunge. In particular, I'm waiting for a reviewer more familiar with the topic area than I am to vouch for its comprehensiveness. Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my support in view of Tim's, and along the same lines. and in spite of my concerns. Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I support on all criteria except comprehensiveness, on which I'm not certain and am waiting for further opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far as the British section is concerned I am satisfied that it is comprehensive and complete. (I even blew the dust off my old copy of Erskine May to check.) I am happy to assume the same comprehensiveness applies to the non-British sections of the article. Tim riley talk 07:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, SchroCat, and Indopug: Just checking to see if you have any further comments before I look to close this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My minor comment was fully addressed. (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

"abolished in 1926 with a private member's bill". I would say "by" rather than "with".
- Done.
"Within the British Empire, the Irish Free State, the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, India, and New Zealand never had ministerial by-elections." This implies that the Irish Free State was part of the British Empire, which is technically correct as it was a dominion, but I think still better avoided.
- I just Gordian-ed the phrase altogether, hopefully the British-adjacent nature of those countries is still implied by the following non-Westminster paragraph.
"Australia never had such elections federally, but several states had them before the first half of the 20th century; Western Australia was the last jurisdiction in the empire to maintain such elections, finally abolishing them in 1947." "before the first half of the 20th century" is an odd wording. If you mean from the second half of the nineteenth century, I think it would be better to say so.
- Changed to "prior to the 20th century".
"As a rule, the requirement to stand in a by-election only applied when an elected legislator was first appointed to a portfolio." What does "As a rule" mean here - that there were exceptions?
- Removed.
"It was not unusual for a minor MP". I do not think "minor" is the right word here. Presumably there were cases of "major" MPs resigning for health reasons, old age, etc.
- I think that it is appropriate to mention that minor MPs who had no other reasons to resign were expected to yield their seats so that a minister might run for re-election.

"minor" is pejorative and POV, and does not reflect the source, which describes MPs who resigned as "self-denying", and cites Samuel Plimsoll, a major figure who designed the Plimsoll line. He resigned because he thought that a minister could pursue shipping reform more effectively than a backbench MP, and was offered 30 constituencies at the following election. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordianed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"whereas only three defeats" I do not think "whereas" is the right word when you are saying defeats were rare in one period and even rarer in the next.
- Changed to "and".
"The most common cause for a failure of re-election in this era was the ineligibility of the new minister to sit in the Commons, particularly by appointment to the Lords." This was surely a decision to go by an alternative route rather than a failure. Also, it contradicts the statement in the lead that a minister on appointment had to contest the ensuing byelection.
- It does not contradict that sentence, since the requirement for by-election was indeed mandatory for a minister to rejoin the Commons (which I believe is implied in the lead); since "non-reelection" is not really a word I think "failure of re-election" is the best way to describe it even though it wasn't really a career failure.

"automatically vacated their seats when made ministers in government and had to rejoin the house by successfully contesting a by-election;" This says that ministers always has to contest a seat, not only if they wished to remain in the Commons. It needs clarifying. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Swapped the order. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The principle of ministerial by-elections was not however under attack, although Disraeli disputed the rationale of holding ministerial appointments publicly accountable." You say that the principle was not under attack but it does seem to be in the second half of the sentence and in the next paragraph.
- Only the specific rationale of "holding ministers accountable", not the idea of ministerial by-elections themselves, unless the earlier challenges by Russell, Amberley, and Bury.
"Despite exuberance from the frontbench, Liberal and Irish Nationalist backbenchers, who felt betrayed by various actions of the ministry, attacked the acts' rationale as the Commons was chronically underworked during the war." What does "Despite exuberance from the frontbench" mean here?
- It means that the frontbench were eager to get a memorandum, whereas the backbenches felt otherwise. It might be a bit NPOV to say that the Commons actually was underworked during the war, so I just changed it to say that that was the backbench's claim.
"Contrary to popular beliefs that Labour either advocated for or opposed the elections' abolition, Labour were constitutionally conservative in the 1920s and most Labour MPs abstained from voting on the 1926 bill". This seems a bit odd on two counts. Were there really enough people with an opinion on Labour's stance to amount to "popular beliefs"? The comment also implies that opposing and supporting the bill were both radical views.
- Well, "popular" is a relative term given this niche topic, but Pugh felt the need to debunk them in his work so I felt the article should as well. I can also see where the implication of both-sides radicalism arises, but see no way of fixing that without fatally undermining the sentence.
"and de facto resignation from the Commons". de facto seems to me both inaccurate and unnecessary.
- Actual, de jure resignation from the House was and is illegal, so I think it's appropriate.
"cynically asserted that their abolition was as much about the fear of the nascent Labour as it was about the convenience of the government." "cynically" is POV and it should be "the nascent Labour party".
- As said earlier, that's Carswell's cynicism, not Wikipedia's. If you feel that labelling him as cynical is unwarranted from the text I'd be happy to remove it. In any event I've changed it to "organised labour" to more closely follow the text.
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your feedback. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The first British colony to achieve responsible government was Nova Scotia, who received it on 8 January 1848." I think it should be "which" not "who".
- Done
"George Elmslie became premier in December 1913 from a split in the Liberal Party allowing his Laborites to form a government." I had to read the Elmslie article in order to understand this. Maybe "George Elmslie was appointed premier by the governor in December 1913 after the Liberal premier resigned following a split in his party."
- Changed to "owing to a split in the Liberal Party that allowed his Laborites to form a government".
For the USA you cite clauses in the original constitution of 1787, but these have been amended. For example, you say "For senators in particular, a state's governor may appoint a temporary successor until a by-election is held." But the 1913 amendment allows states latitude on the rules. Some give the governor no power and some allow the replacement to serve until the next regular senatorial elections. See [23]. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, I did not know that. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine apart from citations of the original US constitution. I have pointed out one case where the rules have been altered and the same probably applies to the others. You need a more up to date source in all cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. Source formatting seems consistent and the requisite information seems to be present. What are the "Statutes of the Province of Canada " and the "Rhodesia letter patent"? Quite a lot of primary sources but it seems their use is appropriate. Why is Douglas Carswell's opinion so important as to get a few sentences? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Statutes and Rhodesian letters patent are exactly what they sound like, primary sources passed by the Canadian legislature and Whitehall, respectively. As for Carswell, SC referred me to him and I felt that his retrospective opinion on the practice, one of the few that recall it in a positive light, bears mentioning. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, this sounds like giving undue weight to someone's opinion. If it were representative of a commonly held viewpoint (something I'd want a citation on) it might be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a fair point; I was thinking it would be good to include besides the opinions of The Times and statistical analysis, but those are supported by secondary sources unlike Carswell. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I am not sure if this sufficiently addresses your comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is indication that Carswell's viewpoint is reasonably widely shared or mentioned by reliable sources, it can stay. Otherwise it should probably be left off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Carswell's statements might be in contradiction of the customs that rendered ministerial by-elections moot in practice, and in the absence of other supporting viewpoints towards that position, I have removed the material. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, is there more to come here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs)

Seems like this passes, with usual caveats about my unfamiliarity with the topic and lack of spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 August 2023 [24].

Venus in fiction[edit]

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC), _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}[reply]

Following the successful nomination for Mars in fiction, I bring you our other planetary neighbour's depiction in fiction. Compared to Mars, Venus has made fewer and less influential appearances in fiction, resulting in a comparatively sparse secondary literature which is reflected in a significantly shorter article here on Wikipedia. This is not to say that Venus's history in fiction is less interesting—while the depiction of Mars was heavily influenced by observations of its surface that later turned out to be mistaken, the depiction of Venus was equally influenced by the fact that its surface could not be observed at all through the planet's thick cloud layer. Thus, while science fiction writers thought they had a pretty good understanding of the conditions on the surface of Mars, the Venusian surface was a complete mystery to them, opening the door for all kinds of imaginative speculation.

The article was first nominated last year by my co-nominator Piotrus. Since that nomination was closed, we have collaborated on expanding, restructuring, and copyediting the article—and believe that it is now ready for a second look. TompaDompa (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have left messages at the user talk pages of the participants of the previous FAC, alerting them to this second nomination and (neutrally) requesting their input here. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus[edit]

I have little to add to what TD wrote above, other than to confirm that I believe the article is very comprehensive and well-written. We have found I think pretty much all relevant works on this topic in English, although we would be happy to hear from anyone who thinks we missed something. There is the invevitable issue that some sources may exist in other languages we are not proficient in (and that none of our sources allued to), but this form of systemic bias is sadly inevitable in the current system. Again, if anyone knows of works discussing this topic in Chinese, Spanish or such, and can use it to expand this further, we would welcome such help. If not, well, I rest my case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

I'll have a look soon. A few preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good deal of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[25]
- Assuming we're only talking about the body (i.e. not links occurring both in the WP:LEAD and the body, and not considering links in reference templates, image captions and the like), I count four: Brian Aldiss, Farewell Fantastic Venus, H. G. Wells, and The War of the Worlds. All of these are linked in the first paragraph of the first section. The first two are repeated in the last paragraph of the "Later depictions" section and the others in the last paragraph of the "Lifeforms" section. This seems entirely reasonable to me from a WP:DUPLINKS perspective (especially considering its recent amendment and the discussion that led to that change). The repeated links are separated by more than 2,000 words of prose (and in the latter case, by essentially the entire length of the article). TompaDompa (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only those highlighted by the script, yes. The intro and article are separate texts. I don't see why any duplinks are needed in such a short article, but no big deal to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional names and terms could be linked in image captions.
- Added some links. TompaDompa (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This[26] image has an empty source field.
- Fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Early depictions" Doesn't this mainly refer to visual representations? I know it can also mean verbally, but that's uncommon.
- I wouldn't say it's all that uncommon. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction uses "depict" or "depiction" while referring to the written word rather frequently, as does Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, so considering our sources do so I don't really see a problem with doing likewise. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"in works visiting multiple locations" What is meant by this? Where characters visit, where the reader gets a description of these places, or is it non-fiction?
- The intended meaning is the second one—the reader gets a description. That would typically but not necessarily mean that characters visit (though certainly the narrative does). "Visiting" could here be replaced by e.g. "touching upon", "dealing with", "portraying", or indeed "depicting". TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Could something to this effect be added to clarify this, then? FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"around the turn of the century, with Martian canals and a civilization that built them" I think you should add "supposed Martian canals", to make it clear that they are not real structures.
- I was about to, but then I realized that it would look a bit odd to add a disclaimer to the canals but not the civilization (which of course is also not real). Any suggestions about how to solve that issue? TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  If you say "with supposed Martian canals and a civilization that built them" I think most readers would understand that "supposed" refers to everything mentioned after. Also, I presume everyone knows there isn't a civilisation on Venus, but much less know that there aren't canals. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Very well then. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"introduced by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli" When?
- The sources do not say. I'll see if I can find one that does. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"compared with the image of Mars in fiction." Shouldn't this be linked earlier when you already explained that Mars has more fiction devoted to it?
- That's an option. I want to link both Mars and Mars in fiction, and I want to avoid creating any kind of WP:EASTEREGG situation. It would be possible to replace "[...] never approaching the popularity of Mars. On the subject, Westfahl writes that while Mars has a distinctive body of major works [...]" with "[...] never approaching the popularity of Mars in fiction. On the subject, Westfahl writes that while Mars has a distinctive body of major works [...]" (while of course removing the later link to Mars in fiction), if you think that would be better. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I think that could make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usually you wouldn't spell out a person's entire name after first mention, now you do it for at least Ray Bradbury, perhaps others.
- Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"is surprised to find that Venus does not have jungles" So what was it presented as having instead?
- The source does not say. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"that they would have generated atmospheric updrafts that would have broken up" Repetitive with "would have" twice in the same sentence.
- Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Others envisioned Venus as a panthalassic planet" Based on any scientific theories?
- Yes. The reasons for the different visions of Venus at this time (e.g. assuming that a thick cloud cover meant abundant quantities of water) apply both to scientific and literary visions—the latter largely stemming from the former. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  But the reason I ask is could these be stated in the article, like you do with other theories? FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  They are? The third paragraph of the "Early depictions" section outlines why water was thought to be abundant on Venus ("A common assumption was that the Venusian clouds were made of water, as clouds on Earth are, and consequently the planet was most often portrayed as having a wet climate. This sometimes meant vast oceans, but more commonly swamps and jungles."), and the second sentence of the "Ocean" subsection explains where the idea that it was all ocean came from ("Large land masses were thought impossible due to the assumption that they would have generated atmospheric updrafts disrupting the planet's solid cloud layer."). TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, a brief mention, I guess it's easy to forget when reviewing piece by piece. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stories about survival in less extreme conditions had appeared in stories such" Repetitive with double "stories". FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Later, space probes such as Mariner 2 in 1962" A bit clunky, could be smoother if "in 1962" came after "later," or maybe "later" isn't needed at all, as the reader already know it's later, so could be "by 1962" or similar.
- It's not only Mariner 2—the Venera probes also played an important part—so I don't want to overstate the 1962 date. I've tweaked it a bit—see what you think. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"These themes were not without precedent in earlier works" Could specify if at the time this was before the harshness was known.
- Clarified. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The role-playing games Space: 1889 and Mutant Chronicles likewise use a deliberately retro depiction of Venus" Like you do for the books, games and other media could also need release dates for context.
- Right you are. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"are kidnapped humans that have been genetically engineered to survive on Venus." By who?
- The source doesn't say. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"such squid-like" Such as?
- Indeed. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why beasts are listed before Venusians? I'd assume most readers would expect the civilisation to be covered before the fauna.
- I don't know if there is a particular reason it was initially done this way, but I do think it makes sense. While I see your point, the fictional Venus has mostly been characterized as a "wild" planet rather than as a "civilized" one (for lack of better words)—in contrast to Mars. The dominant portrayal was prehistoric jungles after all, so I think it follows nicely to talk about dinosaurs first and civilizations second. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

"Robert A. Heinlein portrayed Venusian swamps in several unrelated stories including "The Green Hills of Earth" (1947)" ..." While Venus is mentioned several times in "The Green Hills of Earth", the only description is in Rhysling's song, where he says, "We rot in the molds of Venus,/We retch at her tainted breath./Foul are her flooded jungles,/Crawling with unclean death." The rest is mentions of Venusberg and "Venus Ellis Isle". I'm not sure that counts as a portrayal of Venusian swamps, especially since Rhysling is being poetic and is not there when he is saying this. It just doesn't seem to be in the same league as Between Planets and Podkayne of Mars, both of which I'd agree prominently feature Venusian swamps. I'd strike the mention of "Green Hills". Now, if the source mentions "Logic of Empire", I'd substitute that.
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"labourers" ... "colonization" Is this British or American English?
- I believe the proper and honest answer to that is "no"—I don't speak (or write) either British or American English, and I don't believe my co-nominator Piotrus does either. At any rate, I changed it to "workers" to sidestep the issue. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to be consistent though. I didn't see anything else though. Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Venus is home to a dragon in Heinlein's Between Planets (1951)" More than a single specimen, surely? We encounter multiple dragons, Sir Isaac and his household, Daisy, others whose names are not mentioned. And possibly there are multiple dragon species, from Chapter XII: "the dragons had many evolutionary cousins, bearing much the same relationship to them that gorillas do to men. Many of these creatures are amphibious—another reason why Venus colonials do not swim."
- Right. The cited source only mentions one, so I added another source to verify the plural. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

~~"When portrayed, the native sentient inhabitants, Venusians, were often portrayed as": avoid repetition -- "portrayed" or "portrayal" are used five times in the lead.~~
- Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the bracketed Wikidata link for Stephen Gillett and a couple of other redlinks is worth it -- the landing page doesn't have obvious links to read those other articles, and it's not a user-friendly page for a random reader to visit without that.
- You're not wrong, but I do think it's good to WP:Build the web. I suppose I could replace them with plain WP:REDLINKS, if you think it would be better. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Interlanguage links seem like a good idea to me, to whichever language has the best article, if we don't have one, but I think a link to Wikidata is going to confuse far more readers than it helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Alright. I would say blue link > interlanguage link > Wikidata link > red link > plain text, but I have replaced the Wikidata links now. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Struck. I can see opinions could vary on this, and I wouldn't oppose on this if you ended up restoring those links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of the "Early depictions" sections has a little repetition. We get Westfahl saying Venus doesn't have a canon as Mars does; then Aldiss saying there are fewer voyages to Venus than to Mars. I was going to suggest that we drop Aldiss's and Westfahl's names and integrate these statements more, but since you followed these with quotes from each I let it go. Then in the next paragraph we have "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus, particularly compared with the image of Mars in fiction" and the quote about it being a cosmic Rorschach test. I think these latter two points would be better associated with the material from Aldiss and Westfahl. I'm not sure we need to attribute inline as much as you're doing. It seems to be a consensus that, e.g., there are fewer stories about Venus than about Mars, and that Venus's uncertain nature led to a wider variety of stories; giving inline attribution can give the reader the impression that scholars disagree.
- The Aldiss quote was there because I thought it was neat; I've removed it. I've also condensed and restructured this a fair bit, but I've tried to make sure that it's still clear that Venus has both fewer and less significant works than Mars, since this is a point that Westfahl emphasizes. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the first three paragraphs of "Early depictions", I think it's doing three things. It lists fiction such as Swedenborg that predates the era in which any sort of scientific understanding was the basis for speculation; it gives the opinion of critics about why there is such a disparity of depictions of Venus, and why it's less popular than Mars; and it gives the early ideas -- water, oceans, swamps, jungles, the Carboniferous. I think these are mixed together too much; it feels back-and-forth.
- I've condensed and restructured this a fair bit. See if you think it is an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Replying to both this and the previous point: yes, I think this is better. A couple more suggestions:
  - "Venus has a thick layer of clouds that prevents telescopic observation of the surface, giving writers free rein to imagine any kind of world below": could we add an "until the 1960s" or some similar clause in the middle of this sentence? (Was there a specific NASA mission that killed off the old scenarios?)
    Tweaked. Mariner 2 was the first, but the sources vary in how much they emphasize that probe compared to later ones in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest moving the sentence that starts with "One of the many visions" to start the following paragraph: we're moving from general statements to a list of scenarios at that point.
    Done. There isn't really any ideal solution for this—the tidally locked vision needs to be mentioned somewhere, but the rest of the paragraph all leads up to the dinosaur-inhabited jungles and swamps. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suggest cutting the reference to "sword and planet" per out conversations elsewhere; even if that article survives I don't think it's worth a link.~~
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you can do about it, but the sectioning -- Early depictions with subsections on types of planet vs. Later depictions with subsections on types of story -- doesn't really work for the Colonization section. The cutoff date for the early/late split seems to be the early 1960s, but most of the colonization fiction mention predates that. And the paragraph starting "These themes were not without precedent in earlier works" also implies a tension between the two structures.
- I've experimented a bit, and ended up splitting off a "Human survival" section. See what you think. I'm not entirely sure about what the best headings are for the new sections and may end up tweaking them further—feel free to make suggestions. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks good; I'll defer striking till I've had another full read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Superhero Tommy Tomorrow": suggest making this "Comics superhero Tommy Tomorrow": I had to follow the link to understand that this was a comics character.~~
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first read-through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above seems good now; will read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

"In scientific circles, life on Venus was increasingly viewed as unlikely from the 1930s on, as more advanced methods for observing Venus suggested that its atmosphere lacks oxygen. In the Space Age, space probes starting with the 1962 Mariner 2 found that Venus's surface temperature was in the range 800–900 °F (400–500 °C), and atmospheric pressure at ground-level was many times that of Earth's." This mixes present tense ("lacks") with past ("was in the range", "was many times"). I think these should be consistent. My preference would be for past tense, but both are defensible.
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Several writers have suggested that colonists on the surface of Venus may have to lead a nomadic life to stay in a favourable position relative to the Sun." The tense of "may" is inconsistent with "have". Either "Several writers have suggested that colonists on the surface of Venus might have to lead a nomadic life to stay in a favourable position relative to the Sun" or "Several writers suggest in their stories that colonists on the surface of Venus may have to lead a nomadic life to stay in a favourable position relative to the Sun" could work; the latter preserves the present tense you're using for fiction but I think is a bit clumsier.
- Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Venusian sea monsters in Clarke's The Deep Range surprised me; I took a look at the source, and I don't think it fully supports the wording in the article as it only mentions that an advertisement describes Venusian sea monsters, not what the advertisement is for. I had a quick skim through my copy but couldn't find the reference; are you using the text of the novel itself to support this wording? If so I'd cite that too.
- The source says "Arthur C. Clarke's The Deep Range (1957) describes an advertisement portraying the huge ancient monsters that still swam in Venusian oceans". I tweaked it to say that they are commercialized instead. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I found the passage; it's an advertisement seeking to recruit people to work on Venus as ocean wardens (sea farming for the meat, as far as I can tell). I've supported below, but I'll leave this unstruck as perhaps it could be tweaked a bit further given the context in the book. My copy is published by Pan Books, London, 1977, ISBN 0-330-02570-8; pp. 145-6. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This trope was repeated, among others, in": does "among others" refer to other stories that re-use the trope? If so I'd cut it -- you have "as well as in" later in the sentence, which does that work.
- Removed. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One minor tweak noted above that doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request. Is #2 a reliable source? Ditto for Tor.com. Cite #32 throws an error message. Source information seems good, but I wonder if all these science fiction authors are the best source available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the error message. Brian Aldiss is certainly a reliable source in this context (there's a reason other sources such as Stephen L. Gillett and Gary Westfahl cite this particular work). Tor.com is also reliable—comparable to the online version of Locus (magazine) or Clarkesworld Magazine, I would say. Science fiction authors are often the best sources on these topics, not least because the overlap between authors and scholars is substantial. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Keep in mind that I didn't do a spot-check nor am very familiar with the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Planetstories.jpg, File:Fantastic adventures 194111.jpg, File:An Earth Man on Venus comic book.jpg - Copyright expired (!) - PD - okay (Aside: There is a whole genre of covers in which men wear space armour and women wear as little as the artist thought he could get away with it. The cellophane space suit was especially popular back in the day.)

File:Solar system.jpg - NASA image - PD - okay

File:Venusballoonoutpost.png, File:TerraformedVenus.jpg - Wikipedian work - okay

File:The Birth of Venus by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1879).jpg - artist has been dead since 1905 - PD - okay

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2023 [27].

Affine symmetric group[edit]

Nominator(s): JBL (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a mathematical object that is of interest to pure mathematicians in a wide array of areas. I believe this article presents a comprehensive account of its subject, including its multiple definitions (and why they are equivalent), its many interesting properties and substructures, and its substantial connections to other mathematical objects (especially the "usual" finite symmetric group of permutations, which appears in nearly every corner of mathematics). While the affine symmetric group is not usually encountered outside the context of research mathematics (say, by PhD students or professional researchers), I believe the article is written so that significant portions of it can be appreciated by readers with a more modest mathematical background, and nearly all of it appreciated by an undergraduate who has taken a first course in group theory. This is my first FA nomination, but I received extremely helpful guidance from Iry-Hor before submission. JBL (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination[edit]

Hi JayBeeEll, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting here to say that I was the one who approved the article for GA status and didn't notice any source-to-text integrity issues at the time. Further spot-checking should still be done; I'm pretty confident that the material is all in the books that it's claimed to be in, but page-number errors can catch the best of us. One quick note about the prose: in § Algebraic definition, perhaps it would flow more nicely to say what the vertices and edges of a Coxeter–Dynkin diagram mean before saying what the diagrams of the affine symmetric groups are. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're absolutely right, the flow is funny there. That is a good suggestion, I will adjust. --JBL (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thing, hopefully it's smoother now. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks XOR'easter. If you have done the donkey work, do feel free to finish it off here. And/or do a standard source review. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some random comments[edit]

It's asking a lot and I won't insist on it, but is it possible to footnote some of the jargon used in the article? Wikipedia mathematical articles are often incomprehensible to outsiders and this one doesn't seem to be an exception. What I have to insist on is that we avoid one or two line long paragraphs and unsourced sentences, of which there are some. As well as "we" language. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for your comment. Reading mathematics is hard for basically everyone at all levels, including professional mathematicians, because of the level of abstraction and the density of information inherent in mathematical notation. Some of this is avoidable and some is not. Could you give a small number of examples of jargon that you think could be clarified reasonably by a footnote? (I.e., illustrative rather than comprehensive.) It would be helpful if you could provided detailed comments on the introductory section (preceding Definitions), for example.

I believe I have fixed the unique instances of the first-person plural -- please correct me if I am wrong. (As Iry-Hor mentions, this is the standard style in mathematical writing, so even when I'm being vigilant a few sneak through.)

What sentences do you believe are unsourced?

I quickly glanced through again, and the only one- or two-sentence paragraphs I noticed are introductory paragraphs at the beginnings of some multi-part sections, that summarize at a high level the contents of the section that follows. Personally I find such brief instances of guiding text extremely helpful when trying to understand writing on any technical topic; if you object to this, it would be helpful if you could express what countervailing principle you feel applies more strongly. (Or maybe your comment is not about those paragraphs, but about some others I overlooked?)

All the best, JBL (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it another read. The only thing I've found that ought to be cited is in the "Geometric definition" subsection: However for higher dimensions, the alcoves are not regular simplices. Section 4.3 of Humphreys talks about alcoves that are not equilaterial triangles, but it doesn't say anything specific about higher dimensions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try to run it down. --JBL (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I haven't found a good source explicitly saying this (it's a standard thing to say in a classroom setting, maybe it doesn't get written in books or papers), so I've removed it. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several paragraphs with no source at the end - they should either get one or be merged with the following paragraph. I also don't think that "we" language is accepted style on Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How close to the end should we be looking? "History" is one paragraph, cited; "Relationship to other mathematical objects" has at least one footnote per paragraph, apart from the line at the top that just summarizes the section to follow. Am I overlooking something? (That's always possible.)

"We" language is generally more textbook-like than Wikipedia house style prefers, but this edit seems to have gotten the last of it. I did a find-in-page just now for we as a whole word and got no results. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence before the paragraph break. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In which paragraph? XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The situation when is shown in the figure; in this case, the root lattice is a triangular lattice, with reflecting lines dividing it into equilateral triangle alcoves. However for higher dimensions, the alcoves are not regular simplices. and For example, a portion of the matrix for the affine permutation is shown in the figure for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The former is cited to a book (the part not explicitly spelled out in that section of that book has been removed), and the latter is an example of a technique explained in the cited source, Chmutov, Pylyavskyy & Yudovina (2018). I'm still not seeing the problem. Anyone who has gotten so far into a math degree that they've taken a group theory course will be capable of looking a sentence backwards for a footnote. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not however accepted Wikipedia style to make readers go backward in the paragraph to find the citations. Maybe that's accepted style in mathematics textbooks, but Wikipedia is notionally supposed to work for a general audience as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A "general audience" is not going to be reading multiple sections down into affine symmetric group. They're just not. Most of the are going to nope out exactly nine words into the article, when it says "mathematical". WP:CITEFOOT says The citation should be added close to the material it supports; the Featured article criteria do not go into detail at all; the recently beefed-up Good article criteria say that content must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph but do not rule out earlier. Maybe the footnote placement could be jiggled or a citation repeated somewhere, but I see little if any actual benefit and no reason grounded in policies and guidelines to draw a hard line. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus,

Thanks for your additional comments, and sorry for the delay in responding to them. With respect to the three sentences you quoted above (in this comment): the one that begins "However" has been removed after I failed on first attempt to find a source for it. For the third one ("For example") it is not referenceable in principle, because it is a statement about a figure that I created for the article, which does not exist anywhere else. However, I would like to appeal in this instance to WP:CALC: I think the assertion in that sentence (that the figure has the properties it does, and how those relate to the preceding cited text) is a routine calculation (bearing in mind that Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation). The other one is a bit more subtle and I will get back to you on it later. --JBL (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two sources on the sentence about the triangular lattice (as well as adding some more information). This was difficult to do because in the research literature, authors generally treat this as an instance of WP:CALC, expecting readers to be able to fill in the details themselves. (See, for example, the treatment of Figures 6 and 9 in this paper: a general definition is stated, and then this particular case is illustrated, in the expectation that the reader will be able to verify from the general definition the salient features of the specific case.) I called it "subtle" because I think from the point of the Wikipedia audience the application of WP:CALC in this case is dubious. Between the two sources, however, I think it is now adequately sourced. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Iry-Hor[edit]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gog the Mild I reviewed this article some time ago and had not noticed it being here owing to being busy outside of Wikipedia. I strongly support this article: it is well written and comprehensive. Now all experienced editors have noticed that there are very few FA maths articles and technicality is one of the reasons: I do not think it is possible to really make an FA quality article on such a subject without being very technical, and I think no amount of hand-waving will transform this matter into universally understandable concepts without compromising the exactness of what is being said. Contrary to geography or history, which are much easier to convey to non-specialists, I really think that this is not the case for advanced maths. Also, the "we" style is typical of scientific literature. I emphasize that Wikipedia has a real maths problem: not enough article and too few of FA standard yet this one is clearly of FA quality. The subject is difficult and its readers will be mathematicians and students of maths, who need a coherent source synthesizing the subject and this is it.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iry-Hor. At the moment the article is in dire need of reviewers. Perhaps Daniel Case might be enticed into writing one? Or perhaps you or JBL might place a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent FAC reviewers, or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects, or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged ...

Between administrative work and the content I'm working on, I have a lot to do, but I will try to take a look. Briefly swinging through it it looks better than it did during the GA process (which, no fault of the nominator, I do not have fond memories of). Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shapeyness[edit]

Hi JBL, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on pure mathematics so I probably won't be able to give comprehensive comments on the whole article, but here are some suggestions/things to think about. Shapeyness (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shapeyness, thanks very much for your comments! I will respond inline below (first batch now, more to come). --JBL (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On first reading, I found Each one is an infinite extension of a finite symmetric group, the group of permutations (rearrangements) of a finite set. quite hard to understand. Perhaps it is better to introduce the concept of of a finite symmetric group, and then (in a separate sentence even) explain that affine symmetric groups all extend from a finite group to the infinite case.
Okay I think that this plus the next bullet point were really caused by this sentence being in the wrong place. I've moved it to the following paragraph and split it into two parts there. I hope that improved flow makes both paragraphs easier to follow (and please let me know if not!). --JBL (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is far better yes, and makes even some of the unchanged sentences a lot clearer! Shapeyness (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to their geometric description... what geometric description? Is this talking about the idea that they are mathematical structures that describe the symmetries of the number line and the regular triangular tiling of the plane?
Yes, that was the intention. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A small signpost-y sentence might also be useful here, e.g. Affine symmetric groups can be defined in a number of ways.
In general, the lead is quite short, I think there is room here for some more explanations and extended details (assuming there is content from the body of the article to draw from for this). For reference, MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests a lead of three paragraphs of about 300 words, and up to four paragraphs if needed. This is not necessarily needed but might help.
Also, keep in mind that the lead should be the most accessible part of the whole article to give a general idea to as large an audience as the subject allows. Not suggesting any changes on this but something to think about if you do decide to expand it or make any changes.
(Responding to all the points above.) Yes, you're right, I have a bit of room to expand the intro. I need to think a bit about how best to do it, but I definitely can unpack finite symmetric groups and warn that there are multiple characterizations coming, for example. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relations of the definition are a system of equations satisfied by those elements that imply all of the other equations they satisfy. I find this slightly hard to understand - I think the idea is that the generators together with the relations imply all other group elements? Or the relations imply all other equations which hold for all group members? Sorry, bear with me if this is just my mathematical ignorance coming through.
Oof yes this sentence is terrible. To unpack it here: the property of being generators means that every other group element can be written in terms of them. The relations tell you that sometimes different expressions in terms of the generators are equal (just like 2 + 5 and 4 + 3 are different expressions for the same quantity). The confusing part is the assertion that every relation satisfied by elements of the group is a consequence of the given relations. (This package of three things -- generators, relations, and the fact that every relation is a consequence of the given ones -- is the meaning of the phrase "definition of a group by generators and relations".) Let me think about it. --JBL (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would something like The relations used in the definition are a system of equations satisfied by elements of the group from which all other relations between group elements can be inferred work? Just a suggestion and probably not the most elegant way of putting it. Shapeyness (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thing, pushing the technicality into a footnote (where it can be expanded on without burdening the text). --JBL (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(The second and third relation are sometimes called the braid relations.) Why is this in brackets?
It struck me as a minor point -- in particular, the word "braid" is only used in one other section of the article. I would be happy to either remove the brackets or make it a footnote, if you think one of those would be better. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that's OK, I just wondered, partly also about whether there was a broader relevance to this point. If it is only a minor thing though then no need to change anything. Shapeyness (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I would say the broader relevance is precisely that these are the relations that are relevant when one considers braid groups (the topic of that other section of the article). --JBL (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is quite short, does it cover all the major points from reliable sources?
As it happens, I mentioned the brevity of the history section during the GA review, and it seems there's just not the material to expand it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sadly there seems to be little discussion of the history of this object particularly in reliable sources :(. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, just wanted to make sure. Shapeyness (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: the "History" section currently says that the combinatorial description was expanded upon by Shi (1986). Perhaps a line could be added about what exactly Shi contributed beyond what was already known at that point. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
God we mathematicians are such awful historians :). Bjorner and Brenti say nothing more than that one fragment of an idea, and most papers that do any history at all seem to follow their lead. After spending a couple hours on this beautiful Saturday afternoon looking over the literature again, I am happy to report that Green offers a substantive assertion on this topic, and so I was able to expand the section (very slightly). --JBL (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comments on the technical details, but the rest of the article seems well written even if quite a bit of it was too technical for me to fully follow. In general the article is quite technical, which is ok, but think of what level this is generally studied at and try to write a level below that (WP:ONEDOWN). E.g. if this is only delved into at PhD level, then write for an audience of masters students, if it is taught at masters level then write for undergraduate maths students, etc. I don't know what level affine symmetric groups are taught at or what level this wikipedia article could be understood by, but hopefully the article already satisfies this.
I tried to address this in my nomination statement. This object does not appear in a typical undergraduate mathematics curriculum; it is usually met only by PhD students or research mathematicians. I have worked quite hard to make the article accessible to someone approaching the subject with a more limited background (say, an undergraduate who has taken a course in group theory and a course in combinatorics). Ultimately there are limits on how low-level one can go while staying true to the source material, especially for some later sections (like the one on affine Lie algebras). --JBL (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's what I suspected, thanks. Shapeyness (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yep, should have read through the nomination statement more thoroughly, sorry about that! Shapeyness (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no need to apologize, I'm sure! --JBL (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt another read through soon and give any more comments if I have them.

Ok, few more comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric definition: I found this to be relatively accessible. However, I was a bit confused about what the connection/relevance of the root lattice has to the geometric definition.
Yes I see your point. Really the root lattice isn't part of the definition (at least as the definition is presented in our article). Maybe it shouldn't appear until later -- I'll have to think about it. --JBL (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder whether the example of n=3 could be expanded to walk through each step of the definition a bit more, I found it useful as a non-mathematician thinking through the definition like this.
@Shapeyness: I spent a lot of time over the last few days looking for the best discussions of the two-dimensional case that I could in the literature, because I agree with you that this would be a better article if the details of that case were worked out explicitly. My experience with that search has been disappointing: after considerable effort, I was able to find sources that explicitly detail the claim that Jo-Jo Eumerus queried above, but I just can't find authors who go into the necessary detail on this particular case. As I mentioned above (the comment with the same time-stamp as this one), it just seems like authors of the relevant graduate texts / research literature treat these details as a sort of WP:CALC situation, where readers can work it out for themselves. I wish I could do better, but unless someone finds a source I've missed (to be clear: possible!), I don't see how to do this without going beyond what is permitted by a strict reading of WP:OR :(. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a frustrating situation. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is an argument for WP:CALC and even WP:IAR here as this clearly wouldn't be unverifiable, but taking a cautious approach for FA also makes sense. Shapeyness (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shapeyness: Once this FA is over, if I'm not completely sick of the subject by then :), I might write something up on the article talk-page, just to have a record of it somewhere -- if I do, I'll ping you. Thanks again for all your comments. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Connection between the geometric and combinatorial definitions: Perhaps this can also be signposted at the top of the section following The affine symmetric group contains the finite symmetric group of permutations on n elements as both a subgroup and a quotient group., e.g. something like The finite symmetric group provides a method for directly translating between the combinatorial and geometric definitions of the affine symmetric group. This just helps assure the reader this subsection doesn't belong to the previous definitions section.
This is a nice suggestion, thanks -- I've added a sentence there. --JBL (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think coset and Bruhat order should be linked, representation theory should probably also be linked at first occurrence in the body, also Cartan subalgebra from slightly later on
Good comments. I've linked coset, Bruhat order, and Cartan subalgebra. Representation theory is already linked in the lede; I'm not sure whether it needs to be linked at its first appearance in the body (no strong feelings either way). XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. I've linked rep thry in the first use in the body. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBL. Have you addressed all of Shapeyness's comments? If so, could you ping them to let them know? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, still mulling one over. I will try to get to it in the near future, and will ping Shapeyness when I do -- thanks. --JBL (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shapeyness: I think I've responded to all of your comments now. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article is now probably as accessible as it ever could be, and I could follow a lot more as a non-mathematician than I would expect given the subject matter. I think the lead is a lot better now and does a good overview without getting bogged down too much into details. I'm not an expert in this at all, but I'm happy from the WikiJournal of Science peer reviews that this is a comprehensive treatment of the subject, and it is well-written throughout. The article is also well illustrated with useful diagrams wherever possible. I think this article definitely deserves to be an FA. Shapeyness (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by XOR'easter[edit]

I'm close to supporting this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Thanks for your comments; I've responded to them below. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A minor phrasing issue: Coxeter groups have a number of special properties not shared by all groups. These include that they have decidable word problem... I don't know if that's standard phrasing for the area, but it looks a bit like a word is missing.
I went back and forth on whether to include an article, and it sounds awkward both ways to me. I've rearranged to "that their word problem is decidable". --JBL (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Core partition is a redlink, but "bounded partition" is not a link at all. Is one of these topics really more article-worthy than the other? I'm fine with redlinks if there's a good case that they ought to be articles; the treatment here just seems a little asymmetrical.
Yeah I dunno -- maybe some day I'll write Core partition, for now I've unlinked it. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Singular versus plural: the article starts with "the affine symmetric groups are" and seems mostly consistent with breaking out the definite article only when talking about a specific group. But it's not wholly consistent. Then the affine symmetric group can be realized geometrically, for example, might be better with a ${\tilde {S}}_{n}$ inserted to be explicit. Other aspects of the affine symmetric group might be better as Other aspects of an affine symmetric group. Perhaps The affine symmetric group is closely related to a variety of other mathematical objects ought to be The affine symmetric groups are... to parallel how the article begins. I know that saying "the so-and-so group" when there is an infinite family of so-and-so groups is not uncommon, but here it seemed a little more confusing than usual. This isn't a make-or-break issue, but maybe there's a way to improve it with a few small tweaks.
As with the previous point, Hyperoctahedral group is used in the singular but is meant in the plural (the statements apply to hypercubes of any dimension).
This one is so hard for me because (as you observe) I say things like "the best group is the symmetric group" all the time and everyone understands what I mean even though it's formally nonsense :). The fix for hyperoctahedral group is easy by introduction of notation (which unfortunately is not standard the same way $S_{n}$ is, but we'll manage); I think I've addressed all the instances you mentioned where it applies to the affine symmetric group, either via notation or pluralization. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes 13 and 60 are to whole books, Shi (1986) and Lehrer & Taylor (2009) respectively. Could these be made more specific?
Oops! I have improved precision on L&T; for Shi, I don't own a copy and Google Books is not cooperating in my efforts to find the best spot, but it's addressed in plenty of sources so I just swapped it out for something else. --JBL (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concerns addressed; not much else to say. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

OK, I see I've already commented but there was a request for a source review, so I'll put one here on this version. I think the template at the top is somewhat misleading - the linked article was derived from our article, not the other way around. Source formatting and information seems consistent except for the lack of a source link at #33, with all necessary information there but sometimes we are citing page numbers and other times entire chapters.

Spot-check but really needs replication from someone who actually knows this kind of mathematics:

3: I am not seeing "braid relations"?
It seems Bjorner and Brenti don't introduce this terminology until p. 75, and they use a slightly different phrase ("braid-move"). I will fix it. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a separate reference to support the parenthetical. It's currently commented out because it will change the numbering of all other references, making it impossible to track these comments, but if anyone cares to check it's to p355 of the Stembridge reference already in the article. --JBL (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This has changed the reference numbers; consequently I have adjusted all the footnote numbers referred to in your comments below. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4: What piece of information comes from this source?
Originally that footnote was attached to the statement "For $n\geq 3$ , its Coxeter–Dynkin diagram is the $n$ -cycle, while for $n=2$ it consists of two nodes joined by an edge labeled $\infty$ " but it seems clear I have the wrong page-number. I will fix it. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) I have completely redone the referencing of this paragraph (whose text begins "These relations can be rewritten in the special form ..."), it should probably be checked again. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
67: This probably need a finer pagination.
Oh dear I've now made the tracking of different versions hopeless :(. I agree that finer pagination would be better: in this version the various copies of this reference have been replaced with the more precise references 7, 8, 18, 26. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1920: What chapter does this refer to? "Affine Weyl group"? A mathematician probably needs to check it.
Specifically the first sub-section "The affine Weyl group" (pages 118–119). --JBL (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2021: What chapter does this refer to? "Construction of root systems"? That does not seem to source anything.
Yes, "Construction of root systems". The sentence "For Δ take [equation]" gives (explicitly, but in a different notation) the fact that the generators are $\{(1,-1,0,\ldots ,0),(0,1,-1,\ldots ,0),\ldots ,(0,\ldots ,0,1,-1)\}$ . (The specific translation is that $e_{i}$ means the vector that has a single 1 in position i and all other entries 0, so $e_{i}-e_{i+1}$ is a vector that has a 1 in position i and a −1 in position i+1 and all other entries 0.) That this means that the set is an abelian group and these vectors generate it freely is encoded in the use of the word "lattice" and the meaning of the symbol Δ (i.e., it is not explicit in that section). --JBL (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2122: Can't access this source.
I don't understand why OAbot decided to mark this as free; I've removed the false tag and added an arXiv link, which you should be able to access -- the section-numbering is the same as in the published version. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2425: Maybe, needs a mathematician to check.
2829: I don't see the equation there?
This is the same as the equation numbered (8.30), up to notational differences between our article and the source. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3132: Maybe, needs a mathematician to check. Don't think we need two consecutive cites to the same thing in the same paragraph. Where is "parabolic subgroup" and "coset" defined - is it background knowledge?
I have removed the repeated footnote. --JBL (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the question "where is ... defined?" do you mean in the WP article or in the reference (Bjorner & Brenti) itself? In the reference BB, "coset" is taken as background knowledge, and I followed their lead (just wiki-linking coset). I've added a separate reference to an earlier spot in BB for the definition of "parabolic subgroup". --JBL (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3233: Maybe not ("left"?), needs a mathematician to check.
Specifically this is Definition 3.3. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3334: Maybe, needs a mathematician to check.
3536: The equation for exp ˜S (x; q) is somewhat different from the source.
To see that they are the same, one has to substitute into several condensed pieces of notation that are on page 2 of the reference, but there is no substantive difference. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3637: Can't access this source.
Same article as footnote 2122, see response above. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4648: I am not seeing the definition of "tabloid" here.
The referenced section (on journal page 67 / PDF page 7) is titled "Tabloids and AMBC" and begins "Given a partition $\lambda \vdash n$ , a tabloid of shape λ is ..." --JBL (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5355: Is the equation supposed to be B2 from the source?
It's Theorem B1 (b is the number of balls, (a_1 + ... + a_n)/n is the average of the juggling sequence (a_1, ..., a_n) ). --JBL (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5961: This probably need a finer pagination.
6062: This probably need a finer pagination.
Really? The cited section is only 1.5 pages long. --JBL (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6264: Maybe, needs a mathematician to check.
6769: This probably need a finer pagination.
Done (as footnotes 69, 70, 73, 75, 76 in this version). --JBL (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7177: This probably need a finer pagination.
Done (as references 82, 83, 85 in this version). --JBL (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that there is no plagiarism nor close paraphrasing from the sources used, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this list soon, but just noting I think the template at the top is somewhat misleading - the linked article was derived from our article, not the other way around. is not right (at least, if I understand to what it refers): the article was drafted in my WP user space, published at WJS, and then imported to WP article space. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JayBeeEll, have you addressed all of Jo-Jo's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, without a subject-matter expert signing off on the spot-check I am not willing to pass this; too many things seem to require subject-matter knowledge to check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've responded to all comments not of the form "This probably need a finer pagination" or "Maybe, needs a mathematician to check", if you'd like to have a look. (I understand that it is necessary to get someone else to look at the last group.) (Actually I have responded to two of the pagination comments now.) --JBL (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brirush's comments below correspond to this version --JBL

Footnote 20 has the necessary material and supports the article and is reliable. It represents the material very differently than the article but is mathematically equivalent (i.e. mentions semidirect products instead of projection).
Footnote 25 is reliable, and indicates that the space being acted upon is a line, acted on by reflections. The specific details about certain combinations resulting in translation by -2 or 2 is not present in this footnote; however, it may possibly be available in footnote 24, as that refers to a standard abstract algebra textbook and this specific calculation is in every abstract algebra textbook I've seen, but I can't access it to verify. Should be fine.
Footnote 32 seems to be represented in a directly straightforward way from a reliable source. Coset is background knowledge; it is very unlikely people would understand anything in this whole article without knowing what a coset is. Parabolic subgroup has been changed to a different footnote so that's fine.
Footnote 33: This is a direct translation of the mathematical symbols into english (with w^-1 being referred to as 'inverse'). I accessed on arxiv but seems it was published, with both arxiv and published sources being listed, which is good for access. Seems good.
Footnote 34. Can't access this.
Footnote 64. Can't access right now but I can try these two again later. Brirush (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found footnote 34 and spent a long time looking over it but just couldn't see how p. 91 applied in this situation. I did some more searching and found a different paper by the author that states this much more clearly (Shi, Jian-yi. "Alcoves corresponding to an affine Weyl group." Journal of the London Mathematical Society 2.1 (1987): 42-55.) page 55 specifically, which is available here: https://math.ecnu.edu.cn/~jyshi/myart/1987JLMalc.pdf. This material is likely in the Shi book referenced in footnote 34 but not at page 91 as indicated. So I recommend switching the source or changing the page number. JBL may have a better understanding here, but the source I listed above explicitly that the length of sw is less than the length of w exactly when certain hyperplanes separate A_0 and A_w.
Footnote 64 took a bit as it uses some background knowledge from Lie groups that seems to be general knowledge in the area but wasn't to me (for instance, the references mentions Weyl groups while the text mentions Coxeter groups, which are a superset of Weyl gorups). The version I found online of this reference was missing two pages; however, in what remained, it did clearly state that the Weyl group was generated by reflections of the roots. The source is certainly reliable. I believe that someone who questioned this statement would be able to verify it to their own satisfaction using the source provided.Brirush (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brirush: Thanks very much for your comments. I don't have access to the 1986 book at the moment, so I can't immediately check what I intended by footnote 34. I greatly appreciate your going to the effort of finding a better source, and I agree with you that the 1987 paper is extremely clear on this point, so I will replace it in a moment. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brirush, many thanks for looking through this. Would I be correct in saying, in broad terms, that you found no significant issues in the way that the sources had been represented in the article, in so far as you looked at them? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe the sources are represented accurately in the text and are reliable, and seem to have been carefully chosen. I found no significant issues. Brirush (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2023 [28].

WSNS-TV[edit]

Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a new Chicago television station backed by local movie house operator Essaness Theatres hit the air in 1970 with little more than a rotating series of news headlines, this probably wasn't the history anyone expected. From being a third-string independent station that aired sports programming, the station became the key of one of the largest subscription TV systems in the United States in 1980. However, the station so totally devoted itself to subscription programming that it left itself very vulnerable to an FCC license challenge that bounced around for a decade and put the station on the brink of being handed to another company. After subscription TV withered away nationally, WSNS became the first full-time Spanish-language TV station in Chicago, first with the Spanish International Network/Univision and later with Telemundo, which acquired it in 1995. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat[edit]

Pulling up a header here. At a quick glance, it's in strong shape and I don't anticipate having many comments.

Extended content

Lead[edit]

WSNS-TV and WMAQ-TV share studios at the NBC Tower on North Columbus Drive in the city's Streeterville neighborhood and transmitter facilities atop the Willis Tower in the Chicago Loop -- while this doesn't pass the 'separate sentence' comma-rule, it does pass the "I read this out loud and I really wanted to pause to take a breath before the 'and'" one. May be subjective.
- Reworded.
The word choice of "indiscretions" caught my eye -- I'll read through the whole article in-depth before making a clear statement on that, but I'm leaving a note-to-self to come back here and check if this is a suboptimal phrasing.

Construction and "instant news"[edit]

On September 27, 1962, Essaness Theatres, a chain of Chicago motion picture houses, filed under the name Essaness Television Associates for a construction permit to build a new UHF television station on channel 44 in Chicago, which it initially proposed to transmit from the Woods Theatre in the Loop and air programming "designed to serve the needs and interests of significant minority groups", particularly Chicago's Black community is a long sentence. Is there no place to split it?
- Split
Is 'actualities' in other actualities a term of art?
- Changed to "items"
Is two young women the ideal way to introduce Odell and Marshall, when you give Saunders a more active title? Does the show itself present them as 'serious' presenters or is their role more diminished (insofar as can be gathered from the sources)?
- Changed to "newscasters"
Does the quotebox need the addition to specify that 'old' in 'good old' is sardonic, given it's a common saying that doesn't always have age implications?
- That's in the original. Complete with brackets. [29] Comments up to here: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. I wonder if there's some way to differentiate that from quote-tweaking brackets, because it definitely looks ambiguous, but it's tricky to think of a good way. Vaticidalprophet 20:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems that Tribune house style was brackets, not parentheses, at this time. It may be appropriate to use parentheses here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Vaticidalprophet 07:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago's third independent[edit]

1972 was a key year in the history of the young television station as new general manager Ed Morris sought to revamp a station that was losing money -- is a comma indicated before 'as'?
Even more significant than the new programming was the acquisition of the television rights to Chicago White Sox baseball, which opted not to remain on WFLD (channel 32) after an unprofitable five-year relationship and moved their games to channel 44 in 1973, with Harry Caray as play-by-play announcer. Everything after "unprofitable five-year relationship" here feels like a pleonasm -- it's already clear from the earlier element of the sentence that they were moving stations around that time. There may be a desire to retain a mention of who the announcer was, but as it stands this is overwritten.
- I have added a bit more and reworded. This was Caray's first major TV announcing work—he had previously done just radio for the White Sox—and his level of fame in Chicago makes it reasonable to put a mention of him here.
Is there a reason to specify that the Spanish-language programming was from independent producers?
- Removed.
The format of having one cite inside a bracket and another immediately following it outside is aesthetically kind of unfortunate -- I think it's reasonable to place them both outside in the relevant chronological order, without losing clarity that they cite different elements of the sentence.
- Reworded. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-launch[edit]

Recent changes to duplinking guidelines have allowed for the duplication of links when first mentioned in another section. With this in mind, it's probably worth linking more, such that the reader isn't required to keep track of every station acronym previously mentioned.
This is a bit more of a structural issue, and probably needs to be repeated across several articles. Is 'subscription television' roughly translatable to 'premium cable' as opposed to 'basic cable', which is the impression I get from its article, or does it refer to something that didn't survive into the basic cable era?
- Think of it this way. You'd pay an installation fee and a flat monthly fee to get a set-top box like this one installed atop your TV. It'd then receive the scrambled signal from the TV station, which was broadcasting programming not unlike a premium channel (most of the programming was movies, but also sporting events, concerts, and even softcore porn—which was really really lucrative for STV!) for subscribers only. Originally, no station could broadcast this kind of service around-the-clock. WSNS eventually did—in a way that caused its license challenge woes. Cable killed STV because you could get a lot of channels for cheaper. But cable was often held up in legal red tape, especially in the biggest cities, in the early 80s. Subscription TV on WSNS outlived KBSC-TV, the beast of Oak's systems, because cable still had not come to the city of Chicago by 1985. The industry overall had a very fast rise, followed nearly immediately by a very steep fall. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected the content was probably along those lines. Our "subscription TV" redirects to pay television, which mostly talks about HBO et al (that article might be worth working on -- it's important to a lot of these articles, gets decent views, and could get another GT with ON TV as a subtopic if there are more STV providers to write about). If it's possible, some kind of in-text explanation or maybe footnote is probably worth it across both this article and its peers, because it's difficult currently from the link to envision exactly what the business model was and how it differed from cable. Vaticidalprophet 23:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a call is being put out here for an article, something like Over-the-air subscription television in the United States... The article on Pay television sits at what arguably is a Vital level for WP:TV—its project importance is underscaled badly—and suffers from its positively huge scope geographically and thematically. These are projects in and of themselves. I've tried to improve the language, but there's only so much I can do without starting another big project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected something like that might be the case. I won't hold it up longer, but the section is kind of hard to follow without contextualization of over-the-air STV. Vaticidalprophet 18:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet 20:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of STV section[edit]

Only thing that really stands out is the odd placement of the last quotebox, which falls between sections. It seems optimal to put it higher up.
- It has been purposely placed to start the relevant paragraph, The loss of most of WSNS's non-STV programming motivated action... One paragraph up and it's a sandwich on my screen. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish-language broadcasting (1985–present)[edit]

It might be worthwhile to contextualize how large Chicago's Hispanic population was at the time.
- Tried to do this. Stats are hard to come by but I found one for the city of Chicago itself. Chicago really had two half-time Spanish TV stations and one full-time Spanish radio station until 1985. About as shocking as LA having just one full-time Spanish TV station (which changed that same year for very, very related reasons...)
~~any of those softcore films notable~~ (joking)
On October 13, 1988, WSNS-TV announced that it would switch its affiliation to Telemundo after that station's affiliation agreement with Univision concluded on December 31; two months later on December 16, WCIU—whose contract with Telemundo was set to expire the following month—signed an affiliation agreement with Univision, returning the station to that network after four years. It's probably worth splitting this at the semicolon, given the length of the sentence and number of clauses.
- Done
It was stated that WSNS and Univision had been at a financial impasse regarding new affiliation terms -- by whom?
- Univision, apparently. Tried to add a bit of the WSNS side of the story.
Why is the sentence about WSNS being expelled in parentheses?
- Thought it was a sidelight.
The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists is a bit more recognizable by its acronym AFTRA, and it may be due to contextualize that this is half of what is now known as SAG-AFTRA.
- Didn't use the acronym since they don't come up again, but in this case it may aid recognition of the group.

Comments above: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Programming and technical information[edit]

Nothing stands out in either of these sections.

A strong article which I intend to support. re. brackets/parentheses in the quotebox, I think it's justifiable to switch them to parentheses. Vaticidalprophet 18:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support here. Vaticidalprophet 16:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review — pass[edit]

The images all appear to be appropriately licensed to me.--N Ø 14:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from voorts[edit]

A few notes. Excellent work. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-written and very engaging (1a), appears to be comprehensive (1b), well-researched (1c), neutral (1d), and stable (1e). The lead (2a) captures the history of the station well and the structure (2b) does a good job of periodizing the station's history. The article length (4) is good.
Earwig's tool picked up one bit of text that is directly in the ref: violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide Schmidt "reasonable accommodation" for her alcoholism.
- Rewritten.
As for the citations (2c):
- Remove "Chicago, Illinois" as the location for the Chicago Tribune. Likewise remove Tribune Publishing as the publisher in the few cites where that's listed.
  - Done.
- The quote in this sentence needs a citation: air programming "designed to serve the needs and interests of significant minority groups", particularly Chicago's Black community.
  - Removed the quote altogether.
Other notes:
- Remove the parentheses: (Yale Roe, the general manager, felt that it was better to offer something different than compete with existing programming as a startup.)
  - Done.
- The format failed to inspire much loyalty, and a motley crew of programs appeared on WSNS-TV's air. "motley crew" is a bit too informal.
  - Changed.
- In 1972, Ed Morris became the general manager of WSNS-TV. He made several changes to revamp a station that was losing money. Why was the station losing money? The previous section makes it seem like the station was doing well with its quirky programming.
  - It seems to have had a lack of broad appeal, which I think is better to highlight than the money loss, especially in the early history of a station. Found two new refs in this area.
- The quote box from Ed Morris in the "Operation" section establishes that the station was losing money before 1982, but that isn't discussed in the body of the article.
  - There is not a lot of information on the financial condition of the station. Would this be best replaced with an in-text mention that the station was showing a meager profit?
    - Yes, I think if something is highlighted in a quote box, it should be in-text as well.
- In April 1990, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. ... wikilink to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; remove wikilink to Washington, D.C. Also, the link in the ref for that sentence (ref 83) is now dead. I didn't check other cites but double-check that the links are still live.
  - Fixed.

@Voorts: Responded to all your changes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Responded to one of your questions RE the financial condition of the station and the pull quote; if you can address that, I will support. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voorts, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One issue left to address. It's been a busy week; thank you for reminding me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Just addressed this last issue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will support this excellent article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

Prose review.

Do we need "Chicago, Illinois, United States" in the opening sentence? I'd argue Chicago is a well-enough known city that just "Chicago" would suffice (without the wikilink)
- I would, but I have gotten dinged for not putting "United States" in leads and infoboxes of articles before. I would not object to this change though.
"regional sports network NBC Sports Chicago" - "sports" is repeating in close proximity here so could this just be "regional network NBC Sports Chicago" with it being a sports network being implied by the name itself?
- I would agree except that regional sports network is a term of art.
Is "ON TV" an abbreviation? Otherwise, it should probably just be written as "On TV".
- It is not, but I have written about this topic a lot. ON TV's name was constantly rendered inconsistently even in the print media, but it was consistently capitalized. In fact, I had to have an RM on that article to determine how the name should be stylized.
"instant news" being in quotes in the subsection title looks a bit odd. Would it be okay if the quotes are removed? It's not obvious who is being quoted here.
"In November 1971, the "instant news" service ceased" - "instant news" appears as an unattributed quote here too and you might consider removing the quote. Also, is there some information on when this service started? Since the first mention of instant news in this section is about it being ceased.
- The day the station went on the air. Term is from the first general manager. This should resolve the two above bullet points.
"The team went 24–58 in the 1975–76 season; sponsors, one apparently thinking the viewership was predominantly Black and had "limited sales potential", were reportedly hesitant to advertise;[31] and Olympic Broadcasting Service, which had packaged the rights, opted to exit the business and focus on its activities in the savings and loan industry." - Kind of a long sentence. It might benefit from being broken up if possible.
- Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a fine article and it is quite a mystery why there haven't been many reviews. Perhaps, with Vat's permission, you could hat their review or move it to talk in case its size is deterring potential reviewers. I would also appreciate feedback on a current FAC if you have some time.--N Ø 16:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Responded to or addressed all items above. One thing about my call sign-titled articles is that their titles are alien. Last year, I brought KCPQ to FAC and got one review. (I want to have that as an FA!) I discontinued using call signs in my DYK hooks because they were resulting in some of our least-viewed DYK features. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan: I habitually hat my long-prose-comments when they're done, but noticed I'd forgotten to do so in this case -- whoops! Have done so. (The FAC was slow even before, so I'm very happy to see it getting attention now -- it's a great read.) Vaticidalprophet 04:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but I'm not convinced about the scare quote "instant news" and the three-comma "Chicago, Illinois, United States," in the opening sentence so I'll recuse from voting. These are both prominently placed so I am having trouble ignoring this.--N Ø 01:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:OVERLINK, I think it should just be Chicago (no wikilink).

Additionally, "instant news" in the section heading isn't scare quotes; it's an attributed quote that's properly sourced later in the body: ... which general manager Yale Roe called "instant news" (citing refs 7 & 8). voorts (talk/contributions) 02:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for Chicago alone, @MaranoFan, but don't be surprised if that gets switched back by another editor. (I would appreciate further feedback as to whether this change should be applied to similar large-city TV station articles.) As to the "instant news" issue, it is now an attributed quote with my changes. I'm hoping this is enough for you to reconsider. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this version with the quotes removed at least from the section title. Regards.--N Ø 07:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with that change as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I will do a source review soon. I'm planning to check the formatting and will spot-check a few sources at random. However, I am busy at work so it may take me up to a week to do this.

Formatting issues (reference numbers are from this version):

Some web sources have no access-date, e.g. 1, 54, 75 (there might be more, I'm just listing examples).
You should be consistent in deciding whether to link a |work= or |publisher= in a footnote. For example, Chicago Tribune is not linked; Chicago Sun-Times is linked in each of the footnotes where it is used; Federal Communications Commission is linked in footnote 1 but not in footnote 124; etc.

– Epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the formatting issues. Newspapers.com publication names are not linked by PressPass by default, and I don't use that anyway because it causes issues with other publications. (I do link manually for NewsBank sources where I have no link to content.) Also [54] was a pretty old citation from me. But all is resolved. A bit bummed it won't happen while I'm in Chicago, but excited. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to unforeseen circumstances at work this week, I won't be able to get around to the spot checks till Monday. Sorry about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks (ref numbers from this version):

2 ("FCC OK's New TV Channel For Chicago: UHF Permit Is 2d in Two Weeks Here". Chicago Tribune. May 22, 1963. p. 2:13) - The source says Essaness was given permission "yesterday", which would be May 21. However, the article says "May 15".
- History cards say May 15, and that's the FCC. Added a cite invoke to the cards on this sentence.
17 (Petersen, Clarence (July 7, 1972). "A Whole New Look for Channel 44". Chicago Tribune. p. 2:15.) - Verified.
18 (Logan, Bob (October 6, 1972). "WMAQ Will Broadcast Sox Games Next Season". Chicago Tribune. p. 3:1, 7.) - Verified.
19 (Vanderberg, Bob (February 27, 1998). "Sox lure a standout to broadcast booth, bleachers". Chicago Tribune. p. 9:5.) - Verifies the second part of the sentence.
38 (O'Shea, James (June 20, 1979). "Channel 44 owner to sell half-interest". Chicago Tribune. p. 4:3.) - Verified.
42 (Potts, Mark (March 8, 1980). "Owners plan to sell 49% of Channel 44". Chicago Tribune. p. 2:7.) - Verified.
43 ("Oak, Video 44 deal". Chicago Tribune. March 20, 1980. p. 4:7.) - Verified.
73 ("In Brief" (PDF). Broadcasting. February 25, 1985. p. 97. ProQuest 963289220.) - The source verifies most of the info. The "minimal" quote is verified by source 51 (Saville Hodge, Sally (February 23, 1985). "Owners of Channel 44 in danger of losing license". Chicago Tribune. p. 2:7.), but I don't even think that word needs to be in quotes.
- Tweaked.
99 (Feder, Robert (November 11, 2016). "NBC 5 boss David Doebler adds Telemundo station". RobertFeder.com.) - The source doesn't seem to support the second half of the sentence ("making Chicago the third market where NBC and Telemundo stations reported to the same general manager"). The first part of the sentence is verified.
- Removed the "third market" item I cannot find.
108 (Villafañe, Veronica (November 14, 2012). "Félix leaves Telemundo Chicago". Media Moves) - Verified.
117 (Villafañe, Veronica (January 9, 2018). "Telemundo network & local stations to launch livestreamed noon newscast; announce anchors". Media Moves.) - Verified.
120 ("Telemundo Chicago Launches Investigative Unit". Chicagoland Radio and Media. June 29, 2015) - Verified. This source should be marked as unfit. In the text, you should replace "currently" with an "as of" template.
- Sure seems like Mendiola left, too. (Searches show her as a teacher) Tweaked. All four CR&M citations have been changed to unfit URL status.
125 ("NBC Makes Over $480 Million From Auction". TVNewsCheck. April 13, 2017.) - I don't see Doebler's name in the source itself (neither in the byline or in the text), but the rest of this sentence is verified.
- Removed Doebler mention.

@Sammi Brie, I did spot-checks on 13 of the sources and found minor issues with three of them. I will do another spot-check later just to be on the safe side. Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Responded and made all needed fixes Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picking six more sources randomly from this version:

5 ("'Big John' Antenna Towers a $1,300,000 Spectacular". Chicago Tribune. November 16, 1969. p. 5B:14.) - Verified.
27 (Isaacs, Stan (April 4, 1982). "More to New Voices Than Meets the Ear". Newsday. Melville, New York. p. Baseball 10.) - Verified.
63 (Kay, Linda (November 22, 1983). "SportsVision merges with ON TV Jan. 1". Chicago Tribune. p. 3.) - Both uses verified.
91 (Feder, Robert (September 25, 1991). "Trade group drops Ch. 44 by 'mistake'".) - Cannot access but will assume good faith.
100 (Feder, Robert (April 20, 2021). "NBC Sports Chicago boss Kevin Cross to head NBC 5, Telemundo Chicago". Daily Herald. Daily Herald Media Group.) - Verified.
113 ("WSNS-TV Adds News Anchor & 30-Minute Newscast". Chicagoland Radio and Media. September 18, 2014.) - Verified.

Since a further spot check didn't find any other issues, I will pass this source review. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede

WSNS-TV (channel 44) - I get that this might be standard practice, but there's lots of things that are on channel 44 across the world. Perhaps we can put this into prose somewhere? Perhaps WSNS-TV (channel 44) is a television station in Chicago, serving as the local outlet for the Spanish-language network Telemundo, broadcast on channel 44. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one place where I will disagree because, well, channels get funky to describe (especially when a station is "broadcast on" a physical and a virtual channel number). You probably are aware that after your GAN of KMEX-DT, we had a lot of changes to the way in which lead sentences are worded.
carrying local sports, movies, and other specialty programming - do you mean local movies, or movies and local sports? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reordered to avoid ambiguity
WSNS became the Chicago-area station for the over-the-air subscription television (STV) service ON TV, - this reads a bit weird to me. Maybe reword to state ON TV earlier. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscretions from the station's STV era led to a license challenge in which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled at one point that a challenger should be awarded the channel over Video 44, the station's ownership consortium; a groundswell of support helped the station to survive and led to an $18 million settlement that kept it in business. - this is a hell of a sentence, maybe split it up for readability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Split at the existing semicolon.

Prose

Different people have different ways of enjoying themselves. Some break out the whips. Some stick bamboo splints under their fingernails. Some eat frozen pizza. And others watch good old (year-old) WSNS—channel 44, Chicago. - I don't really get how this quote helps us, or really explains anything about the programming. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Opted to pull this quote as it also removes a bit of "too many quotes" from that area.
Seeing STV double: SportsVision - I don't get this title - is it supposed to be superfluous? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Two-channel STV service, thus the "double". This was unique to the point where special two-channel decoders were made. (There is no freely available image, but you can see one in [30])
  - I'm happy enough with the context (and why it's important), but the specific title header seems pretty informal. Presumably "seeing double" is a pun? Could just as easily give a more descriptive name, like "Second STV channel: SportsVision". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quote starting Summarized briefly... should be moved up to the top of this header, as it currently spans two headers on any monitor size. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
Considering the league talks about "local sports", the sports part of the programming is a single sentence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Having even one sentence on local sports in the Telemundo era is more than I would normally have for a Spanish-language station. Local TV sports rights are less of a thing overall for broadcast stations today and even moreso for Spanish-language stations. There was some info there on WMAQ and WSNS airing the Chicago Marathon, but it was sourced to not the greatest sources (mostly press releases announcing they had or had extended the rights). All comments to here: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but we even have a section dedicated to how they ran an STV dedicated to sports. The lede says "movies, local sports, and other specialty programming", but we only mention one sport, and then not even competitive matches. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lee, I have squeezed all I can out of that section. And I mean all I can. It's amazing a Spanish-language station has this much for me to work with. Also changed the SportsVision section header. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Gog, Lee just closed his review in support. That makes four supports and source and image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2023 [31].

Howard Florey[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Howard Florey, the scientist who led the team that developed penicillin. They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, determined its chemical and physical structure, discovered how it worked, tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials. The development of antibiotics revolutionised medicine and agriculture. His discoveries are estimated to have saved over 80 million lives, and earned him a share of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Suggest adding alt text

File:Sir_Howard_Florey.jpg: as per the tag given, also needs a US tag and first publication details. Ditto File:Howard_Florey_with_sister_Hilda_on_arrival_in_Melbourne,_1944.jpg
Added USRA template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian_$50_note_paper_front.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are asking for here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FUR=Fair Use Rationale. The image is in copyright, so we need to provide a detailed rationale as to why we should be allowed to use it in this specific article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's got one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one it has should be elaborated on to better justify why a non-free image is justified here, or to turn that around why simply saying he appeared on the note via text is insufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It adds significantly to the article, as it illustrates the subject of the image and illustrates a significant cultural reference to Florey." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read that. As I said, it should be elaborated to better justify why the image is needed for reader understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "The image is free and the classification of it as non-free is based on ideology and not reality." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I more need to add to the justification. I did not add it and am not attached to it, and would remove it if I thought it would make a difference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been removed. This is a shame, as the text won't mean as much to the reader without it, and the article on the $50 note does not cover it. The note is no longer in circulation, so many people have not seen it. Perhaps we should remove the text to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments, CT55555[edit]

Lots of prose comments, none are critical, all should be considered very mild suggestions:

Lead: I think commas are needed after "In 1941", "In 1935" and "In 1962".
Did a sweep through the article and added the required commas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and education: possibly link "South Australia". A mild suggestion.
Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: should it say "More congenial....to something"? More congenial to her health" perhaps? I'm unsure. A very mild suggestion.
I think it is alright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: comma after "In 1911"
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodes scholar: It surprised me that the 2018 cash equivalent of £300 is given in dollars and not pounds, or both.
Dollars replaced pounds in 1966. Back then the Australian pound was tied to the value of gold like the sterling, but after 1929 the Australian pound left the gold standard and the two currencies diverged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodes scholar: link "cerebral cortex" and to Brain to Brain (journal) and 1924 Oxford University Arctic Expedition to List of Arctic expeditions
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
London Hospital: I don't like one paragraph sections. This could be fixed by breaking it into 2 or more paragraphs.
Split paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LH: Suggest changing "Florey was unhappy at London Hospital" to something like "Florey was unhappy with working at London Hospital".
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LS: "...the mercy of..." reads like the reader should know that there are scheduling or reliability issues, but the reader doesn't, so some context/explanation would help.
I don't see that; it merely means that his hours had to conform to the timetable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UofC: maybe change "a little" to "slightly"? Just a very mild suggestion.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UofC: I did expect a comment about the employment of child labour in a medical lab, if that was normal? Legal? Could that be added?
According to our article on raising of school leaving age in England and Wales, the school leaving age in the UK was 14 until 1947.
UofS first sentence: change "Cambridge" to "Cambridge University" I think.
I don't think that is necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UofS: "not overlooked" is a double negative. Can you say "noticed" or something else?
It is a turn of phrase I use a lot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UofS: "Top notch" seems a little colloquial, could it be changed for more formal language?
Changed to "first rate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford: Should it say "Oxford University"? I think this is about the academic institution, not the city.
I guess so. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout: cash equivalents seem to vary between 2018, 2021 and other years. I assume this is unavoidable, but if it is avoidable, would be nice to have consistent years for easier comparisons. Not a critical issue.
They are handled by the template. I will see if we can update the Australian one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford: I think it should be "forty to fifty" rather than "forty or fifty" just being logical.
Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford: link to Medical Research Council (United Kingdom) here (the first mention) and delink later)
Already linked on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford: change "obtain" to "employ" or "hire" or "contract" or something like that.
I don't think any of those would be correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford: Is "Henceforth" a bit of a unnecessarily fancy or archaic word to use?
Doesn't seem archaic to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout be consistent with UK or United Kingdom.
Consisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford: Say "was sometimes strict" rather than "could be strict"? Anyone could be strict, but were they?
Changed to "was strict". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Penicillin: I think authorized is not Australian English (i.e. I think authorised is)
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Penicillin: link to gangrene and staphylococcus
Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Penicillin: "drum up" seems colloquial
Changed to "generate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North American supply: say which war (i.e. WWII)
Already said it was the second world war above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clinical trials: "case No. 12" I am not sure the abbreviation is optimal. Can you say "their twelfth case" or something like that?
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Africa: link to Adelaide
Already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Africa: should "Military Hospital for head injuries" be "Military Hospital for Head Injuries"?
Changed to "St Hugh's Military Hospital (Head Injuries)." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Africa: I'm unsure but should "military rank" be "a military rank"? or "a military role"?
Military rank is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Africa: link to War Office
Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Africa: Change "made available for Allied invasion of Italy" to "made available for the Allied invasion of Italy" or "made available, ahead of the Allied invasion of Italy" perhaps?
Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Union: the one sentence section looks odd, but I understand why it is like that. Is there any way to reduce the number of sections here? (I see maybe there is not)
Throughout: the term "the children" I find out of place. Should "his children" be used, that seems more normal.
Seems normal to me, but chasged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cephalosporin: Should Gram-positive bacteria be capitalised?
De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cephalosporin:Should "The Oxford team" be the "The Oxford University team". The article talks about the university and the city, so the need to differentiate exists.
I don't think it is needed here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cephalosporin: Comma after "By 1978" I think
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
President of the Royal Society: change "...1957, By..." to "...1957. By..."
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provost of Queens: I think it should be "Provost of Queens College, Oxford"
I guess so. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provost of Queens: "On the other hand" is out of place, as that is normally a phrase that is followed by a "one one hand..." intro. Maybe something like "Conversely..." would flow better?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life: I think "cardiac" is more widely understood than "cardiacal" so a mild suggestion to change that, but if you know something that I don't, then ignore this.
Changed to "heart". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life: can we be more specific than "the Caribbean", i.e. the country?
Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honours and awards: "honorary" is not Australian English (note used multiple times)
"honorary" is correct in Australian English, per our official Style manual. [32] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Death: I think "of a congestive heart failure" should be "of congestive heart failure" but I am not certain.
Deleted "a". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Death: "Although Florey was an agnostic" implies there is a tension between Agnosticism and christianity, but I think that is not necessarily true. I think that it is possible and common to believe in christianity and also to believe that the beliefs of christianity cannot be proven, or known (but still can be believed). Atheists are in tension, Agnostics are not. So the "although" is out of place. I think in some contexts (North American" Agnosticism is colloquially used for "mild atheism" but I think that is not technically correct. I may be in WP:OR territory here, so others should critique my logic perhaps. Later it says "disbelief" so maybe we should call him an atheist?
We have an article on Christian agnosticism, but in view of the Church's refusal to place a memorial plaque, I think that the implication of tension between Agnosticism and Anglicanism is justified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I found this a very comprehensive article, with maybe just slightly too many sections and occasional use of non Australian-English terms, occasionally too much abbreviation of academic institution names, occasionally very slightly colloquial tone, all very fixable and trivial issues. My comments are borderline pedantic. I found zero major issues with this article. CT55555(talk) 23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking my feedback on board. I note a couple of errors in my comments (commonly things already being linked) and very mild suggestions not agreed with (that's fine by me, all were just suggestions). I am happy that most were accepted and for some to be rejected. CT55555(talk) 03:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments from Graham Beards[edit]

I found a few errors, which I have taken the liberty of correcting.[33] I am happy to discuss any of these changes.

I was a little shocked to see Florey credited with elucidating the structure of penicillin when it was Dorothy Hodgkin (who won a Nobel Prize for it [34]). The same error is repeated in the nomination statement at the top of this page!

It says that Florey was the leader of the team that did these things; Heatley handled production, Abraham and Chain the chemistry, Florey and Jennings the testing; Hodgkin was part of the Oxford team. Abraham, Baker, Chain, Florey, Holiday and Robinson published the chemical formula in 1942; Hodgkin used X-rays to determine its structure in 1949. I wrote about this in the History of Penicillin article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although certainly a collaborator, I am not convinced Hodgkin was part of Florey's research group (team). It was Chain that postulated the presence of the beta-lactam ring and it was Chain who suggested to Hodgkin that she have a go at elucidating penicillin's structure. Hodgkin was not answerable to Florey in the sense implied in the article. The article comes across as a tad to biased in Florey's favour in my view. Hodgkin was awarded the Nobel Prize for determining the structure, she didn't share it with Florey who got his “for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases”, shared with Fleming. Graham Beards (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right; Hodgkin worked for the X-Ray Crystallography group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of sentences (for now), which need some clarification:

Here "While the lysozyme research was successful, it was not fruitful, because while it was lethal to certain bacteria, these were not bacteria that caused illness, and were therefore of negligible concern to medicine." This is vague and possibly not true. What are the "certain bacteria"? Are they Gram-positive? And how do we know that these bacteria are non-pathogenic? Also doesn't "successful" and "fruitful" mean the same thing in this context?

The source says:

Meanwhile the research on lysozyme by Roberts and Maegraith — for which he had succeeded in getting a further grant of $1280 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1936— had proved fruitful. They had succeeded in effecting a considerable degree of puri- fication and in 1937 E. P. Abraham— who was working with Robinson as a DPhil student— succeeded in crystallizing it: he was later to join Florey in the Sir William Dunn School of Path- logy. This provided an appropriate starting-point for Chain, who had completed his snake venom work; he was joined in 1937 by an American Rhodes Scholar, L. A. Epstein (later Falk), in an investigation of the nature and mode of action of lysozyme. They confirmed that it was indeed an enzyme and that its action was directed specifically against a polysaccharide in the cell wall of Micrococcus lysodeikticus and other lysozyme-sensitive organisms. To identify the polysaccharide it was necessary to grow substantial quantities of the bacteria in Winchester bottles— a technique in which the advice of Professor Gardner was helpful— and separate and fractionate the bacterial cells. With this material it was possible to show that the cell-wall component destroyed by lysozyme was a simple derivative of glucose-N-acetylglucosamine. The destruction of this by lysozyme accounted for the disintegration and lysis of the cells originally observed by Fleming. Today, when research techniques are so much more sensitive and versatile, this would not rank as a remarkable achievement but with the techniques available immediately before the last War it was unquestionably a brilliant success.
As things stood, however, it was something of a self-contained success; it did not immediately suggest a further line of fruitful investigation. Indirectly, none the less, it initiated new research which was to culminate in the development of penicillin as a chemotherapeutic agent in a class on its own. The distinctive feature of lysozyme was its unusual combination of two properties. On the one hand it was innocuous to human tissue; on the other, it was lethal to certain bacteria. Its disappointing feature was that the bacteria it destroyed were not those of practical significance in medicine.
— Williams, pp. 61-62

Our article on Micrococcus luteus says it is a "Gram-positive to Gram-variable, nonmotile, tetrad-arranging, pigmented, saprotrophic coccus bacterium in the family Micrococcaceae." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say micrococcus and link to it instead of having "certain bacteria"? Something like ""While the lysozyme research was successful, it was not fruitful, because while it was lethal to micrococci these bacteria are not usually pathogenic." Graham Beards (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Re-worded along the lines suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is a recurring theme in the article; Florey was a scientist, who was interested in research for its own sake. Finding useful things was very much a byproduct of his work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here "Abraham and Chain discovered that some airborne bacteria that produced penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin." The term "penicillinase" is outdated, the enzyme is called "betalactamase".

Just following the sources, but penicillinase links to beta-lactamase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the author was uncertain of the nomenclature used when describing bacteria. There was a mixture of formal taxonomic names , e.g. "streptococcus" and informal common names e.g. "gonococcus". I think I caught them all in my edits, but they might creep back in. If it helps it should be either Streptococcus spp (formal) or just streptococci (informal), and Neisseria gonorrhoeae or just gonococci.

Thanks. I think this arose from multiple authors editing the article, but your are quite right about me being uncertain about the nomenclature, or I would have made it mode consistent. Your work is much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~There might be more to come from me when I find time~~. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although my review has mainly focussed on the accuracy of the microbiology, I think this article is ready for promotion with regard to the other criteria. The nominator has done excellent and admirable work. Graham Beards (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments by Draken Bowser[edit]

Hello. Just a few queries:

"He collaborated with biochemist Marjory Stephenson on his lysozyme project.." The use of "his" makes me think, as I'm reading it, that I should already have heard about this project.
That's what you get for reading six books on Florey. Added a paragraph on lysozyme. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..much less dangerous amyl nitrite.." Could a more specific adjective be used here?
If you have one. Had to deal with this at the Research School of Chemistry. Nasty awful stuff, responsible for many deaths, fires and explosions. Added a source on how nasty it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The erroneous impression given by Fleming that penicillin was a bactericidal enzyme led Chain to consider that it would be similar to lysozyme." While implied by both this sentence and its name, consider specifying that lysozyme is an enzyme at some point before this.
The paragraph mentioned above should cover it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Abraham and Chain discovered that some airborne bacteria that produced penicillinase.." I think one "that" needs to go.
deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An inquiry: Robert P. Gaynes mentions that after Florey elected Heatley as his plus-one for the US: Chain never forgave Florey for leaving him behind, leading to a feud lasting years.^[1] Which is not hard to imagine given that Heatly after meeting Chain had refused to work for him, instead electing to report directly to Florey.^[2] But Gaynes does not detail the consequences of the quarrel. Was there any significance to this schism? Draken Bowser (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Florey took Heatley to the US with him because he wanted an expert on production, and Heatley was his team member for that. But to Chain penicillin was a joint project between the two of them, and Heatley was just a technician. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gaynes, Robert P. (2023). Germ theory: medical pioneers in infectious diseases (2nd ed.). Washington Hoboken, NJ: American society for microbiology & Wiley. p. 258. ISBN 978-1-68367-376-7.
^ Gaynes (2023) p. 256

I have nothing further. The article is comprehensive and seems thoroughly researched. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. It seems like all sources have the requisite information and formatting is consistent. The trove.nla.gov.au source seems to throw a lot of "forbidden" errors. Some sources seem to link PMC twice, first as an ID and second as a link from the article title; dunno that it's necessary. What is source #114 and #158? Is the link to Brett Mason correct? Is this review of Wilson 1976 a problem?

Not source-related, but File:Australian $50 note paper front.jpg does not seem to add a lot to the understanding of the article's topic and so might fail WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have removed the image of the $50 note. Many people carried it around for years but never knew who the picture was of or what the surrounding images are about. Now I guess now they will never know. Without the image, the text should probably be deleted as well, as it is no longer intelligible to the reader.
I get no errors from the Trove links. (Runs checklinks) We have HTTP 302 status but they work and display on the checklinks page) fine.
I don't think the double-linking of PMCs is necessary either, but they are not my doing; they are automatically generated by the |pmc card in the {{cite journal}} template.
Fn 114 is a citation to Macfarlane; fn 158 is a reference to the London Gazette. Is there a problem with them?
The link to Brett Mason is correct.
I don't see anything problematic about Sydney Selwyn's review. This article is about Florey, with the History of penicillin covered in that article, which unfortunately failed its GA review and has been permanently shelved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the PMC links, I'd probably remove the url link from the citation templates. WRT the image, I think folks would probably look at Australian fifty-dollar note rather to find out who he is. WRT the review, it raises some questions about the reliability of Wilson 1976. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The are no url links in the citations in the article; the link generated by the template itself, and local consensus here is insufficient to remove it from a template used by millions of articles.

The review of David Wilson's book does not question its reliability. It says that it:
at last sets out the full story of the modern discovery and development of penicillin. It is attractively written - if we ignore uncritically enthusiastic statements about Pasteur which appear intermittently. But nothing is said about earlier discoveries of penicillin.

The earlier discoveries are out of scope of this article, having nothing to do with Florey. Other reviews are positive:
It has long been suspected that the accepted description of the discovery and therapeutic use of penicillin is not entirely accurate. Professor Ronald Hare's The birth of penicillin (London, 1970) and Professor Sir Ernst Chain's lecture of 1971 have helped to set the record straight and this book contributes further to the process. The author, who is a science writer and broadcaster, has collected together all the available data and presents what seems to be the most acceptable, detailed account so far available. He has carried out extensive research and presents his facts and conclusions in a lucid, undramatic style, with some documentation. The picture gradually clarifies but there are still problems the resolution of which will probably have to await the demise of all who were concerned with this remarkable venture.
— Medical History, 1977, Vol.21 (4), p. 460

Wilson does a first-rate job of picturing the personalities of Florey, Fleming, Chain and others who kept moving on and off the stage and distinguishing between the mythical and factual elements of the story. The time lag between the discovery and development of penicillin is examined carefully; Wilson explains the scientific atmosphere that militated against faster progress. The problems of manufacturing penicillin are especially well handled.
— Library Journal, 1976, Vol.101, p. 1130

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this works then. I thought that the article links were as a "url" parameter, although it certainly surprises me that the templates themselves feel the need to link twice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7, have you finished addressing Jo-Jo's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, how is this now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes, with usual caveats about my unfamiliarity with the topic and lack of spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, really enjoyed this article. I used to get Fleming and Florey and their roles mixed, probably the Fl alliteration. You've cured me!

That is not uncommon. Now that the influence of the UK on the English-speaking world has waned, fewer people have heard of Fleming. We have a whole suburb of Canberra named after Florey, but the residents don't know how his name is pronounced. I hope that the Wikipedia article will correct this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lede

post nom FRS - not requesting you to change but why doesn't that link to Fellow of the Royal Society?
It should. I have corrected it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
after the task had been abandoned ten years before - ten years after the task had been abandoned -(just a bit strange with "after" followed by "before") (the "abandoned" relates to "Dreyer had been given a sample of the mould in 1930 for his work on bacteriophages. He had lost interest in penicillin..." not Fleming?)
Re-worded. Made it clear that it was Fleming who abandoned work on penicillin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, and tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials on people. - there are four "and"s in that sentence. Only suggestion, swap "and carried out " to 'then' carried out
Deleted one of the "ands". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

and married Berth Mary Waldham - typo Bertha
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hilda, was born in 1891 - hmm her article says 1890 (I can't see Mcfarlane, pls confirm not a typo)
Not a typo; Macfarlane does say "1891". Double-checked against her birth certificate; 6 September 1890 is correct. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
footsteps of his sister, - name Hilda here seeing he had 4 sisters
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
entered St Peter's College, Adelaide[7] where - comma after Adelaide
Comma added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was fortunate; his father died - "fortunate" not good word here?, fortuitous is more apt? or timely, beneficial
Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She later became a bacteriologist - later superfluous
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes scholar

this subhead add cap ie Rhodes Scholar
Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
stipend of £300 (equivalent to $21,000 in 2018) - A$?
Dollars replaced the pounds in 1966. Should update the index... Aarghh the ABS have not updated it since 2018. Will send them an email. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
stipend of £300 (equivalent to $21,000 in 2018) - 2021 like most (there's a 2022 below which I've commented on) others?
met him at Kings Cross Station. - apos King's
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where his high school headmaster, A. G. Girdlestone, had gone - this is (Canon) Henry Girdlestone - was at Magdalen College, was headmaster at St Peter's College, Adelaide 1894-1915. When I see Williams on gbooks, it only shows me 3 snippets... page 4 says A.G. Girdlestone, page 6 has Canon Girdlestone and, on page 398 (index?), it has Gibson, A. G. and then Girdlestone, A. G. - Maybe the A. G. got transposed? Macfarlane has Canon. Should swap A. G. to Canon piped to Henry?
You can read Williams' whole book at [35]. Appears only on pp. 4, 6 and 398 (which is indeed the index). Macfarline uses "Canon Girdlestone" on pp. 36, 41 and 76. Going with Henry Girdlestone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He enrolled in the honour school of physiology,[32] which he studied - where he studied?
Um, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He became a demonstrator in - link Academic ranks in the United Kingdom#Pathways or Demonstration (teaching)?
Linked to the former. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
awarded the degrees of Bachelor of Arts in 1924 - "degrees" plural? should include B.Sc.? ADB has both for 1924 but then MA for 1935 (but is it a typo and should be 1925?)
It's in error. Deleted the "s". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1924 Oxford University Arctic Expedition - section link List of Arctic expeditions#20th century?
Sure. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cambridge

although the salary of ₤900 - this is only use of double barred pound sign. intentional?
It's a lira sign. Easier to find in the special characters. Changed to a pound sign. The lira is gone now, and the pound ought to be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
spent the summer with Pol Bouin at the - introduce and link him
Introduced an linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where he studied mucinogen - "he" is Bouin or Florey?
Florey. Bouin was the expert on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He mastered lysozyme assay - link assay
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sheffield

Joseph Hunter chair of pathology at the University of Sheffield, and - refine or pipe link to Sheffield Medical School? or link at * just below
See below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The faculty board decided to take a chance of Florey, - on Florey?
Ooops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the retirement of John Beresford Leathes and Edward Mellanby leaving - comma after Leathes
Fine without one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The medical school was small - * see above
Linked here.
The lack of a first rate pathologist - hyphen? first-rate
No idea. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oxford

Rhodes Scholars like Australian - such as
Um, sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Brian Magraith - why drop e from Maegraith x3, intentional?
Error. Corrected x 3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon Sanders - Arthur Gordon Sanders?
Macfarlane calls him Gordon and he knew him personally. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but when Florey approached Pirie's boss, Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Hopkins refused - tweak to avoid "Hopkins, Hopkins" Perhaps 'but when Florey approached Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Pirie's boss, Hopkins refused'
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
recommending Ernst Boris Chain. Chain was one of many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who had found sanctuary in the UK, and he had recently completed - same thing? "Chain. Chain" maybe 'recommending Ernst Boris Chain. One of many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who had found sanctuary in the UK, Chain had found...'
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the SS Orsova to Melbourne - page has move to SS Orsova (1908). (I know, not broken, just mentioning:)
Altered link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MacCullum introduced Florey - typo MacCallum
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
arranged for Wright to come to Oxford - add physiologist? why, to visit, advise on something or work?
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The family returned to Oxford in October, and Bertha died on 27 November. - read better if 'Oxford in October; Bertha died '?
Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rockefeller Foundation for assistance, and was provided with US$1,250 - the then pound equiv would be helpful here?
Added "about £320". Don't know if this is helpful or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penicillin Development

work on lysozyme, Chain read papers on lysozyme in - instead of repeating lysozyme, could be 'read papers on the enzyme'
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
personal research assistant. [95][96] - remove space
Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
liquid Czapek-Dox medium. - dash instead of hyphen?
Hyphen is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pH was lowered by the addition of phosphoric acid and cooled - that reads like the pH was cooled. 'and the liquid was cooled'?
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Initially ether was used - that link is to a class of compounds. Should be piped to Diethyl ether or some other?
Diethyl ether
much less dangerous amyl nitrite - much less volatiley dangerous?
Changed to "flammable". Also it should have been amyl acetate, not nitrate. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
streptococci, staphylococci,- fix italics markup ie separate for each
Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Florey reminded his staff that promising as their results were - as promising as?
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
facial infection involving streptococci and staphylococci. His whole - those unitalicised look odd compared to same words italicised in previous para. Nothing to suggest
Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He would spend the next two years - he spent
Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North American supply

In April 1941, Warren Weaver met with - introduce him?
The man with the money. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chain, who saw penicillin as a joint project between himself and Florey and Heatley as a laboratory technician - Chain felt Heatley equal or is that 'joint project between himself and Florey with Heatley as a laboratory technician'?
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
reunited with the children - his children
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and Sir Henry Dale, but they - introduce him? ie in what capacity did Florey seek Dale's opinion?
Mainly as an éminence grise. Added a bit about him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
adamantly opposed, as they considered - is that comma necessary?
Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical trials

gallons (910 L) on 11 September 1942. - year not necessary?
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
rather than the most suitable, - can you clarify most suitable?
Not really. Added "for treatment"
Harry Lambert, a friend of Fleming's dying from a meningococcal infection became the twelfth case on 5 August 1942. - needs a comma after "infection"?
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
St. Mary's Hospital - link St Mary's Hospital, London?
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Africa

hospital ship HMHS Newfoundland in May. - add year for new section
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
St Hugh's Military Hospital - link St Hugh's College, Oxford#Second World War
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
40 million units of penicillin - clarify unit?
Oh. Added to the earlier part of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
been inviting gas gangrene, but - link gas gangrene
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union

gave him a sample of Gramicidin S. - a sample of the antibiotic Gramicidin S.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

but did not reach Australia until August 1944 - that's not a long time? and arrived in Australia
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was accorded a hero's welcome.[146][147][148] and was - remove full stop
Replaced full stop with comma Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It ended with Blamey convinced that Florey - Did Florey actually suggest and convince? or just Blamey's idea? did he discuss with Florey?
Blamey's pet project. Ginger Burston was involved. After seeing the effects of antibiotics and antimalarials, Blamey became convinced that medical knowledge would be an important factor in future conflicts, and Australia needed its own medical research institute. I don't know why he wanted it to be in Canberra, but that is part of his original proposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
research institute in Canberra, - the capital Canberra
Sigh. Oh very well. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was quickly approved, but Curtin became ill, and he died in July 1945 - remove he? Why "but", did that put kibosh on the approved proposal? Approved as in Curtin had only verbally agreed or was some paperwork, legislation, budget, etc "approved"
More on that later. "he" is needed because without it we don't have the comma, and without it there is an ambiguity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

He was created a Knight Bachelor on 18 July 1944 - while it came from Whitehall on 18 July, it was conferred on the 4th? ie per Gazette "The KING was pleased on Tuesday, the 4th instant, at Buckingham Palace, to confer the honour of Knighthood...
Oh wow. Updated the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in 1945 with Ernst Boris Chain and Alexander Fleming,[159] - full stop
Changed comma to full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
W. Maxwell Cowan observed that: - intro?
Added "neuroscientist" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Nuffield offered - philanthropist?
Added ""the philanthropist"

Later life

but Guy Newton joined the team - link
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cephalosporin C from from a fungus originally - remove a from
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian National University

19-page proposal for a medical research institute - as part of the planned uni, or its main purpose?
As part of the proposed university. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir David Rivett, who chaired a committee exploring the proposal - the original uni or Florey's? If Florey's, maybe 'who chaired a committee to explore the proposal'
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
H. C. "Nugget" Coombs met - introduce? public servant, economist?
Both. He later succeeded Florey as chncellor of the ANU. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pounds here are £A not same as sterling as mentioned eg at Oxford etc. Why eg "£100,000 (equivalent to £4,591,000 in 2021)" - not to current dollars?
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was not the end of his association - swap "his" to Florey's
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Royal Society

Florey was elected a member in 1941 - fellow?
Yes. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the president of the Royal Society served for five years, and alternated between - the position/presidency alternated
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Florey became the President of the Royal Society - link List of presidents of the Royal Society?
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
offices in attic and basement - the attic
Added missing article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
required to realise Sir William Holford's vision - the architect Sir
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Florey's term of office, but the new building - why "but"?
Replaced with semicolon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provost of Queens College, Oxford

this subheading - add apos Queen's
Added apostrophe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which was demolished - soon/later demolished and a new school
Added "later". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
had been critical.,[198] he could stay until 1971 - something happened in here?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his own experience as a Rhodes scholar, Florey - cap Scholar
Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buildings were also named after him - after Florey
A dubious honour. The building is hideous. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

friend from the Cambridge days arranged for $5,000 - US$?
Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
$5,000 (equivalent to $45,000 in 2022) - 2021 like others?
No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
rooms at Queens College and - apostrophe Queen's
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honours and awards

"elected to both the United States National Academy of Sciences" and "a Foreign Associate of the American National Academy of Sciences in 1963" - these are two separate things in 1963?
Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death

home at the provost's lodging - lodgings plural elsewhere
outspoken in his disbelief - nonbelief? "Florey was an agnostic" I can't see the refs but I can see the Williams quote provided ie "he was not aggressive in his disbelief." but then there's "Florey had been so outspoken in his disbelief"? Contradictory? Wouldn't someone "aggressive in his disbelief" be atheist not an agnostic?
The screen is the work of Grinling Gibbons. As an agnostic, the chapel services meant nothing to Florey but, unlike some contemporary scientists, he was not aggressive in his disbelief.
— Williams, p. 363

A plaque in his honor is embedded in the wall by the door entering the Anglican church in Old Marston, across the street from the house he and Ethel built. The vestry refused to install it inside because Florey was so outspoken in his disbelief.
— Lax, p. 260

I'm going with Lax. (I recall what was said of Dirac: "There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet.") Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous honours and legacy

($50 What a shame the image of the pineapple had to go!) "The note depicted the Sir William Dunn..." - also depicted
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
growth on a Petri dish - this is the only mention of a Petri dish, link?
Linked. Never knew who it was named after before. we used to make them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Florey Building in Oxford is posthumous and the renaming of the original John Curtin School of Medical Research building?
The JCSMR moved to the new building in 2009, and the old one was renamed the Florey Building in 2015. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In film

Film Finance Corporation - link Film Finance Corporation Australia
linked
Film Victoria - link
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dunn School of Pathology - this is only place where William not used
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Denis Lawson - as Fleming
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver Dimsdale - as Chain
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe add (or replace) this which details all the cast and who they played (and isn't snarky lke the Guardian piece!)
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
penicillin in the 1930s and '40s, - remove apostrophe
Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

images

image Corn steep - pipe link Corn steep liquor
linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
image John Eccles, Adrien Albert, Frank Fenner and Hugh Ennor study the plans for the John Curtin School of Medical Research - full stop?
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

add cats?

Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons (or doesn't include Honorary?)
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

note 71 George Dreyer - that's an obituary for Georges?
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
note 219 Abraham 1971, pp. 282. - p or page no/s missing?
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Rockefeller Foundation is linked twice in body but far apart so not a problem? (Rhodes scholar and Penicillin/Development sections)
Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Alfred Newton Richards (sections Rhodes scholar and North American supply)
Unlinked Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name="ADB" /> v <ref name="ADB"/> - which is correct, space or not?
Ah, you have been reading XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition) "Include a space before the trailing / and > of empty elements". This was superseded by a new standard in 2018. Added anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't been reading w3! I see editors add the spaces and other editors remove them. I've never known which is correct. Now I do, so thanks! JennyOz (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Let me know if any of my comments are confusing. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye for tweaks and patient explanations. I have just made a few minor changes, hope OK.

In ANU section there are still two figures in "modern" pounds rather than A$, ie £100,000 (equivalent to £4,591,000 in 2021) and £240,000 (equivalent to £11,019,000 in 2021). Not sure if you missed them?

This is a sterling article! (I just hope, for your sake that Mr Nolan doesn't make a new movie about Florey - you deserve a medal for coping with the hundreds of "you've seen the movie, now play with all the related articles" consequences!)

Very happy to add my s'port. Thanks again... and ping Gog. JennyOz (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [36].

Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty[edit]

Nominator(s): ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a book about an academic analysis about micronations. Since I think most editors will need some context—basically, a book is a physical (or digital) artefact consisting of organised pages containing written content that provides a cohesive and often creative expression of ideas, information, narratives or concepts. The article is short, but there have been shorter FAs and, comparing this to other book FAs via Petscan, it seems worthy of nomination IMO. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 05:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat[edit]

Digging that FAC intro. I'll pull up a chair; given it's short, I should be back with comments soon. Vaticidalprophet 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Miscellaneous[edit]

I wonder if there's anywhere in the article to fit additional images -- as it stands, this would have to be an imageless TFA. Are there pictures of relevant-to-the-book micronations? Alternatively, the co-author George Williams (lawyer) has an (awkward but extant) image in his article.

Unfortunately not really; numerous different micronations are each mentioned and only briefly. I'll ask Hobbs on Twitter if he could possibly upload a portrait of himself than I'll use a multiple image template for the two authors. Not sure if that really helps the problem since I believe TFA usually only has one image, though.

I am unenthusiastic about the Google Books external link. It's within authorial discretion, but I wonder why this instead of a link to the publisher, or anything else (e.g. Internet Archive if they have it).

The publisher's website is cited for the precise publication date, and the book is not available on the Internet Archive. Honestly, I just chose Google Books as a generic book database website (like IMDb for films), assuming Amazon is not really an appropriate external link… perhaps I could use the WorldCat external link template instead, given that this book is physically published and held in a number of libraries?

Lead[edit]

Is very short. You have the space for a roughly two-paragraph lead in this article. I'd recommend splitting the summary of the book and its publication/reception as separate paragraphs, and adding a short overview of the book's contents to the first. This makes the whole article look more developed, and mitigates the 'short for an FA' effect.

Expanded. Thoughts?

Context and publication[edit]

Is there any clarification on why there are disproportionately many micronations by Australians? As it stands, this sentence fragment sounds odd. In particular, it's confusing to state without clarification that Australia has a disproportionate number of micronations compared to other countries (emphasis added) -- even knowing that micronations aren't legally recognized, the whiplash between 'self-proclaimed countries' and 'included wholly within another country' is a bit weird. If additional exploration of the phenomenon exists, it'd be viable to spin this off as a second paragraph and give a little elaboration on how it inspired the book.

Another reviewer pointed out that this is not really relevant and I agree; removed.

an expertise in international law is an awkward phrasing.

Changed to "specialise" instead.

Usually 'Indigenous' as in 'Indigenous Australian' is capitalized.

Added.

Williams' article mentions his specific academic institute (University of New South Wales), which seems worth noting.

Good idea! I have added both Hobbs and Williams' university positions.

It was published by Cambridge University Press as an ebook on 23 December 2021 and hardcover and paperback in January 2022 is a run-on sentence.

Sorry, I could not figure out how this is a run-on sentence?
- You have a couple different ideas here being connected by 'and's without really stopping to breathe. It was published by Cambridge University Press as an ebook on 23 December 2021, and in hardcover and paperback formats in January 2022 flows a little less abruptly.
  - Ah, I see now! Fixed, hopefully.

More to come. Vaticidalprophet 06:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to all for now. I appreciate the review and compliment! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

Any clarity on why Casley is described as preparing for war?

Added.

I'd offset declared then undeclared better (like declared, then undeclared,), because it's a little difficult to parse right now. Vaticidalprophet 06:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the definition given of micronations a direct quote or a paraphrase?

It is a paraphrase and summary of their previous ideas. Across the three pages they first say what a micronation is not than give a definition for it.

micronations and other ethnic independence movements is a touch abrupt -- micronations have repeatedly been contrasted from ethnic independence movements. Is this missing some context?

Removed.

Will touch the Reception section soon, as it's the longest and a little quote-heavy. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections might be worth reading. Vaticidalprophet 10:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and aftermath[edit]

Do we have any context on why the named individuals are people we would care about, past that they are book reviewers? For instance, are any of them clarified as having expertise on the subject, or have job titles worth mentioning?
Shima piped to Southern Cross University is a bit too much of an easter egg.
This whole section is honestly a little confused. The first paragraph jumps between the opinions of two different reviewers in a way that seems like it's meant to juxtapose, but actually just makes things hard to follow. The whole section is extremely quote-heavy when some of those quoted might be paraphrasable. There are some very weak prose spots (Conversely, Flether noted that the intended audience for the book is "clearly scholarly" despite the publisher's branding that the book was intended for both academics and the general audience because in certain places "the content is challenging"). I'm...not yet opposing, but I'd like a FAC prose expert to take a look at this before I make any confident decisions or further statements. I'd oppose if the prose were consistently like it is in this section, but the rest of the article is stronger, and given the whole thing is pretty short it's reasonably likely this could be copyedited within the course of a FAC. Still, I think this needs more, experienced eyes on it.

Vaticidalprophet 06:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Thank you for your patience—how does that look now? I expanded upon the expertise of Fletcher and Corbett; re: Vicente Bicudo de Castro, he has written several academic articles on micronations, many for Shima, though I am not sure how to incorporate that into the sentence first mentioning him without it sounding too long. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is greatly improved, for sure. I'm leaning much closer to support, but from a perspective of "what the third support signals to coords", I still think this might need somewhat more reviewer attention than it's had -- it's otherwise had fairly short reviews so far. Regarding de Castro, it seems to me the best way to fit in more about him would be to say less about Shima. (Southern Cross University is fairly far from the kind of prestige where mentioning a journal's association with it will make it sound better...) Vaticidalprophet 04:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LunaEatsTuna, any response to this? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mention of the university and just made some minor adjustments to the text, mostly to improve flow. Also, I forgot to say this here but Hobbs did kindly upload a photograph of himself to Commons so I added a multiple image template of Hobbs and Williams to help illustrate this article better. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still caught off-guard by the heavy repetition of names in quick succession (e.g. Corbett and de Castro praised the author's detailed descriptions of various micronations rather than focusing solely on their claims to legitimately; Corbett wrote that this brought upon a welcomed "light-heartedness". Conversely, Fletcher thought that Hobbs and Williams could have better explored the legal means by which micronations attempt to assert their legitimacy, as the opening to the second paragraph). Is there no way to paraphrase this further? That's the main thing holding me back from a support at the moment -- otherwise the section is greatly improved, but this disrupts readability and requires keeping track of many individuals. Vaticidalprophet 00:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; perhaps it looks better now? I hope this is what you had in mind. ^^ ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 01:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Almost there, just two more points...

Can we contextualize who Strauss is in-text a little rather than just linking? (especially given he doesn't seem to have an academic background)
I don't think "added" is right for Fletcher added that Hobbs and Williams did an admirable job, as it's a subjective claim.

Will be happy to support once both these are resolved. Sorry about the wait! Vaticidalprophet 05:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; how does it look now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Vaticidalprophet 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

Hi there, comments below. Apologies if I duplicate anything from Vaticidalprophet above; at the time I'm starting this, their review is not up yet.

Recommend adding "the" before "Australian lawyers..." in the first sentence to avoid a false title

Interesting; fixed!

"academic perspective, is one of few works" → missing word

Nice catch. Fixed.

"one of the earliest published books" → "earliest-published"

Fixed.

What makes FN 2 (World Atlas from World Facts) reliable?

WorldAtlas is known for its extensive factchecking. In this instance, the author Benjamin Sawe has a BA in Economics and Statistics and has published several articles regarding countries and separatism (which is related to micronationalism).

"achieve international recognition; and their activities" → don't use a semicolon followed by "and", either change to a comma or drop "and"

Fixed.

The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Context and publication" seems out of place

Removed. Another reviewer also pointed out that it is not relevant.

"authored by Australian lawyers and legal academics" → same false title issue here

Fixed.

"is one of few works on micronational movements and one of the earliest published books to focus largely on the legal aspects of micronations" → worded identically to the lead, I would recommend switching this up (the next sentence is also the same)

Rephrased. Thoughts?

"The first chapter, "Prince Leonard Prepares for War" → per MOS:LINKINNAME, "Prince Leonard" should not be linked here

Fixed.

I'm honestly not sure what the MOS says about content summaries of nonfiction books (MOS:PLOT), though the way the summary in this article is worded I'd imagine a secondary source or two would be helpful

I ran into this same question with a GAN about an essay I was reviewing. The nominator pointed out that indeed the policy on this is not clear; but I agreed with their point that (in their opinion) summary sections should generally be fine as they are a neutral analysis of the text at face value whereas analysis sections with deeper study and individual interpretations would need citations. What do you think though?

"Hobbs gave an online seminar at the Australia National University's College of Law" → This may seem very picky and pedantic, but was Hobbs physically at the College of Law or was the seminar just hosted by the College of Law?

The ref for this is blocked on my hotel wi-fi for some reason, but I will check this for clarification tomorrow… ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just hosted—fixed! @PCN02WPS: all the above is replied to. I appreciate the review! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 14:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, I'll give it another readthrough in a bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just took another look and I'm happy to give this a support. Your response to the PLOT issue seems very reasonable (especially considering I had no idea what the conventional wisdom on that was) and I'm happy with everything else. Well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

+1 on the intro. I'll comment shortly, if I let it slide for over a week, ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence beginning "It received positive reviews..." might be better off split, as right now there's not a distinct connection between the positive reviews and the second book.

Done.

Also, the second half of that sentence could be trimmed a bit. Currently you've got some passive voice and a bit of redundancy.

Does it look better now?

Yes, much smoother flow

Repeat phrasing - "mimic acts of sovereignty" and "mimic a sovereign state" within two sentences of each other

Changed second instance to "simulate states".

"Prior to the book's publication, Hobbs had written about Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous people's aspirations in Australia in 2020.[12]" Interesting, but is it relevant? Indigenous topics don't come up again. Does he tie his work about Indigenous topics to his work in micronations somewhere? Can we do that in this article?

Expanded slightly in § Content. This is not mentioned in the article (as it is not that prominent nor relevant) but Hobbs does not regard "Indigenous nations" such as the Murrawarri Republic or Sovereign Yidindji Government as micronations (which is pretty interesting).

Yeah, now it makes sense.

Again in the next section, you have "mimic acts of sovereignty" and "mimic sovereign states" in successive paragraphs

As above, changed second instance to "simulate states".

"others that commit crimes...are dealt with in court as citizens" the phrasing here is off, I think. Micronations don't commit crimes, the people running them do. You can't really treat a putative political entity as a citizen - Tinyfakeistan isn't getting arrested and fined, John Smith who created it and laundered money in it is.

Completely right! Rephrased.

Looks good

Since there's no wikilink, what is Shima? Journal, website, magazine?

It is a journal; does "… writing for the journal Shima" work?

Yup

The length and amount of quotes in the reception section could be trimmed. A paraphrased summary is generally better, with quotes reserved for punchy bits.

For example, the following passage: De Castro further praised the book for being written in a "lively and accessible style, avoiding losing itself in technicalities and legal terminology", as well offering a definition of micronation that "narrows the subject matter and avoids conflations".[9] Conversely, Flether noted that the intended audience for the book "is clearly scholarly, despite the publisher's blurb that the intended reader includes the general audience" because "the content is challenging".[13]
Compare: De Castro further praised the book's accessible prose, which offered a clear definition of micronation and avoided "technicalities and legal terminology". Conversely, Flether felt that the content was too "challenging" for the general reader, and was more suitable for scholars.

In the first version, the reader has to do a lot more work parsing the reviewer's thoughts, but in the second version, we've summed it up for them. I would recommend going over the section and trying to do this where possible.

Fascinating; thanks for pointing this out! Rephrased some areas. How does it look now?

Looks good and is much easier to read.

"On 15 August 2022, Hobbs gave..." this paragraph isn't reception. You may want to edit the header for the section ("Reception and legacy" maybe)

Changed to "Reception and aftermath" like I believe we do for films.

That's me! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I appreciate the review! I have now replied to all of your comments. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I'm a support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CT55555[edit]

I'm new to FAC, these are amateur comments, not expert review:

Is "real country" a value judgement? Possibly vague? Maybe say "sovereign state" as I think that is what is meant. I recognise my comment may be WP:OR.
Please capitalize "indigenous".
Should it say "postage stamps" rather than "stamps" because the later could mean passport stamps?
Should the chapter titles be in Italic? (genuine question, I am uncertain).
"micronations he had not previously seen in other work" should be "micronations that he had not previously seen in other work" in my opinion

Other than these minor points, it's a great little article. I don't think the length is a problem, as it covers the topic sufficiently. CT55555(talk) 03:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: Fixed all. Re: the italics—From the style guides I consulted it seems not. Titles of short works, like poems, articles or chapters, are usually put in quotation marks instead of italics. Glad the length of the article is okay. Also, I greatly appreciate your review! Many thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some links and a category. I think non-controversial improvements, but if anyone objects, feel free to revert (obviously). CT55555(talk) 18:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT55555, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards support, notwithstanding I am new to this and my only reluctance is my own skills, not any gaps or issues with the article. CT55555(talk) 18:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CT55555, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spotcheck only upon request. Source formatting seems OK but some are lacking bylines when they should. Sources seem reliable for their jobs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, would I be correct in assuming that you would like the bylines adding before passing this source review? LunaEats Tuna, if Jo-Jo confirms this, could you add them and then ping them? Thanks both. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry to ask but which ones are you referring to specifically? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily the cites to "Micronations and the search for sovereignty", if only for consistency's sake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in out of my section to say I don't think it's quite clear what you're asking for here. What "bylines" are missing? Do you mean the sources are missing information in some way, or do you mean that parts of the article are not referenced? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the authors of ref 20 if that is what you meant. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that at times "Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty" itself is cited - for consistency with all other citations, I'd put the authors in for these citations too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! Added to refs 17 and 18. Is that good now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck and that this isn't a topic I know very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kaiser matias[edit]

~~I'll look this over shortly and add my comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

It notes that the book is "one of a few works on micronations". Has there been any others published, especially in an academic context, that can be noted here? Is there an academic history on the subject of micornations? If so it may be worth considering a brief mention here. A few are mentioned in the reception section (in the context of a review), but could be noted in a different context earlier.

"The chapter's title refers to Leonard Casley, Prince of the Principality of Hutt River micronation, who declared, then undeclared, war on Australia as he believed a state undefeated in war must be recognised." I feel this should be cited, as it's a rather interesting perspective to have.

Indeed, both paragraphs of the "Context" section has no citation, aside from the notes for the chapters in the book.

Curious if any micronation leaders commented on the book (in a way that could be utilized here). Would be interesting to see their reaction, though I suspect they either aren't aware, or aren't covered by a reliable source.

As a former micornation enthusiast, the book is really interesting, and to see the topic covered in such a formal way is neat. I don't have many comments here, aside from a few queries, and will be happy to support once the above are addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kaiser matias: thanks for the review! I have added some academic background in § Context and publication (I hope it is not overboard). As for § Content, the lack of citations is because the summary is taken from the book itself, and it should generally be fine IMO as such sections are a neutral analysis of the text at face value (I think Wikipedia lacks a policy on this, but compare WP:PLOT which is for fiction). I could indeed cite some sources as there are a few which summarise the chapters of the book, however they ultimately lack some information (including what I think are key points in the work). I'll add them on request, though, as Wikipedia has no policy on this. There is no RS on micronational leaders commenting on this work, although Hobbs and Williams' follow-up book does have two. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, and good job. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaiser matias, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that, I meant to strike "Comments" from my heading and write "Support", but only did the first part it seems. I am happy to support, and have fixed that now. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede

The book concerns the definition of statehood, the place of micronations within international law, people's motivations for declaring micronations, the micronational community and the ways by which micronations mimic sovereign states. - I know this an article about micronations, but you use that word four times in this sentence alone. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the work, several micronations are used as case studies - I'd have thought this was a given? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Removed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

"only on the internet or within the private property of [their] members" - please attribute quotes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

their activities are almost always trivial enough to be ignored rather than challenged by the established nations whose territory they claim. - I don't think we can make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. If it's a comment by someone, that should be said, or if we talk about how established nations do act, rather than this rather floaty definition of how they should act. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean. So, one of the things that generally makes a micronation a micronation is that they are ignored; hence, the sovereign states they claim do not see them as separatist nor secessionist movements (which are not micronations). This is indeed stated in most RS about micronations so I think it is worth noting in this way. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but in prose, we are saying that micronations should be ignored. The info is fine, but it needs a tweak to not read like we are telling people that they are unimportant Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it now! Hm, how does that look? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and is one of a few works on micronations and one of the earliest-published books to focus largely on their status in regards to the law. - it came out two years ago (less than), have we had an influx of books about this subject since then? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can say "one of the earliest published books", if things haven't followed it. Arguably it's latest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right! Fixed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss gave the work a do-it-yourself title so as to maximise its effect in regards to libertarianism and personal autonomy.[14] - how is this relevant to this article? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not! Removed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although academic interest in micronationalism is limited, the study of the phenomenon - do we have a source that actually suggest this? We've just listed a load of publications that talk about it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ref 16 says "As micropatrology (the study of micronationalism) is a relatively new field, and largely neglected in terms of serious scholarly research […]". This is reiterated in this book actually, but of course I could not cite the book itself here. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a FA, this article doesn't seem to mention anything about the writing of the book. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I could not find anything regarding this, nor in any of the interviews they did. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Refs 3 and 15 are missing parameters. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at some other articles, it seems that the work= parameter is broken at the moment. I can honestly remove it from ref 15 in the meantime as it is not super relevant, though I am not sure how to work around cite dictionary which heavily relies on said parameter. I could temporarily convert it to cite web in the meantime though I would have to remember to change it back once this issue is resolved. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's not that it's broken, {{cite encyclopedia}} has no work parameter. Try "publisher" instead. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! I suppose it was removed recently. Fixed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review; it is much appreciated! I have made some changes and left my comments above. I'll review some of your GANs later in the week once I have more free time. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

Cite 1: Hobbs and Williams should be shown as the authors, not as part of the title of the work.
The titles of articles should be standardised as either all in upper or all in lower case. How they appear in their originals is irrelevant.
Cite 3: micronation should start with an upper-case M. It also needs a date. (Which is 2023.)
Is Moreau a PhD thesis? If so, the citation should say so. (|type=PhD thesis) PhDs are not usually acceptable at FAC. What makes Moreau's thesis a high quality reliable source?
Cite 18: what does the quote signify, and why is part of it in all caps?
Cite 18 again: delete "type=Hardback".
Cite 11: what does "date=n.d." mean?

There may be more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for now. The quotation (which I have now made lowercase) is for the date for which the hardback edition was published; "n.d." means "no date" and I have seen it used in some FAs for citations with no dates, such as web pages, but I'll remove it here; lastly, regarding Moreau, I did not know that PhDs are frequently not allowed at FA, but I understand them to be a subject matter expert as they did publish some academic articles about micronations to a number of what appear to be peer-review journals prior to this. If you want I am fine with removing it and finding an alternative citation, however. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the explanation about the PhD.
My apologies: the template guidance does state "For no date, or "undated", use |date=n.d." Sorry 'bout that.
For the date published, one usually uses "|date=January 2022".

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

No problem, I forgot to add date=n.d. to the other citations as well. Fixed the date. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [37].

Kyla (Filipino singer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After tackling a Filipino actor BLP, back again with another bio, this time a singer. Kyla started her music journey competing in talent shows and broke into the Philippine music scene in the 2000s, at a time when R&B and soul music was unheard of from local musicians. Known for her distinctive sound and melismatic singing style, she has helped popularize the music genre, earning the nickname as the country's "Queen of R&B". Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass) – the image is licensed appropriately, has alt text, and is a nice choice for the infobox. The audio sample has an appropriate FUR and meets WP:SAMPLE. Heartfox (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review! Pseud 14 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox[edit]

"Her sound became a catalyst in the growth and popularity of the music genres, making her one of the most prominent pop culture figures" → specifially in the Philippines?

Yes, just specific to the Philippines. Since the preceding sentence mentions that, and the subsequent statement also says "in the country", I thought mentioning it would be repetitive.

"Kyla began singing" → I would use something other than "Kyla" here as the section's final sentence "She adopted the stage name Kyla" is fine

Done (I think)

"She won the competition" → we know already as the previous sentence says "became the show's junior division winner"

Revised and removed the first mention for clarity

"When she was thirteen, she" → repetitive "she" is undesirable

Removed

"I was only a singer and never joined the acting skits". → I believe the period should be inside the quote as this is unchanged from the original

Done

You can remove "various" in almost all instances in the article as it is superfluous

Done

"bars, before" → comma unnecessary

Removed

"easy to remember and one that had more impact" → could just be paraphrased to "memorable"

Done

"lead single" → lead single

Linked

Menderos or Mendaros?

Mendaros. That's a typo on my part.

"which featured elements" → which features elements

Done

"She wrote two tracks, "I'm Into You" and "This Day", on the album, which featured elements of "pop and ballad tunes", intertwined with her "R&B signature sound"" → I really would not use four commas in one sentence. Maybe "She wrote two tracks on the album, which features elements of "pop and ballad tunes" intertwined with her "R&B signature sound"

Revised as suggested

"Not Your Ordinary Girl was Kyla's fourth studio album, released in May 2004" → reads awkwardly

Revised.

Baby Gil, Nestor Torre Jr., etc. reviews are more appropriate for the album/tv show articles. Unless there is a source supporting overall critical reception of something, it comes across as cherrypicking

I have thought about that as well, however, my main reasoning for incorporating reviews within the article (as I had done with other Filipino musician FAs) is to supplement the prose with content in lieu of domestic and international chart positions, singles/albums sales/certifications, debut ranking information, peak positions etc.. which you would commonly find in articles of musicians where sales tracking or chart rankings are published ie. Billboard, RIAA, ARIA, UK Charts, iTunes etc. Unfortunately, in the Philippines these aren't tracked, so there's not much to go with. On another note, only those with album reviews available online have been incorporated, since not all albums have it. These are also attributed to the publication/writer and not as a statement of consensus, to avoid the perception of cherrypicking, since there is no data on aggregate scoring employed by sites such as Metacritic, etc. Gil, Torre and the likes are the usual media critics that provide commentaries/reviews, which I've also used in musician FAs such as Regine Velasquez and Angeline Quinto. Similarly, they also do not provide ratings/aggregate scoring. As for on-screen reviews, I've tailored it to actor BLP FAs, which typically includes reviews/commentaries of performances on film/TV (i.e. Kate Winslet, Jessica Chastain).

"Concurrently, she also began" → "also" is superfluous

Removed "also"

"singers namely" → singers such as

Done

Overall an easy read but I do feel that the reviews in "life and career" are better suited to the album articles, which seem underdeveloped. As I know nothing of this topic and only evaluated the prose, I will be holding back making a specific declaration until there are a few more comments from others. Great work! Heartfox (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your review Heartfox. I have provided my responses to your comments, including your concern re reviews. Let me know if they have been addressed satisfactorily or if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: - do you feel ready to support or oppose here? Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing "Because of You" as the second single from Not Your Ordinary Girl, the source says it is "is one of the cuts"

@Heartfox: Although not explicitly said, the article discusses both "Human Nature" and "Because of You" primarily as they were both released as singles. I've removed stating it as second single otherwise.

Journey is referred to as her debut extended play, but the source says it is a "six-track album" and "her first album after almost a four-year break in recording", not a debut EP

I would assume that an extended play contains more tracks than a single but fewer than an LP. while it is not mentioned as a full-length album, a six-track album would be considered an EP. Since she hasn't released an EP based on the article, I listed as a a debut EP. But I have removed it if it is a cause of concern. Apple Music lists it as an EP. Which I've added as a source.

"'Hanggang Ngayon' ... is credited with influencing every R&B performer during the early 2000s" → not seeing this in the source

I believe this would line in the article supports her influence along with citing her R&B singles: Though R&B isn’t as big in the Philippines as it was during the early to mid-2000s ... Kyla, who popularized the songs, “Hanggang Ngayon” and “Not Your Ordinary Girl, and unless I have paraphrased it incorrectly, it would be tied to There was a point when R&B singers were everywhere, supporting the latter claim that her sound/music had an impact into how R&B had an impact on other performers. I've revised caption instead to remove ambiguity and confusion. Spotchecks requested. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~would like to see more spotchecks before supporting~~. Heartfox (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of confused by the birth note. I would put it as a  note for editors instead of readers, as referring to Wikipedia policies to the public seems a little odd, and WordPress is not a source itself but a website hosting service.

I see what you mean; used the hidden note as suggested. Removed WordPress.

Her birth in the Philippines is mentioned in the infobox but not the prose

Added. Also placed hidden note next to it.

The source doesn't say she was born in the Philippines tho

Is 25 years before January 5, 2007, January 5, 1982 not 1981?

@Heartfox: There is no secondary source citing her birthplace elsewhere or outside of the country; so I listed Philippines in the infobox with the added footnote, and did not include in the prose instead, as it would be assumed she was born and raised in the country and there are no sources to support that she was born abroad. So either I just leave Philippines in the infobox and don't include it in the prose. Thoughts?

As for the birthdate, a look-up online puts her birth year as 1981. This article published in 2021 states she is 40-years old. I've added it too. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is referred to as "Kyla" before the sentence "She adopted the stage name Kyla"? Heartfox (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revised the preceding sentence so "Kyla" is only mentioned in the latter part. Also similarly with Lady Gaga, she is referred to as Gaga in every instance, well before the mention of when she coined the stage name in the Career beginning sections.

@Heartfox: Actioned all. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox, would it possible for you to speed up your review a little if you have time? It has been three weeks now since you started your review, including a request for spot-check, which Jo-Jo has kindly put some effort into. Thank you for your review so far. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because the first source for her birthday indicates 1982 while the other indicates 1981, but only 1981 is given. None of them specify that she was born in the Philippines, so I would just omit that from the infobox. Heartfox (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox, I took out "Philippines" from the infobox. Kept ref 1 which supports her full name. Added ref 2 - which supports date-month (Jan 5), and kept ref 3 which supports that the year is 1981 (as it is mentioned that she is 40-years old at the time of publication). Hopefully that fixes the issue, if my understanding is correct? Pseud 14 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will defer to your expertise on her year of birth. Support . Heartfox (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox, thanks for your thorough input and review as well (and patience). Pseud 14 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

"In 2010, she teamed with Jay R, Billy Crawford, and Kris Lawrence to co-write the lead single "Don't Tie Me Down" for her eight studio album Private Affair." The song also had Jimmy Muna as a co-writer and I'm not sure why we're suddenly naming co-writers and that too of only the lead single.

I have removed mentions of co-writers in the lead and tweaked it.

"Her interest in music and performing eventually led to joining" - "led to her joining" or "led her to join"

Done

"At age twelve, she auditioned for the television talent show Tanghalan ng Kampeon, where she qualified and defended her spot for eight consecutive weeks.[4][5] She won the competition, performing a cover of Jennifer Holliday's "I Am Changing"." If she did in fact win the competition, I don't see why it's necessary to say she qualified and defended her spot. I would just say she auditioned for the show and won it.

Revised as suggested

"she was turned down by almost every record label" - this sounds as if she tried at almost every label there is. I would narrow it down in some way like every major record label (if that was the case) or several record labels.

Revised, used the latter suggestion

"The song's lyrics express a hopeful revival of a faded romance after parting ways" - it sounds like the romance parted ways when it was the couple.

Clarified as a couple's faded romance after parting ways

"Not Your Ordinary Girl was Kyla's fourth studio album, which was released in May 2004" - ambiguous. It reads as if it were her fourth album that month and not overall.

Revised the sentence, hopefully the change is much clearer

"The Philippine Star considered Heart 2 Heart as a mature production, remaining faithful to Kyla's core as an R&B artist" - it sounds as if TPS remained faithful to Kyla's core as an R&B artist and not H2H.

Revised so it refers to the album

"Titled Private Affair, the record saw Kyla exploring with producers" - what did they explore?

Thanks for catching, I've hanged to collaborated instead of explored

"co-wrote the single "Don't Tie Me Down" with Billy Crawford, Kris Lawrence, and Jimmy Muna." Jay R is missing here.

Added Jay R

"lauded the album's sound for being fresh and innovative" - "lauded the album's sound as fresh and innovative" for NPOV reason.

Done

"She then collaborated with rock band Kamikazee and featured in the single "Huling Sayaw" from their album Romantico" - too verbose. "She then featured in rock band Kamikazee's "Huling Sayaw", a single from their album Romantico".

Revised as suggested

"who fall in love despite their being members of feuding families" - I would remove "their". It means the same thing with or without it.

Removed

"Kyla found herself challenged by the idea of playing an unlikeable and manipulative woman, but said that her personal experience as a mother drew her to the part." I'm not sure what does her being a mother correlate with her inclination to play an unlikeable woman. I assume her character is also a mother?

That's right. I have tweaked this part to clarify and have some correlation between the two statements for better flow.

"Kyla's vocal style and singing ability has shaped" - plural; "have shaped".

Done

These should be it. Check my edits to see if I messed something up. FrB.TG (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time in reviewing FrB.TG. Really appreciate it, and thanks for the edits you've done, they've helped improve the article in a much better shape. All comments have been actioned, let me know if there's anything I might have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support and edits FrB.TG. Very much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris[edit]

"credited with helping redefine R&B and soul music in the Philippines" => "credited with helping to redefine R&B and soul music in the Philippines"

Done

"Kyla's debut studio album Way to Your Heart containing the lead single "Bring It On" was released" => "Kyla's debut studio album Way to Your Heart, containing the lead single "Bring It On", was released"

Done

"A reviewer from The Philippine Star described the record her best work thus far" => "A reviewer from The Philippine Star described the record as her best work thus far"

Done

"During the second Manny Pacquiao vs. Marco Antonio Barrera boxing match on October 7, 2007, at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Kyla sang the Philippine national anthem" - I presume she sang it before the match rather than during it

Correct. Similar to NBA or Superbowl it is performed before the match. I used during to refer to the event as a whole and not so much on the actual fight/match itself (hopefully that makes sense). Let me know if it needs to be tweaked for clarity though.

I'd suggest changing "during" to "at". That still (IMO) conveys the sense that she performed it at the event as a whole, but doesn't have the implication that she literally started belting it out while the two boxers were hitting each other..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: That makes sense. That was my initial choice too if I had to change it. Switched to "At" now. Thanks for this perspective. (it does seem funny now that I'm imagining it actually happening lol) Pseud 14 (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Music critics appreciated Kyla's aristry" - last word should be spelt "artistry"

My bad for the typo. Fixed

"Kyla began dating PBA player" - I would give the full title of the PBA (or simply say "basketball player")

Done. Used basketball player but linked to PBA article.

Hmmmm, that seems a bit Easter egg-y. If you want to retain the direct link to that article, it would be better to write "Kyla began dating Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) player Rich Alvarez" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I removed the link instead and kept basketball player. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the names of her roles in Narito ang Puso Ko and Time of My Life not known?

Unfortunately no secondary source, other than IMDb, which is not considered high-quality. These are guest/cameo appearances as well, so her roles where not significant and without any online source.

Note A needs a full stop

Added

That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your time in taking up this review ChrisTheDude. I have provided my responses and actioned your comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support ChrisTheDude. Really appreciate your time as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

My only two doubts were PolyEast Records not being sourced or mentioned other than in the infobox and the inclusion of the iTunes chart. Since these were both addressed while I was reviewing her discography, I can go ahead and support the article for promotion. Great work here. My only suggestion would be to hyphenate "singer-songwriter" in the occupation parameter of the infobox as well if she is addressed as such in the prose.--N Ø 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time in reviewing this FAC along with the discography, MaranoFan. I have made the change in the infobox parameter as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. What is note #a based upon - what are the "some sources" and who is disagreeing with them? Is Philippine Daily Inquirer still a reliable source, given some comments on its article? Seems like the source formatting is consistent and the necessary information is there. Who is the author of #109 - I can't find that name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the source review Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have addressed each item below. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction.

I've added the note, as I couldn't find a reliable primary or secondary source that lists her place of birth. The "sources" I was referring to would be the non-high-quality sources i.e. IMDb, Tumblr, or blogs, that would yield her birthplace info based on a quick internet look-up stating that it was Tondo, Manila. Since these cannot be used as sources, I simply wrote "Philippines" on the infobox and added the note as an explanation as to why there is no place of birth listed on the article.
Philippine Daily Inquirer is considered a high-quality and trusted English language newspaper in the Philippines, having been around since 1985 and with the newspaper having editorial oversight. I believe the comments on the article's reputation are opinion pieces and criticism stemming from Philippine politicians and other media outlets from what I've read. I believe they are isolated cases and is not a general consensus of the newspaper's credibility on its coverage of current events, entertainment, lifestyle or other topics.
I have removed the author name on ref 109, columnist name is listed on the page but it appears to be credited to a different article and not the one cited. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one's an interesting thing. If the note exists to address unreliable sources, should it mention the sources? And the rebuttal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've revised the note to be more specific, mentioning the non-high-quality sourcing and the rationale for it's non-use per wiki standards on verifiability of sourcing. Let me know if that will suffice? Pseud 14 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that I'd want wider discussion on. For example, have we seen people adding incorrect information? OTOH I am not entirely sure if it's a FA-level question, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That’s a fair point. I could simply remove the notation if that’s something that’s likely going to be challenged and simply put country of birth?. The problem isn’t that people put the wrong information of where she was born, it’s the absence of high quality source to support it. I’ve tried searching online or via Google Books but coverage of her doesn’t seem to state that information. But I’ve also seen other articles that lists incorrect birthplace. An example is Angel Aquino, before I overhauled the article it listed her as someone born from Dumaguete when it wasn’t the case. I’ve also seen birth year such as that of Mariah Carey which includes an efn Pseud 14 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I was wondering, if you have time, if you would be ok to do spot-checks as well based on reviewers request above?

I don't think you signed in the edit you pinged Jo-Jo so he would not have gotten it.--N Ø 10:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this MaranoFan, I didn't even realize it was unsigned. Sorry for the re-ping Jo-Jo Eumerus, was wondering if you have spare time to do some spot checks per editor's request above? Pseud 14 (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog and Jo-Jo, per Heartfox’s suggestion above, I have removed the efn and mention of Philippines in the infobox as it is not sourced. This change happening after the source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that footnotes that aren't sourced or can't be traced to a source should probably stay off. If folks persist in adding wrong information, a hidden comment is probably better than an ill-sourced footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for that, hidden comments are already placed on the infobox and in the prose section, since I removed the footnote. Let me know if there's anything else outstanding. Thanks as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying Gog for the remaining item addressed from Jo-jo. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am waiting for Jo-Jo to pass or otherwise the review. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Gog. Also pinging Jo-Jo, I've addressed your last comment. Do you have anything outstanding that needs to be actioned? Thanks. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check[edit]

Spot-checking this version:

11: OK.
23: I presume that these in the source are all her albums.

Correct. Including Way To Your Heart which is used to support this sentence.

24: OK.
32: I don't see "I Will Be Here"

My bad on the typo. The title of both the album and single is "I Will Be There" and not I Will Be Here. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

35: Why are these specific performers singled out?

I excluded Keith Martin, since he is already involved in the album and IMO not worth repeating as he is already mentioned in the earlier sentence. These singers listed are special guests and collaborated with her only in the concert. The Maneuvers are the backing dancers, so excluded them as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

38: OK.
45: OK.
54: OK.
62: OK.
68: OK.
71: OK for the second use, can't say about the first as I don't know Tagalog.

Ayon kay Kyla, magiging challenge ang pagganap niya sa character ni Ruby ... pero sa pagkakatulad naman daw niya kay Ruby, pareho raw silang ina. A translation from the excerpt: According to Kyla, it would be a challenge to portray Ruby .. but the similarities she found in playing Ruby is that they are both mothers Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

72: OK.
75: What is "her vocal performance and songwriting" based on?

Not sure I follow, but if my understanding is correct, the reviewer/critic praised her vocal performance and songwriting on the album. Based on excerpts: Vocally, Journey must be Kyla's best. Her multi-octave range has acquired warmer, fuller tones and she approaches every note with great confidence. She obviously loves singing and it is great that she has found songs that show off her extraordinary talent on her comeback bid ... Nice to find out she is also back to writing songs. In fact, the title track is her collaboration with fellow R&B artist Jay-R and Kettle Mata. Let me know if that answers your question. Happy to revise if ambiguous. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

80: OK.
84: Can't access this source.

Strange. I tried opening it and it does work. Archive should also work. Screen grab of the line that supports the award. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

91: OK.
94: I am not sure that the article says that they were Kaya's inspirations.

Kyla also admires Beyonce and Brandy ... Kyla grew up listening to Fitzgerald, Franklin and Holiday. If I were to interpret it, her admiration of the singers as well as her listening to their music, would somehow encompass them being musical inspirations. Thoughts? Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

95: Where is it said that Kaya uses melismatic and Corey mentioned?

While Kyla has a singing style of her own, you can tell she has been greatly influenced by Miss [Mariah] Carey. From the airy way she sings to the vocal runs she makes Melisma or melismatic technique/singing style is the formal term for doing vocal runs. Includes mention of Carey as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

96: Where is "one of the best artists"?

The article is about Ashanti. Kyla is referring to her as one of the best artists in R&B. She is quoted saying "Her music and style is unique. One of the best artists ever!" Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

97: OK.

Here we go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the spot-checks Jo-Jo Eumerus. Have provided my responses per above. Let me know if they address your queries or if anything requires revisions or clarifications. Appreciate your time doing this. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes the spot-check, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you again for doing this Jo-Jo Eumerus. Courtesy ping to Heartfox as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes, with usual caveats about my unfamiliarity with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus, appreciate all your work and contributions during the review process. Also pinging Gog, following Jo-Jo's response as an update on the nomination's status :) Pseud 14 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [38].

Air Board (Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about controlling body of the Royal Australian Air Force from 1921 to 1976. There's a wealth of data regarding the agency, although no single detailed history that I'm aware of (it scores a brief entry in the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History). For that reason I asked the Office of Air Force History for feedback on the organisation and depth of the article, their brief response being that it seemed to capture the subject "quite comprehensively". I've also put it through MilHist A-Class Review and, just recently, PR. Given the Air Board's responsibilities, a highly detailed history would amount to a de facto history of the service for that period, so I've tried to restrict the information to origins, purpose, changes in composition, major or representative decisions, and dissolution, as well as highlighting those times (inevitably during international conflict) when the board did not exercise complete control of its assets. The subject might sound a little dry but if you like your military history spiced with professional rivalries and inter-departmental intrigue, you should find enough to keep you interested... ;-) Thanks to Nick-D, SchroCat, JennyOz and Hawkeye7 for comments at the ACR and/or PR, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

"senior Army figures, Sir Harry Chauvel and Sir Brudenell White" -> "Generals Sir Harry Chauvel and Sir Brudenell White
- Will do.
Mention the airbase construction squadrons?
- To keep the article focussed I've only included stuff where the sources specifically mention the board (even though it made all major decisions). So if I find this is the case with the airfield construction sqns, we might do it.
  See Always First: The RAAF Airfield Construction Squadrons 1942-1974, p. 4, for the board's role, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Helicopters: That was another low point in WWII Army-RAAF cooperation. General Blamey asked for 25 helicopters in August 1943 but when the Army requested funding for them the Air Board protested that they were responsible for the acquisition of aircraft, even if they were operated by the Army. After a year, the RAAF cut the request to six Sikorsky R-5 helicopters in June 1944. It had to go through General MacArthur since they had to be purchased under Lend-Lease, and he approved it at once. The helicopters were not delivered before the war ended and the order was cancelled in October 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me look into that further -- did you have a particular source?
  See Australian Army logistics 1943-1945, p. 318. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Berlin Airlift be mentioned in Cold War commitments?
- I've re-checked Stephens, Eather, and Coulthard-Clark's Operation Pelican and from them you'd think the Air Board had nothing to say re. the airlift. Given we're talking about control of assets I've added a sentence about the RAAF sending just crews that flew British planes under an RAF group. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Stephens, p. 201, but it says RAAF HQ. What you added is all I was suggesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the Gloster Meteors but could you say a bit more about the move to jet aircraft?
- Again not much specifically mentioning the board re. jets in general but George Jones' bio does relate initial disagreements between the board and Tommy White re. the Sabre, which I've decided fits under Cold War Commitments since the RAAF wanted Sabres then but got Meteors... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The Korean War history goes into this controversy in detail. Bottom line was that Sabres were not available and Meteors were. (Something of a recurring theme in the RAAF, and one going on still.) Not worth it I think. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, we skip from the S-51 order on 1946 to the Hueys in Vietnam. Perhaps mention the School of Land/Air Warfare?
- Ditto airfield construction sqns.
  See From the Past to the Future: The Australian Experience of Land/Air Operations, pp. 147-148 (p. 68 in the pdf)
  Yes I used that source re. the Hueys in 'nam but the School of Land/Air Warfare references don't seem to connect with the board, unless I missed it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  In 1950 the RAAF accepted responsibility for acquiring and maintaining light aircraft for army Air Observation Post (AOP) duties, and established No 16 Air Operations Flight at RAAF Station Canberra, equipped with six Austers. The flight was fully supported by the Air Force, with RAAF executives and maintenance facilities, but the line pilots eventually were to come from the Army. The flight's two basic tasks were AOP cooperation and Army pilot training. However, forming the unit was one thing, doing the job properly another. According to the Army, No 16 Flight rarely met its commitments. Requests for AOP missions were only occasionally satisfied, the flight was 'hard pressed' to train the four pilots the Army needed annually, and its aircraft were obsolete. Air Force leaders seemed to treat those legitimate grievances with indifference. Following a review by the air staff in 1958 which confirmed the Auster's obsolescence and validated Army's stated peacetime requirement for 18 AOP aircraft, the Air Board refused to fund more than eight replacement Cessna 180s, even though the total cost for each aircraft, including spares, freight and handling, was a relatively trifling £13,750.13 Requests from the Army to supplement the Cessnas with helicopters were simply ignored.
  
  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, okay, we were talking about the School of Land/Air Warfare but if it's about the Army observation aircraft, that's fine -- did you have a particular place in the article you felt this would fit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention that the transfer of helicopters to the Army occurred in 1986.
- Will do.
Is there a reason why "branch" is capitalised in the last sentence?
- Just per the quote.
  I thought that might be the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:012247Hewitt1942.jpg: as per the given tag this is missing detail on first publication as well as a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Nikki, this image was a late addition and I should've updated the tag to Crown Copyright per the others, will do. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

All sources are high quality
fn 2: Suggest moving to the References. "Air Board of Administration" is on p. 18 (I have the first edition of the book.)
- Well I did use the online version so prefer to keep to what I can access.
fn 14: "Military Board" is on pp. 394-395
fn 15: "Naval Board" is on p. 417
fn 28 etc: Gillison, Odgers, Herington are formatted differently to the other books
- You mean because I'm archiving the chapter links?
fn 74: "WAAAF" is on pp. 677-678
What order are books in when you have two by the same author?
- Sorting using fields from left to right, i.e. author, year -- meaning I got the two Odgers wrong, will fix, tks.
Spot checks: 7, 44, 54, 139 - okay
- fn 75: Should be p. 99. Not seeing the bit about "opposition from within the RAAF"
  - Tks for spotting, corrected with add'l ref.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

You use a serial comma in the lead for "personnel, supply, engineering, and finance", but then not for "operations, training, maintenance and acquisitions" in the Organisation section (followed by the use in and non-use throughout. I don't know which is the preferred or dominant one, but probably best to make these consistent throughout
- Yeah, serial throughout, tks for picking up.

Organisation and responsibilities

"responsibilities did allow him to exert" - > "responsibilities allowed him to exert"?
- Okay.

Done to the start of Operations in the South West Pacific – more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Schro, look fwd to the rest... Cheers, 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope - that's the lot. It was a strong article at PR, so no more needed from me. This is a support on prose - not being any form of expert in the area, I have no idea on coverage etc, so will leave that to others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Placeholder. Hi Ian, have been watching changes since PR. Will pop back soon. JennyOz (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I had another read through and I only have a few very minor comments...

image caption: RAAF UH-1 Iroquois in Vietnam... - full sentence? Full stop? I can't decide.
image caption: Russell Offices, Canberra (pictured in 2006), home... - needs a geocomma after Canberra
- Yeah, the first is not really a grammatical sentence with the establishing "RAAF UH-1 Iroquois in Vietnam;" so I thought perhaps no full stop was appropriate, and the second looks odd to me as "Russell Offices, Canberra, (pictured in 2006) home..." but maybe it is correct. Nikki, could we bother you for adjudication on these...?
Odgers, George - move authorlink up to first work?
- Of course.
the same powers of command and disciple over male as well as female - is that 'discipline' or jargon?
- No, just momentary brain-death on my part... ;-)

That's all I can find to ask about! JennyOz (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny, glad to see I haven't introduced too many errors since your very helpful input at PR...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with all thanks Ian. (I don't think your ping to Nikki would have worked because of gap between it and your signature but I am not concerned about the two captions.)

With nothing else to nitpick I am signing off on this fine asset! JennyOz (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Jenny! Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [39].

Mother (Meghan Trainor song)[edit]

Nominator(s): N Ø 05:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know: ...the fact that Meghan Trainor is literally mother right now?

I was confused about what to work on next, and decided to turn my eyes to this one since Trainor just gave birth to her second child. To make something even campier after the success of "Made You Look", Trainor enlisted the help of not just Chris Olsen but also Kris Jenner. The song was well received on TikTok but did not do very well outside of it. However, the music video is a must-watch! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 05:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

File:Meghan Trainor - Mother.png - has appropriate WP:FUR for its inclusion
File:Gian Stone.jpg OK. AGF as own work of uploader. Use seem fine in the article as its co-writer
File:Kris Jenner in Badgley Mischka.jpg OK and use seem fine under music video section.

That should complete image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the media review! These are always really appreciated.--N Ø 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check (pass), and comments (voorts)[edit]

~~Forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

I did some light copy editing. Based on my review, this passes criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, and 4.

Thanks for this. The changes made all look acceptable to me.

Source review

All sources are reliable.
Citation style is consistent.
Cites to Youtube should use {{Cite AV media}}.
I'm not sure if ISSNs are required, but from my review of other FAC nominations, it seems like something other source reviewers ask for for print publications.

It's 19658803092 for your reference. From my experience, these are not mentioned in most recently promoted FAs.

When Billboard is cited as a chart, I think it should be {{Cite web}} with Billboard as the publisher, instead of {{Cite magazine}}, with Billboard as the publication. That would make it consistent with the cites to the other charts.

It's generally accepted that all instances of Billboard anywhere should be italicized, and this is automatically generated by the singlechart templates as well.

Ref name "Jezebel" should cite to Jezebel itself instead of Yahoo! Entertainment.

Good catch!

Spot check (this diff)

Ref 1 is good
Ref 13 (first use) is good
Refs 16 and 17 are good
Ref 22 is good
Ref 26 is good
Ref 29 is good
Ref 31 (first use) is good
Ref 35 is good
Ref 49 (first use) is good
Ref 31 (third use) is good

One other comment: Trainor recorded 60 different vocals for the chorus of "Mother", and her brother Justin made a sub-bass for it, after which Ryan said "I hear it now" and could not prevent himself from singing the song repeatedly. Citation needed.

This occurs around 33:10 in the Gian Stone episode linked after the succeeding sentence. Since the timestamps are close enough, I haven't referenced it separately to avoid citation overkill.

Great work! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the source review out of the way early in my nomination, voorts! I've made the changes with some explanations above.--N Ø 06:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for FAC now that these issues are addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

The Pat Ballard writing credit (i.e. being from the interpolation) should be more clearly explained in the lead and the article. Right now, it is not discussed in the prose at all and only pops up in the infobox, credits, and as a category.

I accomodated this into a note if that's okay. I felt odd incorporating Ballard's credit into the "Trainor wrote 'Mother' with ..." phrasing used in the prose since he died in 1960...

Agreed. Just to be clear, I was not recommending that Ballard be added in the "Trainor with "Mother" with ..." kind of way, but rather in the "Mother" uses an interpolation of "Mr. Sandman" which means Ballard got a writing credit kind of way. The note looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial to link interpolation. I know it runs the risk of having a sea of blue, but I would consider this more of an example of music jargon that may not be immediately understood by some readers, especially when compared to things like sampling.
I have a question about this part (in which Trainor addresses men who said her pregnancy would end her career). It reads like Trainor explicitly sings about this in the song, but I do not see that in the lyrics, unless I am just being dumb and overlooking the obvious. According to the article, this seems more like what influenced the making of the song, and I think that should be more clearly defined here as again, it could be read as a part of the song, not just one of the influences.
Would it be worth noting in the lead that "Mother" did not have the same success as "Made You Look"? I appreciate how it is discussed in the "Reception" section, and it made me wonder if it is worth briefly including in the lead as well. Feel free to disagree of course as I am honestly asking for your opinion.

Hmm, I don't think so. Mainly because of how limited discussion about this is in secondary sources.

Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the Cult Gaia branding is notable enough for the lead.
I think for this part (a few critics described it as glamorous), there are enough critics/citations to support this just being "critics" rather than "a few critics".
For this sentence (The song was influenced by "silly men" that told her "that having a baby would end [her] career.") I would directly attribute that these quotes are something Trainor said just to avoid any potential confusion.
I have a comment about this part (The snippet garnered some criticism from online critics). I would remove the "some" part unless the citations explicitly say that this criticism was only from a handful of critics. I only bring this up as I could see this word choice as being interpreted as minimizing this criticism.
I would fully spell out extended play and link it for readers who are not as familiar with this kind of music jargon. I believe this is the only time the acronym EP is used (unless I am overlooking anything) so I do not think it is necessary to use it here.
I would also link programmed as that is another instance of music jargon that could confuse some readers. I would also link engineering for this same reason.
This is 100% a clarification question, but do we know anything about the guy who speaks at the start of the song? I am just curious if this was brought up anywhere, like in an interview, etc.

I've heard rumors this was taken from a tiktok made by a random person. Unfortunately, there is no discussion about this in high-quality sources.

That is what I thought, but thank you for explaining this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this quote ("catchy ear-worm tune") count more as a position review than a more objective discussion of the song? I am just not sure if it is in the right section.
Would it be worth linking God complex? I know it is pretty basic, but I wanted to ask you anyway as I did think of it when reading the article.
The lead says that the musical composition received praise, and while I could see this being discussed in the "Reception" section, would it be possible to further highlight this with a topic sentence?

Hopefully I understood this right and the sentence I have now included addresses this.

Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since African-American Vernacular English is spelled out in the lead, I would do the same in the article for consistency's sake.
Link Instagram in the "Music video" section.

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my above comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to just make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Aoba47! A few silly oversights on my part, and I am glad you were able to catch them. I've also now incorporated an audio sample, hopefully that looks alright!--N Ø 09:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I would notify the editor who conducted the media review that you have added the audio sample so they can update their review with that in mind. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Watch[edit]

Forthcoming sometime this weekend or earlier. The Night Watch (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excited about it, The Night Watch!--N Ø 14:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is very well done and a pleasure to read! Just a few minor nitpicks:

I think that there should be a "the" before engineering.
The transition for Reception "others were less positive" is a bit strange. Most of the critics aren't less positive about the composition and lyrics. You could replace the above sentence with the review from Exclaim criticizing the composition, (Something like "On the other hand, Exclaim criticized…" and then transition into something centered on them criticizing mother: "Some reviewers criticized Trainor for calling herself mother, usually an African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) slang term."
I think you do not need to wikilink to all caps in the music video section. I believe that most people will be familiar with the term.
"serv[ed] ultimate Hollywood glam". You could also choose a different word and keep it out of the parentheses, such as 'created "ultimate Hollywood glam"' The Night Watch (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Night Watch! I believe I have addressed your comments. I don't think they were nitpicky at all, and they have helped improve the article quite a bit!--N Ø 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on this one. Happy to support! The Night Watch (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris[edit]

Drive-by comment: "A pop song with doo-wop influences, it interpolates the Chordettes's single" should be "A pop song with doo-wop influences, it interpolates the Chordettes' single". You don't use apostrophe + s after a plural noun.

I have addressed this comment in the meantime. Thanks a lot for taking up this review!--N Ø 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full review to follow..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"On March 1, 2023, Trainor shared a clip dancing to "Mother"" => "On March 1, 2023, Trainor shared a clip of herself dancing to "Mother""
"In the song, Trainor proclaims she is the subject's mother" => "In the song, Trainor proclaims that she is the subject's mother"
"It became Trainor's eighth single to reach the top 40 in the United Kingdom, debuting at number 42 on the UK Singles Chart dated March 23, 2023, and peaked at number 22 in its fourth week" => "It became Trainor's eighth single to reach the top 40 in the United Kingdom, debuting at number 42 on the UK Singles Chart dated March 23, 2023, and peaking at number 22 in its fourth week"
That's it I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All addressed, hopefully!--N Ø 12:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I wanted to check in about the status of this nomination since the last review was 12 days ago and everything seems to have been in order since then. I stopped trying to get more reviews since there was a great amount of unanimous support already. Apologies if I am disturbing you at a busy time and hope you are all having a great day.--N Ø 10:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries MaranoFan, always feel free to ask. I looked at this one yesterday and noted the four supports and source and image reviews. As it was just on the three-week mark I decided to leave it for another two or three days to see if anyone else wished to comment. However, if you have a second potential FAC nomination waiting to go, consider this as permission to run it. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Gog. Excited!--N Ø 09:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the random ping, buidhe, but perhaps you’d care to weigh in on whether consensus for promotion exists. I believe this one has reached the mark. I am about to *ahem* join the other coords on a certain leaderboard with this being promoted and your help seems to be needed to get things moving here.—N Ø 20:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? As far as I can tell none of the coords are recused from this FAC. (t · c) buidhe 00:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't but GTM has looked at it several times (and also copyedited the blurb I added to the talk page yesterday) and does not seem to think this is ready for promotion(?) If another review is needed, I'll probably have to specially request someone. What are your thoughts?--N Ø 04:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild you're active right now, and assuming this is when you noted the four supports and source and image reviews, I wanted to remind you that this has now been left open for three days since. Regards.--N Ø 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such enthusiasm.

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2023 [40].

Annie Dove Denmark[edit]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third FAC on a college president, though this time I'm moving away from Centre College to South Carolina's Anderson University and its fifth president, Annie Dove Denmark. The first woman to be president of a South Carolina college or university (except actually not; click the link to learn more!), she transformed Anderson from a four-year women's college to a two-year co-ed junior college and worked to bring the school's large sum of debt (over a million dollars in today's money) down to zero in around eight years. She created Anderson's "Founders Day" to mark the date of her inauguration, and the school still celebrates the holiday to this day. She resigned in 1953 and her 25-year presidency still stands as the longest in Anderson's history.

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

Thanks for bringing this article about a woman to FAC! It reads pretty good, I have some minor prose comments:

"noted as a "gifted student"" - by whom?
- This was a direct quote from Hester (1969), so that is clarified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"now Meredith College," - seems to me you could chop that clause, making the sentence easier to parse since in the next paragraph you have "which changed its name to Meredith College the year after she graduated"
- or indeed use the "—now Campbell University—" format you use in the next section
  - I took your first suggestion, I've removed that since the second reference to Meredith was so close. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"received a net monthly salary of $36 (equivalent to $1,173 in 2022) in this position, being paid a total of $45 (equivalent to $1,466 in 2022) monthly and spending $9 (equivalent to $293 in 2022) on board" - bit of a nitpick this one but I'd suggest using the "r=" parameter to round up $1,173 and $1,466
- and same for later figures
  - Done, I tried to match the specificity of the source value with how closely I rounded the inflation equivalent - if you see anything that you'd recommend adjusting further let me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is pretty subjective so I'll leave it to see what others think - and it wouldn't affect my support in any case Mujinga (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After her return to New York, she moved to Murfreesboro, Tennessee" - "She then moved to Murfreesboro, Tennessee" ?
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Clemson president" - "Clemson University president"?
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"As the school entered the 1930s and the onset of the Great Depression" - can you enter an onset?
- Ha, a good point, removed that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"largely a result of the G.I. Bill," - "and largely a result of the G.I. Bill," ?
- Actually, I think I missed a word after that, since the GI Bill was responsible for the uptick in veteran enrollment. Changed to "...the G.I. Bill, and the school enrolled a record..." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1944, she worked with other school administration worked to implement an honor code for the college under which students would be tried by their classmates" 2xworked
- Good catch, removed. I also took out "other" as I found that word to be unnecessary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on April 23, 1952, Denmark announced her resignation [...] surprised by this request and did not accept her resignation until the conclusion of the meeting, when she insisted that they do so" - I think you could say a bit a more (based on her letter of resignation) about why she decided to leave at that point - it seems to be factors like lack of debt and good future prospects
- Added in the paragraph below the block quote - I also found a typo in the quote itself so that's been fixed too. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"elected her president emeritus for life" - is "for life" redundant here?
- I took a look at emeritus and I think you're right so I've removed "for life". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"left no immediate family following her death." - "following her death" seems redundant?
- Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: Thanks very much for taking the time to leave comments - I have addressed everything above! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, happy to support on prose Mujinga (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

Some of the copy edits are quasi-stylistic, so feel free to disregard

For the sake of readability, I might break off "A talented musician in her youth..." as a second lead paragraph. And then use Denmark instead of "she" or "her" as appropriate.
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For concision's sake: "as the instructor of piano" --> "as the piano instructor".
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"with the Board" -- Should "board" be capitalized?
- I'm not quite sure, and I've gone back and forth in several articles as to whether to capitalize it or not, but I think it should be lowercase when "board" is on its own so I've changed that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endowment is linked twice
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and it was brought before" -- a comma is needed before 'and' as it is followed by an independent clause
- Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as it admitted its first male students in 1931" --> "admitting its first male students in 1931" for concision
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"which was put to use in modernizing some of the campus's buildings" --> "which was used to modernize some of the campus's buildings"
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"such as the possession of alcohol" --> "such as alcohol possession"
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2023, Her 25-year presidency"
- Changed "her" to lowercase. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 19:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 Thank you very much for the review - I have taken care of all of your comments! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT from SusunW[edit]

Interesting article on an interesting subject. Thank you for your work on her. Most of my comments have to do with grammar use. Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again as I am extremely busy and may not respond timely otherwise. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to list both parents surname as Denmark. The use of née clearly indicates they had the same surname and it's redundant to list it 3 times in the same sentence.
- I tried to make this sound better and settled on switching the order of the mother and father and taking Denmark off of the mother's name. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thanks.

"Deacon in the town"... I think this implies that this is a civic office, but according to the source, p 58 he was a founder of Second Baptist Church, superintendent of the church's Sunday School and a deacon. I think it makes more sense to end the sentence at alderman and make a new sentence describing his church work.
- I added the sentence break a little earlier and made "In addition" the beginning of a new sentence with church info. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good

Willis and Emma? Was she known as Emma (and if so it should be Emma throughout) or should this be Sara throughout?
- Oops, good catch. Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She was raised" implies this refers to Clarissa or Sara as those are the subjects of the previous sentence, but I think you are speaking of Annie?
- Clarified with Annie's name. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does one have ties to one's schooling? I think this rather long sentence should separate church and school ending at church. Then insert "She" before was recalled as a “gifted student” in music… (noted should be avoided per MOS) by the Anderson historian Hubert Hester.
- I have trimmed this sentence down by taking out the "ties to her schooling" bit, though I'd prefer to keep the sentence together as it currently is, since her playing organ at her church (and her talent in music) is related to her having ties to church. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better and prose is tighter.

What is Anderson? A place, i.e. Anderson, South Carolina or the school, Anderson University (South Carolina). As this is the first mention of it, it should be linked here and not elsewhere.
- The college, expanded name and linked. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
link Baptist University for Women
- Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the year after she graduated" has not introduced a noun in the new ¶ to be replaced by the pronoun she and capitalization is wrong, i.e. “graduated,[9] She”. Suggest you replace 1st she by Denmark and make 2nd she lower case.
- Fixed both. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your answer to the Anderson question above, if Anderson was the town, you need to use Anderson University after dean of music and link it if it is the first use.
- This one also refers to the school, so I haven't added the link here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She gave her graduating piano recital", appears to indicate Cronkhite, but I think you mean Denmark.
- You're correct, fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She received a net" follows discussion of Bessie Campbell, so you need to clarify this is Denmark. I am a bit confused by the sentence overall. Are you saying that she was paid $45 per month, which was reduced by $9 for her board, thus netting $36 monthly?
- Changed pronoun to "Denmark", and yes that is the correct interpretation. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it says Denmark received?

Tennessee College for Women appears to be a notable school per our guidelines and should probably be redlinked.
- Added link. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DOCTOR, the various titles of Dr. should be removed.
- Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Euphemia McClintock appears to be notable per our guidelines and should probably be redlinked.
- Added link. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She was formally inaugurated" follows a sentence about McClintock, thus you need to specify that you are speaking of Denmark.
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She inherited" follows a sentence talking about Gladys Johnston and should clarify it is about Denmark.
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"pledging a gift" isn't clear who is pledging. Per the source, she made the pledge, so clarify "pledging her own gift".
- I think it's fairly clear that she was the one pledging the gift; the sentence said that she spoke at the board meeting, concluded the speech with the given quote, and then pledged the money. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem unless other editors weigh in.

"—one that was" follows afternoon, but should instead follow tornado. Perhaps "canceled after the city of Anderson was struck that afternoon by an F2 tornado—"
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine.

"On her final day as president" has not introduced a noun in the new ¶ to be replaced by the pronoun her, use Denmark’s.
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Furman University conferred upon her" has not introduced a noun in the new ¶ to be replaced by the pronoun her, use Denmark.
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Thank you for the review - I have taken care of most of your comments as recommended and there are a couple more responses above! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look fine with the one exception noted above, where talking about Denmark's pay. I am happy to support on prose, pending that one item. Good luck with the nomination! SusunW (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW Oops, I marked that as done without actually changing it. That's been fixed now. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It happens, we're human. Happy to support. SusunW (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Image use, ALT text and licencing seem OK to me. Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. Why does the first book not mention the author(s)? Some other sources like #53 might warrant bylines. I notice that a lot of the sources are old and/or affiliated with the Anderson College. #59 what kind of source is this? #61 worries me a little when it says on Historical Marker Database it's "crowdsourced". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for giving this a look! I'm honestly not sure why I left the author off of the first book citation, but I've added that and amended the sfn template which references it to add the author's name. I can definitely add a byline to FN 53, but all that's given (as far as I can tell) in the newspaper is "From Staff, Wire Reports". FN 59 is a letter written by ~~Denmark's successor~~the president that came two after Denmark, sent to her - all I sourced from this was the fact that she got a certificate of service at that year's commencement, which is the subject of the letter. I found existing citations to replace FN 61, so that's been removed altogether.

You're right in that some of the references are old and affiliated with Anderson. I used Anderson's library's website, which has quite a good repository of information and sources about Denmark, for some information, and the most-used book source, Hester 1969, proved to be an invaluable resource as it is the most complete source of information on Anderson's history as a college that I could find, and in my experience such a book being published by the college itself is not unusual (in both of my FAs, which are also about college presidents, this is the case) nor unreliable. As for "old" sources, I tried to use contemporary newspaper sources as best I could and I suppose the book having been published 54 years ago doesn't help a ton with that argument. Happy to answer any other questions you have! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. With the caveat that I don't know much about the topic, though, and that I didn't do a spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update; since Gog the Mild asked for a text-source integrity spot-check, I'll do one as well on this version:

3: Part of the information is on page 58, not 57.
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6: Can't access this source.
- Removed this source as upon looking back at it again, it says she began playing piano at Sunday school at age 9, not organ in church. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12: I presume nobody objects to treating a list of dignitaries from various SE US establishments as proof of "well-attended by leaders in higher education throughout the southeast"
20: Can't access this source.
- The quote being cited is this: "When three men, to whom the trustees turned, declined the position, the trustees urged Miss Denmark to serve as acting president to succeed R.H. Holliday, a member of the faculty, who served for a period of three months." His position is supported by this quote on page 68: "After [John E. White's] resignation as president of Anderson College, R.H. Holliday, business manager, was made acting president." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21: Where does it say it was unanimous?
- The quote that I gathered that from is this: "In this letter, Mr. Vandiver says: 'In accordance with our phone conversation on December 24th, I have seen the members of the board of trustees of Anderson College, who were present at the meeting on December 15, [1927], and each of them favors making Miss Denmark president with full authority, and not as acting president as was first suggested.'" (emphasis is present in source). Let me know if you have issue with this quote being used to support "unanimous" and I'll take it out. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works. I must have glanced over this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
22: Where does it say she was the fifth?
- Added citation to Copeland (2011) p.13: "During its first one hundred years, Anderson University has had twelve presidents. The fifth of those presidents, Dr. Annie Dove Denmark, has the distinction of having served for a quarter of a century..." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
26: OK.
30: Is there a source for the inflation calculation?
- These calculations are done automatically by {{Inflation}} and the source is available on the doc page for that template (FN 46 deals with USD); looks like the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is responsible for that webpage. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
31: That doesn't mention the financial situation?
- Expanded the page range to include all of the discussion including money (mostly on p.74). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
32: OK.
37: Is there a source for the inflation calculation?
- See note on FN 30 above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
39: This source says no casualties, and I can't access much of it.
- I also cannot access more than the blurb given when the link is first clicked, but I sourced the death to FN 38, Grazulis (1990) p.260, which states "An elderly farmer was killed in a home on the west edge of Anderson." Also - the information listed for the tornado in that source gives "1k, 30inj" - 1 killed, 30 injuries. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that should be footnoted - "sources disagree on whether there were casualties" - or the discussion of casualties just removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Realized that it really is not important as far as this specific article goes, so I've just gone with "resulting in thirty injuries in addition to the loss of two mills..." and removed the (possible) death altogether. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
42: OK.
46: Can't access this source.
- The quote in question: "Anderson College did not admit any debate about a student known to be under the influence of alcohol or having alcoholic drinks in her possession while under the jurisdiction of the college. Such a student was subject to expulsion." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
48: OK.
54: OK.
56: OK.
63: I am a bit iffy using a source in future tense to source a past tense text. Also, you can probably cut the first citation - don't need two consecutive citation tags to the same source.
- Removed first source as recommended and added a Dec 2010 source that mentions showings at AU. Removed mention of "three showings" since past-tense source doesn't support that, but that info isn't critical anyway. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
64: Probably merits a pagenumber or somesuch.
- This already had a page number but it was incorrect so I've fixed it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
67
- No comment here but I'm guessing you were going to say you can't access this since it's the Copeland source so I'll provide the quote just in case: "Significantly her long tenure of service at Anderson College resulted in her receiving many letters with the salutation 'Dear Dr. Anderson.'" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: everything not marked "OK" has either been fixed or responded to above. Thanks for going through and taking another look! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, but standard caveat about me not knowing the topic applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF concerns[edit]

@PCN02WPS:, I like to do spotchecks on articles where the source review didn't occur before I promote.

"Though little is known about the exact events that led to Denmark's election, it is known that her name was put forward for consideration by college trustee J. Dexter Brown[20] and that the Board of Trustees were in unanimous support of her appointment to the presidency when asked at their meeting on December 15, 1927.[18]" - as a more minor point, the location of ref [20] is misleading - it is being used solely to support that Brown was a trustee. How it's used makes it appear that everything prior to that point is cited to it - I recommend just making it Hester 1969, pp. 64, 166 at the end to make it clearer where everything is coming from. The information in the source actually spills over onto p. 65, so that should be added to the range as well
- Done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She is commonly cited as the first woman college president in South Carolina" - I don't think the sources here really support "commonly cited", especially since one is a book by her university and the other is derived from a press release written by her university. Could just be a puffery claim. As to McClintock, I was also able to turn up a 1908 SC gov't publication referring to McClintock at the only female college professor in SC at the time so the Anderson claim does indeed appear to be wrong
- "commonly cited" was my interpretation of the sources, though you're probably spot on that it's just puffery - it really is interesting, though; it seems to be the go-to fact about her and it was only pointed out to me as incorrect during the article's DYK nom. I have changed "commonly cited" to "sometimes referred to", though I'm happy to change this more if you think that'd be appropriate; my main priority is making sure we acknowledge this fact (and that it's wrong) somehow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Much of the administration's attention ..." should be pp. 91-92, not just p. 92 as the critical bit about the attention is found on p. 91 in the source
- Done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" in addition to the loss of two mills in town and damage to some buildings on Anderson's campus." - not seeing where on p. 94 in Hester is the stuff about the mills
- Found that in the article about the outbreak; checked sources and verified the info about the mills (here if you want to check, bottom of p.260), so that reference has been added. I have also taken out the bit about damage to Anderson's campus; Hester doesn't say that explicitly (only that it "struck the college") and Grazulis doesn't say the college was damaged (though he does say three college students were injured, but I am hesitant to include that as he doesn't mention Anderson by name and I don't want to assume for OR purposes). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time today to go all the way through this, but this does need some more work on polishing up the sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm I appreciate your comments - I have responded to them all above and will go back through to take a closer look at my citations tonight and tomorrow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting these. I'll be traveling for work next week and may not have regular internet access, so I don't think I'll be able to do much more spot-checking here, although as a coord I would like to see additional spot-checking before promoting. Hog Farm _Talk 18:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note to @Hog Farm and any potential spot-checkers: I have decided to go through and check every citation myself, to take responsibility and save people some time. I’m just finishing up with “Early life” - I’ll leave a note here when that process is finished. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See spot-check above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog arm, any further comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Hog Farm since I'm guessing the one above didn't go through (though if you need a name for an alternate public access account or some such, might I suggest Hog arm?) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have time to go all the way through again, Gog the Mild, so since JJE is doing a spot-check I'm okay with relying on the results of that. Hog Farm _Talk 23:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [41].

Daisy Bacon[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Daisy Bacon, the editor of Love Story Magazine for most of that magazine's life. (This is new territory for me, as I've never before nominated a biography of anyone born in the last 1,000 years.) Love Story was the most successful pulp of them all, reaching perhaps 600,000 readers, more than any of the western, detective, horror, or science fiction magazines. I found out about Bacon when researching Doc Savage and The Shadow, since she edited them for a few issues right at the end of their run. The article has had a peer review, with very helpful comments from Aoba47, SusunW, Caeciliusinhorto, and Mujinga. I hesitated about nominating this, as it depends very heavily on one source, a book-length biography of Bacon by Laurie Powers. However, there are many newspaper articles about Bacon, so there's no question she's notable, and I've chosen to use Powers rather than the newspaper articles in almost every case since Powers points out innumerable errors in the newspaper coverage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. All of my comments have already been addressed in the peer review process. I have read through the article a few more times, and I could not find anything else to add. Great work and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusunW[edit]

Mostly said everything I needed to at the PR. Having read through it again, only have minor notes:

"as Ford could not climb the stairs" should be followed by a comma
"scholarship fund for journalism students" should probably specify that it isn't for any journalism student, but only those who are attending Port Washington High School.
ISBNs should be consistently formatted as 13- or 10-digits and properly segmented.
MOS indicates "definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions". That said, "Port Washington's Very Own Queen Of The Pulps" is what the article is titled, but probably "of the" shouldn't be capitalized.

Nothing major, just a few tweaks. As for based mostly on one source, as we discussed, plenty of sources to confirm significant coverage, but Powers is the most authoritative. Good luck on the FAC. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for changing one of the 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit -- I think I read somewhere that that's OK to do if both are given, but one shouldn't make the change if the book is too old to have a 13-digit ISBN as then it can't be used by a reader with a physical copy of the book to verify they have the right one. Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not going to quibble over that (my own view is we should use what the version we have says, but I've been dinged for that before.) Happy to support. Good luck, Mike. SusunW (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:DaisyBacon1941.png is missing a full fair-use rationale, and should use {{non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tagging
I started doing this but decided that a crop of the free image already in the article would do, so I've done that instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Daisy_Bacon_in_bed.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1942 in Parade Weekly. I've updated the file details. The renewal would have happened around 1970; I checked the periodical renewal registrations under "Parade" and found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

Thank you for bringing a bit of pulp fiction here at FAC. Very little to report, just a few nitpicky items:

a major pulp magazine publisher --> why is this a link? pulp fiction was linked and goes to the same artile
Unlinked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
she was fired --> sounds more like a case of made redundant
Yes -- I originally had "let go", but it was suggested at the PR that this was a bit of a euphemism. I've changed it back -- I think there's enough of a distinction in meaning that this is not a euphemism. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lodged with the Bacons for a while in 1930 --> not sure I'm following, who are the Bacons at this point?
My mistake -- Jesse was a Ford by this time, and Esther had never been a Bacon. Glad you caught this. Changed to "lodged with Bacon and her mother and half-sister". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was in bedsheet format, with slightly more risqué plots: nudity was occasionally mentioned, and Powers comments on the language used: "More .. --> this is not the most elegant sentence, with two colons and a dubious "and" before Powers
Made the first colon a full stop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this I agree with you re the dubious "and" and have reworded it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"More explicit kissing scenes used word such as 'sensuous' and ... several times". --> looks like a whole sentence to me so should end in ."
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this meets all the FA requirements, so I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source formatting is consistent and the necessary information is there. Is it just me, or is the article almost entirely reliant on Powers 2019? The sources seem to be reliable and suitable for their usage. For this time, source spot-check only upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Powers is the only bio. There are lots of newspaper sources I could have used, but Powers gives the same info and also points out many errors in the newspaper coverage, so I didn't want to use newspapers where I could cite Powers. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, folks overestimate the reliability of newspapers pretty much everywhere. TBH I am always antsy when I see articles mostly or entirely sourced to newspapers, especially with contemporary politics. Beyond that, with the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck, it seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Support. Great work and I don't have any improvement suggestions. I made some script-suggested trival tweaks, but feel free to revert any of them. digest-sized is a duplicate link but may be fine per the recently-revised WP:DUPLINK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) P.S. Another script suggested adding a comma after "October 23, 1926" in the caption, but I didn't implement that one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the review and support. I did revert the change to the section heading from "Street & Smith" to "Street and Smith" -- the publisher is almost always referred to with the ampersand, so I think it should be consistent with the text. The other script change I reverted was the removal of double spaces after each sentence. This is one of those editor preference things -- if you were taught to use two spaces for sentence spacing, as I was, anything else looks odd, and since it has no effect on the displayed page I'd like to leave it as it is. To be honest I think it's something that scripts should never change, and I'd be curious to know which script did this. Anyway, thanks again for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [42].

Lou Henry Hoover[edit]

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Henry Hoover is the most interesting U.S. first lady that no one knows about. She was the first woman to major in geology at Stanford, she participated in the Battle of Tientsin during the Boxer Rebellion, she made a landmark accomplishment in metallurgy when she translated one of the field's most influential books from Latin after it was presumed lost purely due to its complexity, she was one of the leaders of the British World War I relief effort for American and Belgian refugees, she led and reformed the Girl Scouts of the USA, and she became a household name for her food conservation advocacy, and that's all before she became first lady. While in the White House, she famously invited a Black Congressman's wife to tea despite widespread backlash, she was the first of the first ladies to give radio broadcasts, and she made countless donations to families in need during the Great Depression out of her own funds without telling anyone. She advocated gender equality throughout her life, and on this issue she was one of the earliest first ladies to openly engage in advocacy, setting precedent for her iconic successor Eleanor Roosevelt. This is the second U.S. first lady article that I'm nominating to FA, and probably my favorite to have worked on to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Louhenryhoover.jpg: why is this believed to be a federal government work? It is credited to a news photography bureau
- Nikkimaria Replaced that tag with a tag about this specific creator's works being public domain Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lou_Henry_Hoover_Signature.svg: where specifically was this traced from?
- That would be a question that can only be answered by the tracer, and I doubt they remember where they traced it from in 2009. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lou.henry.on.a.burro.at.acton.CA.1891.08.22.jpg: source link is dead; if the author is unknown, how do we know they have released this work as PD?
- Fixed source link and replaced that tag with Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it known why this is believed to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nikkimaria The U.S. National Archives say that there are "no known copyright restrictions", though I understand that's not 100% the same thing. I've also added Template:PD-old-assumed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lou_Hoover_in_front_of_home_in_Tientsin,_China.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
- The source only says that it's from the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and I'm unable to find further info. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - How then do we know this is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added commons:Template:PD-old-assumed. Unless something else turns up, I don't know if a positive confirmation of PD is possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - PD-old-assumed still requires an additional US tag - without more information this one may need to be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Herbert_Hoover_and_Mrs._Hoover,_full-length_portrait,_seated_on_wicker_chairs,_facing_front_LCCN2002712178_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:GIRL_SCOUTS_PICNIC_AT_HOME_OF_MRS._HERBERT_HOOVER_LCCN2016869391_(cropped).jpg
- In both cases it's unclear, so I've removed the unverified tags, leaving their respective LoC no known restrictions tags. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lou_Hoover_signature_in_Chinese_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag
- Archived source link. Not sure what tag would be appropriate here. Would this qualify for commons:Template:PD-signature? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends where it was created - is that known? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it is, I'm not able to find it at the source link or elsewhere online. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, is anything more known about its provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:President_Hoover_portrait.jpg: if this was created in 1928, it cannot have been published before 1928 - why is it believed to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't even aware that this was in the article until you pointed it out. I've replaced the 1928 tag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria I've been unable to confirm anything else about File:Lou_Hoover_in_front_of_home_in_Tientsin,_China.jpg and File:Lou_Hoover_signature_in_Chinese_(cropped).jpg, so I've removed both of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - have these issues been satisfactorily resolved? Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass from SusunW[edit]

Great blurb. I'm hooked! Will get back with comments in the next few days. SusunW (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments related to sourcing refer to: Special:permanentlink/1163375469

ISBNs should be properly segmented and standardized to 10- or 13- digits. Mujinga says this tool will automate the process, but I haven't tried it yet.
Per MOS all titles should be in Title Case, regardless of how the article lists them. This tool is handy.
Jeansonne & Luhressen 2016, p. 350. Harv error: link from CITEREFJeansonneLuhressen2016 doesn't point to any citation. (Citation spells 2nd author as Luhrssen)
Citations seem to be missing quite a bit of the typical data for MOS Cite web.
[120] link requires registration. Mark it as requiring subscription. Moreover, it's a primary source and would be better replaced by a secondary source like possibly this.
[121] is subscription only, but you can access the link from wayback. Either mark it as requiring subscription or insert archive.org link
[122] permanently dead link, none of the wayback links are accessible. Also appears to be primary source. There are secondary sources that confirm it is named after her [43], [44]
[123] appears to be primary and uncurated. There are secondary sources available[45], [46]
National First Ladies Library link is dead. Wayback has a link which should be included for accessibility.

Spot checks:

Schneider 2010

[4] Her family was nominally Episcopalian, but they were close to the local Quaker community. Source says “Her nominally Episcopalian family did not object when she went to Quaker meetings. Perhaps it is better to rephrase? Although her family were Episcopalian, she attended Quaker services.
[26] obituary, business ethics, checks out, but I am stuck on supporting her husband's decision to reimburse his employers at personal expense. Source says "She agreed with her husband and the other officers of the company that the loss must be covered, even at the risk of their own fortunes". Sounds to me as if he was an officer, not an employee?
[37], [46], [102], [109], claims check out, but you may want to rephrase 102 as it is a bit close to the source.

Young 2004

Link available here
[3], [5], [9], [38], [43] all check out

Allen 2000

[8], [55], [59], [89] no issues
[41] As her humanitarian efforts increased, she found herself responsible for so many operations As the previous sentence is speaking of hospitals, you may need to rephrase this to projects.

Caroli 2010

[17] Only confirms the last sentence. Everything between They were married in the Henrys' home and Quaker Meeting in Monterey only appears in Schneider.
[24] Artillery shelling was a constant danger throughout the conflict doesn't appear to be in the text. Several instances of attacks are stated, but the source doesn't indicate it was constant or how long it lasted.
[57], [108] are fine

Anthony 1990
[51], [75], [76] check out
[84] The onset of he Great Depression and the resulting backlash against her husband's presidency further discouraged her from saying anything that might be seen as controversial (fix "he" to "the"), but I don't see this in the text. Instead it says about the Depression only that it "was the sort of challenge she could tackle with Bert"…and as "First Lady could rally the nation". (p 438-439)
National First Ladies Library shows no issues with plagiarism in a url comparison of the version and wayback link. Similarities primarily are names of organizations and people.
Unsure why there are sources listed in further reading. If they have usable information, that should be cited in the article. For example She also returned to the Girl Scouts to serve as its president a second time from 1935 to 1937 is cited to a primary source, but Uncommon Americans, p 23 confirms it.
Not sure why the "external links" has so many entries. If they are valid sources, they should be used in the article. Link to her papers is fine, although were it me, I would just cite it in the legacy section. Link to De Re Metallica does not need to be linked to both Gutenberg and archive.org. The rest of it does not appear to contain information not already cited, some of it is unclear if it is curated, and should probably be removed.

Overall, fascinating article. Thanks for working on her. Please ping me when you want me to look again. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW I've addressed all of your comments. In particular, I looked at the items in further reading to see what might be used there. There are still two books that are primarily about her husband, and Pryor (1969) isn't as high quality of a source because of its age and because it was written by a friend of Hoover's. One item from further reading, Mayer (1994), proved useful, and I was able to find a few tidbits in each essay. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien All changes appear to be made or information removed with the one exception of web citations. However, all web cites are consistent in the material that they do present, so I won't make a huge deal about it. Thanks for your work and good luck. SusunW (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've done a little copyediting; please revert anything you disagree with.

~~"of which she was the head": a bit awkward; perhaps "which she led"?~~
~~"The Hoovers first resided in China, during which time the Boxer Rebellion broke out": suggest giving the date here.~~
~~"they were present for the Battle of Tientsin": I think "at the battle" would be more natural, unless there's a nuance here I'm not seeing.~~
~~Suggest giving the years of their moves to London and DC in the lead.~~
"She provided humanitarian support with her husband during World War II": suggest something like "worked to provide" to make it clearer she was an organizer and fund-raiser rather than a direct volunteer in any way.
"requesting geological samples for Stanford's collection, which became one of the largest in the world": as written this implies her involvement helped it become so big. Does the source make this connection? I'm just wondering if she collected half a dozen samples or hundreds.
- The source just says that Branner "duly attributed" the collection's completeness to her, so I've changed it to more closely reflect that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"They participated in the Battle of Tientsin in 1900, where Lou worked as a nurse and managed food supplies while Herbert organized barricades": suggest "During the Battle of Tientsin in 1900 Lou worked as a nurse and managed food supplies while Herbert organized barricades".
"They often enjoyed the company of mining engineers, as members of the occupation were generally familiar with one another." I don't follow this -- the second half of the sentence seems to be a non sequitur.
"The Hoovers engaged in philanthropy during their time in London, and Lou would see to it that all of her friends and her servants had their needs addressed." Seems an odd thing to say -- her friends needed philanthropic help? Or was it more a case of generosity rather than philanthropy within her circle, and philanthropy outside it? Socially that's what I would expect.
- Not sure what I was referencing here, so I've removed the mention of her friends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She traveled regularly to the United States and back despite the danger of crossing the North Atlantic during the war to give speeches and collect donations for relief efforts." Suggest "She traveled regularly to the United States and back to give speeches and collect donations for relief efforts, despite the danger of crossing the North Atlantic during the war."
~~'She emphasized a "lead from behind" structure for Girl Scout troops in which he recommended that troop leaders "don't forget joy".' Presumably this should be "she recommended"?~~
Can you confirm Hoover's importance in the creation of the Women's Division of the NAAF (and I suggest the NAAF is worth a redlink)? I ask because p. 138 of Allen Guttmann's Women's Sports: A History, which I can see in Google Books, gives an account of the creation of the division that doesn't mention Hoover. I also found this: Theriot, Nancy. “Towards a New Sporting Ideal: The Women’s Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 1978, pp. 1–7. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3345981. That also doesn't mention Hoover. However, I did find a review of Guttmann's book saying he ignored the role of Hoover in women's sports.
- Cottrell (1996) and Beran (1994) seem confident that she had a major role in forming the Women's Division, though it's worth noting that these are sources specifically about Hoover, so naturally they're going to give focus to her contributions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"or take up skills as new first ladies often did": what does "take up skills" mean?~~
- The source gives learning a language as its example and then says that this isn't applicable to Hoover because she was already a polyglot. It doesn't really change much, but I've changed "take up skills" to "learn any new skills". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The Hoovers would reinforce the precedent": suggest "The Hoovers reinforced the precedent".~~
"inviting other non-white musicians to play at the White House, including the Tuskegee Institute": I think we need a couple more words, as the Institute is not primarily a musical organization. Perhaps " inviting non-white musicians, including some from the Tuskegee Institute, to play at the White House"?
~~"Her refurbishing included": suggest "Her refurbishments included".~~
~~"but they retired from the White House after his loss in the 1932 presidential election": seems superfluous to say they left the White House.~~
~~"She was later reinterred to her husband's grave": wouldn't "in" be more natural than "to"?~~
"Outside women's issues, she rarely expressed political ideas of her own, presenting a unified position with the stances of her husband": the last part is a bit clumsy. How about "In order to present a position in line with her husband's political beliefs, she rarely expressed political ideas of her own except on women's issues"?
"Hoover held the Roosevelts in disregard": I don't think "disregard" can be used to mean low regard. How about "Hoover held the Roosevelts in low esteem" or "low regard", or more plainly "Hoover had a low opinon of the Roosevelts"?
~~"based on what they discerned from the text": suggest "based on what they read in the text" as plainer language.~~
- I think something beyond read is necessary here, since it was a painstaking translation process. Leaving it as "discerned" for now, but I won't strongly object to changing it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"personal projects to promote the president's policy goals set an early precedent for the political role": might be worth de-alliterating this a little.~~
~~"similar to Roosevelt's own use of media": I suspect this refers to FDR, not Eleanor, but I think it should be clarified since Eleanor is the most recently mentioned Roosevelt.~~
- This actually was in reference to Eleanor, so this definitely needs to be changed. I've changed it to "her successor's use of media". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looks very good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie Thanks for the feedback! I've replied to a few points above, and I've incorporated your suggestions for all of them except the one noted above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look; will go through tomorrow again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything struck above. I expect to support, but want to read through again first, probably tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points from reading through again:

~~The lead says she was Stanford's first geology major, but the body only says she was the only geology major at the time she was there, and the first to receive a degree in geology.~~
- Mike Christie The body does say that a few sentences later, but it is confusing to have two similar facts like that in different areas. I removed a sentence from the body to fix the redundancy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe this is an AmEng thing -- the lead says she was the first female geology major: does that imply that she actually graduated, and not just that she studied as a geology major? I took it to mean the latter, and as far as I can see the body only claims the former. Or am I still missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I changed the wording in the lead so that it matches more precisely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She later transferred to San Jose Normal School (now San José State University)": I see you use the acute accent on "José" in the second instance; I would just edit the first to match, without bothering to post here, but I see that the target article itself doesn't have the accent, so I'm not sure where the error is, or even if the inconsistency is an error.
- As far as I can tell, even San José isn't sure about the spelling of San Jose. I've added the accent throughout for consistency. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and very rewarding to read -- she was a remarkable person. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, copyedited as I usually do so pls let me know any concerns there. Mike got in first with a few questions that also occurred to me, others:

She was well-liked in school, known for the science and literature clubs she organized and for her tendency to ignore gender norms -- does the source give any examples of how Lou flouted gender norms?
- I added a detail about athletics being the main focus here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After graduation, Henry took a job at her father's bank as well as working as a substitute teacher. The following year, she... -- to make it easier to calculate just what the following year is, how about After graduation in <year>...?
- Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She also organized the construction of a family home by Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, but this was seen as selfish amid her humanitarian work -- is the source more precise about who saw it as selfish, e.g. her friends, her husband, she herself on reflection...?
- Added "by the public" Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoover began her involvement with the Girl Scouts in 1917 -- Girls Scouts is mentioned twice in the preceding paragraph, which seems to involve events of 1921 so might it be better to say Hoover had began her involvement with the Girl Scouts in 1917?
- Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After leaving the White House, the Hoovers took their first true vacation in many years, driving through the Western United States -- not vital but does the source happen to mention what their vehicle was?
- It does not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose I've addressed all of your notes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, sorry for delay in responding, was away a few days and the internet service was somewhat less than anticipated. Happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

"During the Battle of Tientsin in 1900, Lou worked as a nurse". The article on the battle says that they were living in the foreign settlement there. If that is so, I think you should say so for context.
- The previous paragraph describes Tientsin as a foreign colony. Should it mention that they're still in such a community during the battle? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Her involvement with refugee assistance earned her a position on the American relief committee". A few words explaining this committee would be helpful.
- The source does not elaborate. I think it's pretty straightforward though, it's a committee that oversaw relief. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She also organized the construction of a family home by Stanford University in Palo Alto, California". I am not sure what you mean - that she planned to build a house there as the Hoovers were going to move there?
- Changed to clarify. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She found the practice of calling on her fellow cabinet wives to be a waste of time, and her refusal to do so contributed its demise." Demise of what?
- Clarified to refer to the practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"she remained active in Republican Party women's groups". You have not mentioned before that she was active unless I have missed it.
- Removed "remained". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Hoover was concerned by the actions of the Roosevelt administration". I think "disapproved of " or something similar would be clearer than "concerned by".
- Changed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"During the Teapot Dome scandal". A few words of explanation would be helpful.
- Specified that it was a response to the corruption. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" The book had previously been considered lost due to the difficulty of translating its technical language". I do not understand this. It might have been considered untranslatable, but it was not lost.
- The source says "lost", but I changed it to "unusable". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the brick dorms". dorms is slang in BrEng. Maybe "dormitories" or is "dorm" good AmerEng?
- Changed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very good article and my queries are minor. I do not like her being referred to as Hoover as it equally applies to her husband and I think it would be better to consistently refer to her as Lou. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I used to use the first name more often, but that became a point of contention during this GA. Dudley Miles I've replied to all of your notes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [47].

1927 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first edition of the World Snooker Championship, where Joe Davis won the first of his fifteen consecutive world titles. Like others, he had noticed that English billiards was on the wane and, with billiard hall manager, Bill Camkin, persuaded the Billiards Association and Control Council to institute a professional championship. It attracted some notice in the national press, usually as a footnote to articles covering Billiards. There is less coverage of the tournament in more recent sources than I expected; perhaps because most tend to focus on snooker history since the revival of the tournament in 1969 or after the move the the Crucible Theatre in 1977. As ever, many thanks for any improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Locations map: Why is the red dot representing Birmingham so big?

I think it was probably to indicate that this was the venue for the final, but I've amended it to be the same size as the others. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 38: "A History of Billiards: (the English three-ball game)". Why the upper-case B?

It looked right to me, but I am never entirely sure about case in titles and have amended it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The final took place from 9 to 12 May 1927. Joe Davis won the title by defeating Tom Dennis by 20 frames to 11 in the final." The terminal "in the final" can probably be dispensed with.

Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Professional English billiards player and billiard hall manager Joe Davis had noticed the growing popularity of snooker compared to billiards in the 1920s, and with Birmingham-based billiard hall manager Bill Camkin, who had also seen snooker's increasing appeal, persuaded the Billiards Association and Control Council (BACC) to recognise an official professional snooker championship in the 1926–27 season." A slightly long sentence?

Amended (with some unnecessary repetition removed too). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The BACC's Secretary A. Stanley Thorn". Lower-case s for secretary.

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"with a five-guineas sidestake." What does that mean?

Reworded to "with a five-guineas wager between the players for each match". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead "The two matches in the preliminary round were held at Thurston's Hall in London". Article: "The first match played was between Melbourne Inman and Tom Newman at Thurston's Hall" then straight on to "Tom Dennis and Fred Lawrence played their match on 9 and 10 December at the Lord Nelson Hotel, Carlton Street, Nottingham." What happened to the second match in London?

The matches were not played in round order. I've amended the Schedule table, to make it clearer, but would be happy to amend the text too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As with the game between Inman and Newman, as an added extra to a billiards match." This isn't a sentence. Perhaps '... it was an added ...'?

I've amended to your suggested wording. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the ten entrants were reduced to four semi-finalists.

Two of the ten were eliminated in the preliinary round, and a further four were eliminated in the quarter-finals. Hopefully this makes sense when looking at the Main draw section, but I'm happy to add to the text too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"using the "pendulum cannon" shot". Why the quote marks.

Removed. I added a link to the term in the cue sports glossary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Both sessions on the third day were shared to leave Davis 16–8 ahead. Davis had taken a winning lead by taking the 23rd frame 80–34 to lead 16–7." It may read better to reverse these sentences, so they are in chronological order.

Done, with some slight tweaks to the wording. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both entertaining and educational to read. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the improvements you identified, Gog the Mild. There may be a bit more for me to do, e.g. about how the draw produced the semi-finalists. Please let me know. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good. You definitely need something in the prose, possibly in Background, explaining how the ten were whittled down to eight. (And how was it decided which four of the ten were in the preliminary rounds?) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild. I've added a little in the background section. I could't find any indication in sources of how the players for the preliminary round were selected. (The Billiard Player article in December 1926, simply says "Ten entries have been received and approved by the Control Council for the above championship, the draw for which resulted as follows:". As Newman was the reigning professional billiards champion, one would have thought he would have been spared the preliminary round if it was not a random draw. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Schedule table, cut the links down to only at first mention, at most.

Otherwise this looks good, so supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris[edit]

"The BACC's secretary A. Stanley Thorn, rejected" => "The BACC's secretary, A. Stanley Thorn, rejected"
"The preliminary rounds were to be held" - maybe "The preliminary round matches were to be held", given that there was only one prelim round, not multiple

Amended per both points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The terms specified that half of the total entry fees would go to the finalists, with the winner receiving sixty percent" - is that sixty percent of the half.....?

Yes (presumably, though not explicitly in sources, the rest went to the BACC). I've amended the text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"However, Davis, the eventual champion, won the £6 and 10 shillings from gate receipts" - does this mean he won all the gate receipts, contrary to what the earlier sentence said? Or something else? It's not really clear to me.......

I've reworded this; the BACC used the half of the entry fees that was meant to be prize money to but the trophy. (Everton (1986), after mentioning the planned split of fees/stakes/gate receipts, has "Davis ... predictably won the tournament and pocketed £6, 10s. from the gate receipts, though the Billiards Association used the players' half of the entry fees to buy a trophy.")

"the BACC used the player's part of the fees" => "the BACC used the players' part of the fees" (unless you were referring to Davis as "the player"......?)
"An article in Athletic News said" => "An article in the Athletic News said"
"The snooker game an added extra to the main event" => "The snooker game was an added extra to the main event"
Inman image caption needs a full stop
"was held 20 to 22 April in Birmingham" => "was held from 20 to 22 April in Birmingham"

Amended per the five points above.

That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I am on holiday after tonight, I'll check back when I get back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if anything else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Not much to complain about here.

"The first match played was between Melbourne Inman and Tom Newman at Thurston's Hall, Leicester Square in London. The snooker game was an added extra to the main event, a billiards match": I don't think you need "played", and "added extra" says the same thing twice. And I didn't realize until the next sentence that the billiards match was also between Inman and Newman. How about "The first match was between Melbourne Inman and Tom Newman; it was held at Thurston's Hall, Leicester Square in London, as an extra attraction to the main event, a billiards match between them."? And "added extra" appears again below in the description of Inman's match with Carpenter.

I've used your suggested wording, and amended the other redundancy. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the main draw section gives the number of frames for each round, but I think it should be mentioned before the game play summary, since otherwise the reader has to figure out how many frames each round is from the score. There's a paragraph in the background section giving some of the terms set by the BACC; perhaps it would fit there?

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a couple of cases you mention dead frames being played. I think this should be mentioned as a modern reader may be unaware this was ever done. Were dead frames played in all rounds?

I've expanded on the comment in the Background section to mention dead frames there, but it's made think me think I need to have another look at sources. It's not very consistent to display the score for the final in the Main draw section including dead frames but not for the other rounds. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through Kobylecky's book (which is based on an exhaustive search of newspaper and magazine archives), The Billiard Player, The Times, and the British Newspaper archive, and populated as many scores as I could. (I also looked at Cuetracker's page for the tournament, as although it's not regarded as a reliable source, it can provide useful information.) For the matches where I couldn't find whether the dead frames were actually played, the nearest-to-useful info I found was in The Birmingham Daily Gazette. On 7 January 1927 it has "The last game was unnecessary" in the Cope/Mann match, but not whether it was actually played; for Dennis/Carpenter it similarly has "The last game being unnecessary" on 23 April 1927. Please let me know what you think about how I've incorporated the additional info into the "Main draw" section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mike Christie. I've responded above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I wondered about those scores after I left the comments above, and was going to mention it; I'm glad you made those changes. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, source spot-check only upon request. File:United Kingdom adm location map.svg should probably mention somewhere the licence of the data sources "United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency data" and "World Data Base II data". File:Melbourne Inman.jpg needs some cleanup of the file information, especially given Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. Why does #4 not have an author? Are The Observer and The Times a reliable source, and do they lack bylines? It's a bit unclear why some British newspapers have bylines and others don't. I am somewhat bemused at how few hits there are for "The Billiard Player. ""W. G. Clifford" on Google - is that a high-quality reliable source? Same for this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'll respond below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map licence - I'm not sue what to do here. Is there an example you could point me to please?
Several maps show licence templates for the sources they draw their information from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've done this now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Melbourne Inman.jpg needs some cleanup of the file information: I need a bit more guidance here. From comparing https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2014696772/ and the Commons page, it looks like everything is OK, but I definitely don't consider myself an expert on image icences.
Actually, it's a much more minor issue - several broken links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see any broken links, but I've manually approved the bot move, and added the player's name to "Items portrayed in this file" at Commons. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's things like hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.16618 that should be a link, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number 4 has no by-line
The Observer and The Times articles do not have by-lines. At WP:RSP, "The Times is considered generally reliable."; The Observer "is generally reliable." (with caveats about opinion pieces and politics)
The Billiard Player was established in 1920. It was known as Billiards and Snooker from October 1936 to April 1938 and from January 1961 to February 1972, when it ceased publication. In 1938 it was bought by the sport's governing body, the Billiards Association and Control Council (BACC) and from the May 1938 issue it was their official journal. Even before this, the magazine featured articles by BACC officials, and by leading players including Joe Davis and Thelma Carpenter alongside news articles. It continues to be a valuable source for snooker writing, e.g. this year's The Natural: The Story of Patsy Houlihan, the Greatest Snooker Player You Never Saw mentions or cites The Billiard Player more than 50 times and Billiards and Snooker about 20 times. IMO the magazine is one of the best sources for billiards and snooker, but obviously would need to be used with caution for commentary on the BACC itself.
Until 2009, the Global Snooker Centre site was run by Janie Watkins and IMO can be regarded as reliable for anything published up to that year (and possibly beyond). Leading snooker journalist Dave Hendon has given some endorsements via his blog,here and here, and the site was described as "the game's leading website" in Snooker Scene in August 2009.

Please let me know if anything else is needed following my responses above, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we are OK-ish, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've added links for the Melbourne Inman image now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede

most of the leading billiards players. - very minor, but perhaps "English billiards", as you and I both know there are many types of billiards. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
being held at Thurston's Hall, one at Camkin's Hall, and one each in Nottingham and Liverpool. - this reads a little weird, as it talks about halls and then cities. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended the article per both points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think 20-11 should be mentioned somewhere, as it's the official result of the final. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is.. unless I'm missing something. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I am a silly sausage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

dead frames - the cue gloss link is wrong here (the WP:PIPELINK trick doesn't work with templates). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All three links work for me; maybe someone else fixed it? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CURRENCY, there is no need to link the £ sign. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
minimal publicity." - the full stop should be after the speechmark. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BACC used the players' part of the entry fees towards purchasing the trophy -> I dunno if I'm confused, I thought Davis purchased the trophy? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everton (1986) says "the Billiards Association used the players' half of the entry fees to buy a trophy" (p.50) In Joe Davis's autobiography The Breaks Came My Way (1976), he writes, "What became of the entrance fees, which by rights should have been mine on winning the title? Well, the Billiards Association were chronically poor and they used all the money themselves - to buy the trophy!" (p.85) I know other sources differ , e.g. theWPBSA. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC) One more - the Hamlyn Encylopedia of Snooker (Revised ed, 1987) has "The trophy, now insured for more than £2,000, was the property of the Billiards and Snooker Control Council who, as the BACC, bought it for £19 in 1927." (p.161). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild. I thought he had bought it, not that "his money" was used to fund it. The item BACC used the players' part of the entry fees towards purchasing the trophy - perhaps this should mention £19, or just define what "players" were paying towards it. It's all a bit murky. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I've added a bit, and the Hamlyn Encylopedia of Snooker source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The billiards match was to 16,000 - this is a little informal, probably need to say "played to first to 16,000 points, with a 3,500 handicap head start", Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You link "frame" in summary, but use it previously in the article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now linked at first instance.

Fred Lawrence is not at the linked page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly 2/4 links were correct; all should now work. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. I've responded above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [48].

Rodrigues night heron[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been a few years since the last extinct Mascarene bird at FAC, so here's one more. Most that has ever been published about the species is summarised here, and the two known contemporary accounts are given for context and flavour. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Licensing is ok, the only issue is that the infobox sandwiches with the first image. (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually not considered a problem, though. May look worse with the new Wikipedia layout (which I've disabled because I dislike it). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"That's usually not considered a problem". By whom? A sandwich is a sandwich. It sandwiches (just) for me too, and I have also opted out of the ghastly new Vector. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has never been brought up in any of the many FACs with taxoboxes I've reviewed or nominated, so I'd say it has de facto never been a problem. I personally think it's a different case than sandwiching between two images, if you look at actual use. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the taxonomy section has created room enough so I could move the image in question much further down, so it doesn't squeeze as much text. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

"in two contemporary accounts from 1691–93 and 1725–26". Do we need "contemporary" if you give the years? I mean 'in two accounts from 1691–93 and 1725–26' would seem to make it clear when the accounts were from.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link robust?

Didn't know there actually was a relevant article (though a stub), now linked to Robustness (morphology). FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"two contemporary accounts from 1691–93 and 1725–26". The main article does not mention any account from 1691-93.

While Leguat's account was published in 1708, it is about events that took place in those years, I've clarified it by moving it around to "in his 1708 memoir A New Voyage to the East Indies about his stay on the Mascarene island of Rodrigues from 1691–93" in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"this species was little related to any other herons". Either 'these species were little related to any other herons' or 'this species was little related to any other heron' (singular).

Went with "heron". FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of "Taxonomy" starts in 2007, but the last sentence then skips back to 2006, which jarss lightly.

Oh, yes, I had noticed this, and actually thought I had already moved it around, now done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Laguat 1891 have an OCLC? (560907441)

Yes, added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent little article, well up to your usual standards and with little for me to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the one's involving Leguat's writings are always fun to write, answered points above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I had my say in the good article review, and have not much left to add here.

What would you think of converting the long list of bone measurements to a (perhaps collapsed) table? It's rather difficult to read as prose, and has no content other than the measurements.
Hmmm, I'm not very familiar with tables, and this is more or less the format I've used in similar articles. I think as it is now is at least easier to modify if the need arises, whereas tables are more cumbersome and rigid. But if someone insists, could be looked into... I don't think I like the idea of it being collapsed, though, it isn't that long. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the way you have it, but personally I think a table might be easier to read. Not a FAC issue, though, just a suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the supratendinal bridge ("bridge" over a tendon) of the tibiotarsi was": this is very picky, but the prior sentence has the leg bone (femur) in the singular. The next sentences start with "wing-bones" which means the subsequently named bones are plural. I think it should probably be "tibiotarsus" here. Then we get tarsometatarsus within the same context as the other leg and wingbones, so I think that should be tarsometatarsi.
Changed, the sources are often also internally inconsistent, but that doesn't mean we have to be, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"since they could compare with the pelvis": if I'm parsing this correctly (a comparison with the pelvis of the black-crowned night heron) this should be "since they could compare the pelvis".~~
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Cowles stated in 1987 that Hachisuka's claim of flightlessness was dubious": suggest a verb of opinion here -- perhaps "argued"?~~
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't bother me when reading through for GA, but now I wonder if we should point out at the mention of Günther and Newton that they were mistaken in thinking they were comparing with the black-crowned night heron. As it stands a reader who pauses after that paragraph is misinformed. Perhaps a note, if it's too difficult to clarify this inline?
While I see where you're coming from, that has no bearing on its classification into the genus Nycticorax, which is all that's really discussed about their study in the taxonomy section. Both subspecies in question belong to that genus (and even one species, so its assignment to the genus would have been the same whichever subspecies it was compared to), so the issue only has relevance in the flight ability section, as it relates to the estimated proportional size of the wings. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your shoes I think I would be bothered by the tiny inaccuracy, but I agree it has no impact on the article's topic, so OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"the species appears to have survived introduced rats, and that cats were the main culprits": suggest "appeared to have survived".~~
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've now answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No issues with the unstruck points; they're matters of opinion. FYI I tweaked some of your indents per WP:INDENTMIX. I think strictly speaking INDENTMIX says don't add gaps either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yeah, I must admit I have never looked into indentation etiquette, hard to change old habits, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

A heads up to Mike Christie and Gog the Mild, I was just told a new paper[49] relevant to this species was published just a few days ago (crazy conincidence it's right when the FAC is up, and little has been published about them for years), I will add any relevant new information as soon as possible and tag you again for check-up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Mike Christie and Gog the Mild, I've now incorporated all info from the new paper[50] which wasn't already present in the article (these edits:[51]), except a summary of the detailed description, which I think I need your advice for before I proceed with. I've added a "sample" of what I would do as the third paragraph under Description, which currently only covers the cranium, and where you can see my "simplification" of the terminology used in the paper, with explanations and links. But I wonder if you think this is too detailed, and as you can see in the paper under "Morphometric description and comparison with N. n. nycticorax", there will have to be a lot more text like this if I continue. If you are fine with this, I will continue, but I will need some pointers what to do instead of that if you think it's too much. The rest of the new additions should be ready for your review, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps link black-crowned night heron?

Done, I assume you mean in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"made it understandable that it would have been compared to a bittern." Seems a little convoluted. Maybe 'that it was compared to a bittern' or 'that it had been compared to a bittern'?

Took the first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The holotype specimen (the specimen the name was based on)". This seems an odd and incomplete explanation of "holotype".

Tried with "(the specimen the specific name and original scientific description is attached to)". FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1879, more fossils of this species were described by the German zoologist Albert Günther and E. Newton, with the benefit of bones not known at the time of Milne-Edwards's original description, obtained from caves by the palaeontologist Henry H. Slater in 1874, and now part of the collection of the Natural History Museum, London." A bit long and complicated for a single sentence. Not to mention jumping around chronologically.

Split and moved around in the paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"as is the case for some other island birds." The Mascarene islands, or any islands?

Source just says "island birds" (but uses the dodo as example), so it's a general trend. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild, answered the above. Do you have any ideas as to how to deal with the detailed description here? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"But I wonder if you think this is too detailed"? Yes, it is (far) too detailed. Summary style please. We are addressing a lay audience. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I decided to just remove that part, the gist of it (more robust skull and legs, weaker wings) is already summarised from earlier publications. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack[edit]

such as an increase or decrease in size and robust jaws and legs – I am confused about this. Do these night herons increase or decrease size and robustness? Do they increase the jaws and decrease the legs (or vice versa), or did some species increase both and others decrease both? I just don't know what to make out of this information.

It's a general statement about trends across island night heron species, some have become bigger, some have become smaller, and some have gotten more robust jaws and legs. Does it read now like it should also apply to the subject of the article? Or do you think it's unnecessary to mention in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would remove it, also because it still does not make a lot of sense to me – when some get larger and some smaller, in which way are these opposite trends "consistent" with an island habitat? Does the island habitat favour both increase and decrease in size, at the same time? I suggest to remove it because I simply do not see what this sentence tries to tell me, what the conclusion should be. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about size, but left that about the robust jaws and legs, as that seems to be a general trend. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3060-2870 years – needs the proper dash (–) you use elsewhere.

Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

availableto – space

Whoops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Measurements of the bones availableto Milne-Edwards and Günther and Newton show that – this is a bit confusing to read because of the two "ands" separating the names. I wonder if it would be best to just remove this part. You don't mention authors in the previous paragraph about the dimorphism; so why here? These seem to be uncontroversial measurements.

I can see that it looks weird, but I did it because there aren't newer measurements to add, so I thought it was good to note that these are pretty old, when the article already mentions more material is known since. I tried with "Measurements of the bones available by the late 19th century" instead of mentioning authors, if that's better. It appears that the new paper will have tables of measurements which are not available yet when it is formally published in a volume, so will try to replace the old measurements if that happens. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I think your change is better, because now it becomes clear that this is an old source (while reading, I had forgotten about that). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

supratendinal bridge ("bridge" over a tendon) of the tibiotarsus – Any idea what this "bridge" is made of? Some form of ossified connective tissue, or cartilage? Just repeating "bridge" in the gloss does not really explain it.

That's the problem, because since it was ossified in this species, I don't know how else to describe it, as this is explained after the parenthesis as a distinguishing feature. The source says "The supratendinal bridge is incompletely ossified in the three tibiotarsi of N. duboisi. The condition is unknown in N. mauritianus, whereas in N. megacephalus the supratendinal bridge is completely ossified (Milne-Edwards, 1874, pl. 14: fig. 7)". So since this feature can be both ossified and non-ossified, I'm not sure what to add. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what it consists of in an unossified state – but you are right, it is not important here because it is ossified anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this species an island dwarf or an island giant? Did the island habitat lead to an increase or decrease in size compared to the ancestor population from the continent? (I see now; 60 cm in length probably means that size did not change at all).

Yeah, the earlier statement was general about all island night herons, so while some either increased or decreased in size, this one only seems to have changed in head and leg proportions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The short and thick proportions of the tarsometatarsi in the Mascarene species were closest to the black-crowned night heron within their genus, – but – I would guess – they were less short and robust in the black-crowned? This somehow gives the impression that the two are similar.

The other sources seem to indicate so, but this one doesn't seem like it specifies, it just says "By the proportions of the tarsometatarsus, which is short and thick, the Mascarene night herons are more similar to Nycticorax nycticorax than to other congeners, particularly N. caledonicus. In the case of N. megacephalus and N. mauritianus, however, the robustness of the tarsometatarsus is probably accentuated by the reduced flying ability (Table 3)." Do you think "accentuated" indicates that their robustness was larger? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that, yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went with the same term, "accentuated", because I fear there will be too much interpretation on my part if I try to rephrase it and find a synonym. But feel free to suggest if you know an appropriate one... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hume interpreted Leguat's account in 2023 – I would move the "in 2023", otherwise this could mean that Leguat's account was written in 2023.

Moved to start of sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hume speculated in 2023 that the increased sexual dimorphism in the species was a result of competition between the sexes. This kind of difference is mainly an effect of food availability, – this seems to suggest that the sexual dimorphism was an adaptation to the island habitat. However, earlier you stated that the black-crowned night heron has similar dimorphism; so this does not necessarily have anything to do with the island habitat?

That's a very good point, and I actually don't know what to do about it. This is what Hume says when stating they're both dimorphic: "There is marked sexual dimorphism in the skeleton of N. megacephalus, which is also present in N. n. nycticorax, with males being larger (Amadon, 1942; Martínez-Vilalta and Motis, 1992; Kushlan and Hancock, 2005)." and this is from the end of the same paragraph when he speculates about the reasons: "Increased size-related sexual dimorphism may be a result of intersexual competition, which is predominantly an effect of food availability (Selander, 1972, Shine, 1989). It is likely that this was the main evolutionary driving force in the Rodrigues night heron, with each sex exploiting a differing range of food items on an island with limited resources (Hume, 2019)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the sexual dimorphism in the black crowned is simply not as pronounced than in the Rodrigues. The size differences in the black crowned seem to be subtle. You write that the dimorphism in the black-crowned is "pronounced", maybe that is simply an overstatement? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the wording closer to that of the paper to avoid any interpretation on my part with "There was marked sexual dimorphism in the Rodrigues night heron, which is also present in the black-crowned night heron". Problem with some of these kind of ambiguous descriptions is it makes them really hard o reword without possibly changing the meaning... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they found the leg bones to be more well-developed and the body-size lesser – This sentence is a bit awkward. "Better developed"? "body size" should not have the hyphen. Body size – does this mean length or weight? Also, I think we need a hint that they were comparing with a particularly large subspecies of black-crowned night heron (as mentioned further below); otherwise I fear that the reader might think that the Rodrigues is kind of an island dwarf, which is not the case.

Changed to ""Better developed/body size". I added "the European subspecies of black-crowned night heron" to the sentence. And while they don't state anything about weight, your comment made me realise I have made a mistake, it actually says the body was equal to the living heron (contrary to what Milne-Edwards indicated, a particularly bulky body), so I've changed to "and the body size equal to the extant night heron". I think I was confused by the convoluted wording of the source: "Having shown from the pelvis, with which M. Milne-Edwards was not acquainted, that the body of this bird was considerably less in size than he supposed, in fact equal to that of the European Mght-Heron, we arrive at the opposite conclusion, viz, that the leg is proportionally much more developed in length and strength." FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the "body size equal to the extant night heron" contradicting this later information: "Günther and Newton had thought they were using the bones of the European subspecies of the black-crowned night heron for comparison, they had actually used the bones of the large South American subspecies (N. n. obscurus)."? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure in what details that comparison made a difference, the 1987 source only says "In their table of measure-ments Giinther and E. Newton unknowingly used a skeleton of the large South American race N. n. obscurus. Comparison with this skeleton gave the impression that the wings of N. megacephalus were unusually small, but they are not small by comparison with N. n. nycticorax." I'm assuming the problem is that they compared individual elements of each, assuming the extant bird was of the same overall size, but differently proportioned, when the subspecies they used was apparently larger overall, giving the impression that the compared elements were therefore also proportionably different. In either case, I think they were still "more" correct than Milne-Edwards original conclusion, and I don't think it relates specifically to the body size issue. But to be honest, these sources are not entirely unambiguous... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is simply that you first state they compared with the European subspecies, and in the next paragraph state that they actually compared with the South American subspecies. Since the South American subspecies is larger, it means that their size comparison is dubious. I wanted to suggest that you, in the first paragraph, already mention this error. It is a very minor point though, and I don't want to be pedantic. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I actually only added which subspecies it was after your point here, before it just said black-crowned night heron because I wanted to keep the "revelation" of the wrong subspecies for the part about the 1987 paper to keep it chronological. So I wonder whether it would be better to just not mention they thought it was the European subspecies until the 1987 paper is covered? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was reading it, I thought "ok, then the Rodrigues is smaller than the black crowned". Only when I read on in the next paragraph I realized that this is only because they mistook the subspecies. So I somehow felt misinformed. That's why I was wondering to add a gloss like "(but actually was the larger South American subspecies)". Keeping this revelation for later … I just think it is difficult to remember such a fact over two paragraphs, and even with you do, it is inconvenient to "overwrite" this fact again. But it's only my personal opinion and suggestion; please do what you think best! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if I write "with bones they thought belonged to the European subspecies of black-crowned night heron", to already indicate uncertainty, but without spelling out the details? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would fix the problem! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and that it would only have been possible from sloping ground – Long sentence, and I was not sure what "it" is referring to. I suggest to replace "it" with "take-off" for clarity.

Split and changed to "He concluded that take-off would only have been possible from sloping ground". FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead mentiones that the bird "was fast", but in the text, the only information about speed comes from a very old record. I wonder how reliable this fact is, and if the more recent sources say anything?

The newer sources indicate it was adapted for running, which I took to mean the same/confirm the account, but I've changed it accordingly in the intro as "was adapted to running". FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see another of your bird articles here; hope my comments will be helpful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jens Lallensack, should be addressed now (with some questions, some of these are a bit difficult). A lot of these issues happened because I hastily added a big chunk of text after a new paper was published during the FAC, some of it was maybe a bit messy, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon review. What's e.T22728787A94996659. in #1? I notice some inconsistency in date format e.g between #5 and #1 and page number ranges appear to be quite uneven at times. Otherwise, source formatting is consistent and the sources appear to be reliable, even accounting for their often old age (it's an extinct species, so a lot of sources would be old). I presume the non-use of many sources at [52] is because they don't add any new information? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, most issues seem to be with the IUCN source, which seem to be constantly drive-by edited by bots and editors I assume know better than me how to format them. The "e" page number seems to be common to many online publications without regular page numbers, but I have no idea what it means. As for the apparent date difference, it seems to be that 2016 here denotes volume rather than year alone, but someone who knows more about that source (which is used in practically all animal articles, and are mass changed by bots when the website makes an update) will have to chime in. The citation seems to have been last (non-bot) edited by Trappist the monk, so pinging them, and perhaps Plantdrew knows something. As for pages, mainly the pages and ranges relevant to the subject are the ones given here, but in some cases the citations give the full range if it's hard to break up. And while most of the Google Scholar results are just lists or brief summaries of older sources, I've now added two that provided a little bit more context. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

drive-by? Isn't that a bit derogatory? Are you implying that the edits to the IUCN citations are somehow inappropriate?

{{cite IUCN}} is a wrapper template around {{cite journal}}. Commonly, editors can use a template, {{make cite IUCN}}, to create a {{cite IUCN}} template from the plain-text citation available at an IUCN assessment page. The last update to ref 1 was done by a now-retired bot task that updated the {{cite IUCN}} template using the IUCN API at this edit. Before that, I edited the IUCN references to convert a {{cite web}} template and an {{IUCN}} template to use {{cite IUCN}} (these two edits).

The plain-text citation at IUCN for Nycticorax megacephalus looks like this:

BirdLife International. 2016. Nycticorax megacephalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22728787A94996659. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22728787A94996659.en. Accessed on 04 August 2023.

That citation is basically a journal-type citation where the volume identifier precedes the colon and the page identifier follows the colon. In IUCN citations, the volume identifier is usually, but not always, the same as the assessment year. For a page identifier, IUCN use a concatenation of two sub-identifiers:

T###... – a taxon identifier

A###... – an assessment identifier

I presume that the e. prefix means 'electronic'. {{cite IUCN}} emulates the IUCN style within the constrains of Citation Style 1.

I notice some inconsistency in date format e.g between #5 and #1. I don't see an inconsistency; ref 1 uses a year date: 2016; ref 5 also uses a year date: 1873. In fact, all publication dates (|date= or |year=) in the stated version are 'year' dates. Where is the inconsistency?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, by drive-by, I just mean someone not involved with writing the individual articles, but mainly concerned with editing the IUCN templates across articles. As for the year inconsistency, I think it's because the IUCN source shows 2016 both for the year and volume? FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [53].

Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a horror video game that had an...interesting impact on internet culture. It spawned a media franchise with several sequels and spinoff media, and created an...interesting fanbase that remains to this day. The first game was described by the creator as a "lightning in a bottle", and had a generally positive response even as its sequels were less warmly received. I've been working on this article for a few weeks, and have included the best sourcing that I can find. I've expanded the Reception and Legacy sections that were subject to opposition in the previous FAC. I look forward to addressing your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The cosplay is missing alt text

File:Katsucon_cosplay_(16552869295).jpg is missing a tag for the costume. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did the alt text. I'm not sure what you mean by costume tag Nikkimaria. Can you please tell me what I missed? The Night Watch (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a tag for the photograph, but the costume itself also has a copyright associated with it, since it's not a simple or utilitarian design - what's its status? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to fully determine the costume's copyright status on commons, so I just went ahead and removed it. The Night Watch (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

Leaving a marker for a review soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a fun read (and a flashback to middle school), comments are below! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"night security guard named Mike Schmidt. As Schmidt, the player must complete their night shift without being" → since "night security guard" is mentioned, I think the second mention of "night" is redundant and you can get away with "complete their shift"

Gameplay

The first paragraph is near-identical to parts of the lead; could this be reworded at all?
"Each animatronic character has distinct behaviors, and most of their movement takes place off-screen" → could you mention how many animatronic characters there are (I know they're listed in "Plot" but I think just throwing a number in here would be helpful)?
"The titular Freddy Fazbear character then appears playing the "Toreador Song", causing a game over" → this may seem very nitpicky, but does Freddy actually play the song himself, or does the song play from somewhere else before he attacks?

Freddy plays the song himself, at least according to the cited Gamezebo article.

"The player must conserve the power by using the doors, cameras, and lights sparingly, keeping enough electricity to last until 6:00 a.m." → This sentence feels unnecessary in its present form, since it just reiterates that the doors, cameras, and lights consume electricity, and then reiterates that each shift ends at 6 a.m.

I felt like this sentence would describe how the player is expected to play the game strategically, but I can remove it if needed. I have reworded it from "until 6am" --> "until the end of the shift".

Plot

"The player controls Mike Schmidt, who has signed up as a night security officer at a family pizza restaurant called "Freddy Fazbear's Pizza"." → this information is already given in the "Gameplay" section, so it doesn't need to be repeated here as well; I have no preference one way or the other as to which section it's kept in, I'll leave that to you to decide to which section it's more relevant
"the titular Freddy Fazbear" → this exact construction is used in the "Gameplay" section
"suggesting that the children's corpses were hidden inside" → is this mentioned by the in-game newspaper clippings? If not, it'll need a source to make sure it's not OR (even though it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make, given the context of the game)

Couldn't find one, so removed.

"On the fourth night, Schmidt's predecessor is implied to have been killed by one of the animatronics while recording the message" → As I can recall, the sound of an animatronic attacking is audible to the player on the phone call; I would be more explicit about how exactly this was implied rather than just saying "it was implied"

You were right, the audio implied it.

Development and release

"Hoping to create a new project that appealed to non-Christians" → is this stated explicitly in the source? I skimmed it and it looks like he didn't necessarily want to appeal specifically to people that aren't Christian, just that he didn't want to make another Christian game (though please let me know if I'm missing the quote)

I tried rewording it to be more accurate to the source

"The audio was produced out of several sound effects" → recommend replacing "out of several sound effects" with "using several sound effects"
"in addition to number of files that he purchased" → missing word ("a number of files")

Reception

"Critics considered FNaF to be frightening" → the abbreviation "FNaF", however obvious it is, isn't previously defined in the article before being used here (though in this particular instance I'd replace it with "it" since it's pretty clear you're talking about the game)

Would it help if I included the abbreviation in the title as Five Nights at Freddy's (FNaF)?

Yes, I think that would be a good fix. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"but to also detect the noises the animatronics made to indicate their approach" → in the universe of the game, the animatronics aren't making noises to indicate their approach, they're making noises as they approach and the player just happens to be able to hear them
"by relying not on jumpscares, but by pressuring the player with the possibility of one" → remove comma

Legacy

"Upon release, Five Nights at Freddy's was a financial success and gained a large following" → this makes it sound like the game was a smash hit the moment it was released; if "upon release" means "after it was released", then that is redundant since it can't become a hit until after it's released in the first place. I would recommend either dropping it or (if supported by the sources) emphasizing how quickly it became a hit ("Shortly after its release" or something similar)
"By 2015, Five Nights at Freddy's had become one" → the name of the game is used already to begin the paragraph, so you can just use "it had become" here
"the most shown video games on the platform" → what does "most-shown" mean? Are you talking about the number of people who recorded and uploaded gameplay or the number of viewers on the gameplay and Let's Play videos?

I believe the source said uploaded gameplay rather than views.

"platform, becoming featured by" → remove the comma after "platform" and change "becoming" to "and was"
I'd go with "Markiplier", "Jacksepticeye", and "Pewdiepie" instead of their real names, since those are far more commonly-known
"series and media franchise, beginning with the release of a sequel Five Nights at Freddy's 2" → remove comma from after "franchise" and add one after "sequel"
"Other than video games," → unnecessary since "written works" (definitionally not video games) are mentioned later in the sentence
"He intended to pass on management of the franchise to a different party" → did he?

I have no indication that the management was passed on, it just said that he intended to pass it on.

Of course, we're limited to the content in sources, but I'll admit I was a little surprised that MatPat wasn't mentioned in the second paragraph; he strikes me as the leading guy on FNaF "theories" and "lore" etc.

There was a surprising lack of academic material to use for the sourcing, and the book source that I used for the Legacy section was one of the best that I could find (it was edited by two assistant professors at Cal State). But I couldn't find any reliable material that mentioned MatPat and FNAF on Google Scholar, nor any significant reliable sources that reinforced his role via the WP:VGSE.

"and would later begin a program" → "and later began a program"

References

This might not be within the scope of FA criteria on referencing, so this one is totally optional, but if you want to tidy up the refs section and eliminate some duplicate refs (just with different page numbers), you can use {{sfn}} to cite different pages of a book (the one I'm spotting a lot is Clarke/Wang 2020) without copy-pasting the whole {{cite book}} template over and over again. I use this method a lot and I think it looks a lot cleaner and easier to navigate, see John C. Young (pastor)#References if you're interested.

That'll be it for now, I'll come back for another read-through and some spotchecks when these are taken care of. Ping me when you're ready for another look or if you have any questions! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the comments above. When you're ready, I would appreciate some spot-checks to help with the sourcing! Once again, thank you PCN02WPS! The Night Watch (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCN02WPS, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Thanks for the reminder! I'll go back for another look now. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Here's some random spotchecks (footnote numbers from this version of the article):

FN 2: "Five Nights at Freddy's is a point-and-click survival horror game" - verified
FN 9: "Gamezebo called it a "brilliant horror experience" that capitalized on fear of the unknown" - verified (source says "induces" fear of the unknown, not "capitalizes on", but that sentence goes on to explain how it capitalizes on the fear that it has induced, so I'm good with this wording)
FN 10: "Reviewers felt that FNaF's gameplay mechanics were well-designed." - verified
FN 17: "A version for Android was launched on August 25, 2014," - not verified, the date in question is not mentioned in the source (as far as I can see)
FN 18: "followed by an iOS port on September 13, 2014" - maybe verified; the article is dated Sep 13, 2014, but it's not explicitly stated that the game released on that day, though I'm not going to raise too much of a fuss about this unless the Android date can't be confirmed for sure
FN 26: "franchise has expanded to include written works; The first of these, Five Nights at Freddy's: The Silver Eyes, was published in 2015" - verified
FN 32: "filming began in 2023 and the picture is set for release on October 27, 2023" - release date verified, filming date was not verified in FN 31 and FN 33 is offline, could you provide a quote?
- Also - I don't know that FN 31 really adds anything; it barely mentions FNaF and doesn't give a release date or filming year for the movie explicitly, so I'm not sure that it's needed (at least in verifying this particular information)
FN 35: "Cawthon has occasionally commented on some fan theories, including one presented by the YouTuber MatPat" - verified (glad to see MatPat turn up in a book, of all things!)

All in all, spotchecks are pretty good, just a few things that need attention. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PCN02WPS! I had some surprising trouble with the iOS and Android release dates. I looked it up on the FNAF Fandom website, but couldn't find any reliable sources to verify those dates and I was worried that they would go unconfirmed. Thankfully some advanced source searching allowed me to verify the exact dates using Gry Online, a Polish gaming RS. I was also able to find a source supporting that filming began in 2023. The Night Watch (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Just a nudge. The Night Watch (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome that those additional sources were able to be found. I think the prose and sourcing is up to standard and I am happy to throw my support behind this nom. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex3427[edit]

Disclosure: this is my first time reviewing an FAC. Didn't catch anything except a few nitpicks.

As Schmidt redundant, as you just stated that they were playing as Schmidt in the last sentence
Optional: I know it isn't required, but would it be better to put a citation for the newspaper clippings as this isn't easily accessible in the game? There are usable sources like this one.
in addition to ~~number of~~ files
There's a contraction wasn't in the Reception section.
Gamezebo described the sounds as excellent This reads weird. Maybe change "sounds" to "sound design".
In Legacy, due to its inclusion doesn't seem appropriate because it kinda implies that the game isn't the sole subject of the Let's Plays
~~several~~ written works It's more than several with the extremely large anthology series
received a negative reputation Developed seems more appropriate for reputation
The detail about the Fazbear Fanverse Initiative would be more appropriate on the general FNaF franchise article, rather than included on here. The games aren't based solely on the first one and the Fanverse began six years later

Removed the content

Duplicated references to Indie Games in the Digital Age p. 74

Removed duplicate

@The Night Watch: That's it for me! Overall, I'm gonna support.

Thank you Vortex3427! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

Hello once again! I really enjoyed Kingdom Two Crowns so I am reviewing this one as well if that is okay.

"the player takes the role of Mike Schmidt" - Perhaps "the player takes on the role of Mike Schmidt"
"with many considering it to be a frightening and distinct horror game" - Would be fine without "to be" as well
"A film adaptation produced by Blumhouse Productions is scheduled to be released on October 27, 2023" - "A film adaptation by Blumhouse Productions is scheduled to be released on October 27, 2023" maybe, since the production role is implied by the name "Blumhouse Productions"
"The main game has a total of six levels, comprising the five main nights and an extra sixth night" - The repetition of "night" can be reduced: "The main game has a total of six levels, comprising the five main nights and an extra sixth one"
There's two usages of "one of the animatronics" in the Plot section which could optionally be replaced by "an animatronic"
"Scott Cawthon had developed several adventure games marketed towards Christians, all of which underperformed financially" - I prefer the use of "commercially" instead of "financially" for these types of usages.
"He coded the game with the Clickteam Fusion 2.5 engine, and used Autodesk 3ds Max to model the 3D graphics." - The comma in this sentence should be removed.
"Gamezebo described the sound design as excellent, suggesting that players wear headphones not just improve the experience, but to also detect the noises the animatronics made as they approached" - There seems to be a missing "to" either after "headphones" or after "just"
Steam (service) is linked a second time in the Legacy section. While I believe this is now allowed, I just wanted to bring this to your attention in case it is unintentional.

That's all from me and I would be more than happy to support this nomination once these are addressed. I see it has received a source review already, but all the sources and their formatting looks good to me as well. If you have some time later, I would appreciate any comments on my current FAC but this is by no means necessary.--N Ø 17:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MaranoFan! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--N Ø 04:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs[edit]

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the lead, I don't think you need exact dates for anything after the initial release; it's the lead, there's an infobox right next to it with exact dates and the article body if they want a run down. You can just summarize the later releases and mention the year if you must.
"The event left Cawthon less inclined towards making Christian games" — what event? Regaining his desire for game development (the spiritual experience?) or (more likely) the bad performance of the Christian games?
"He was inspired to make a horror-focused experience after receiving negative reviews towards his construction and management game Chipper & Sons Lumber Co." - was this another of the Christian games? The timeframe here is a little hard to parse. If Chipper & Sons was before his pivot, it makes sense to mention it earlier, and then loop back to the animatronic comments.
The reception section has a bit starting by talking about how FNAF doesn't rely on jumpscares, and then follows up by people talking about the jumpscares getting repetitive. I think a little more structure to this section would make it clearer there was differing opinions on them (and that they exist.)
"He intended to pass on management of the franchise to a different party" — so what happened, if he didn't pass on management? It's also weird this fact, which doesn't have to do with franchise spinoffs and takes place in 2021, comes before the 2017 mention of the film.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
It was the spiritual experience, thanks for catching that.
It was after his pivot. Should I mention that it was a secular project or something along those lines?
Working on restructuring the jumpscare bit.
There has been no news on if he has passed on management of the franchise, just that he "planned" to do so. Considering that he is one of the screenwriters on the upcoming film, it appears as though he still has effective control of FNAF.

The Night Watch (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs follow up ping. The Night Watch (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Chipper & Sons was after the spiritual experience, I would restructure the sentence so that comes first, e.g. "After his construction and management game Chipper & Sons Lumber Co. received negative reviews, he was inspired to make his next game a horror-focused experience." That way the chronology works better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you! The Night Watch (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm a bit disappointed there's not more on the development front, but after a search for sources myself I'm confident there's just not really anything else substantial missing in the article at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source formatting is consistent save for the Brey, Clarke & Wang 2020 one and all necessary information is there, but I confess that I don't know much about the sources beyond what is said at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources - which doesn't list Clickteam and Dread Central. "A voice message mentions "The Bite of '87", an incident which is implied to have led to the loss of a person's frontal lobe and forced animatronic mobility during the day to be prohibited. " is this something explicitly supported by the game itself? For this time, spot-check only upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus searching up Dread Central in the RSN, the most recent discussion mentioned that it is a critic on Rotten Tomatoes and has been quoted by several other RSes. It has also won a few awards on reporting. Clickteam is the publisher for the mobile and console versions and is the company behind the game development software that Scott Cawthon used to create Five Nights at Freddy's. I think Clickteam falls under WP:ABOUTSELF for the purposes of sourcing as it is used sparingly in the article. About the "Bite of '87", the exact text of the message is here under section Night 1. The voice message seems explicit. The Night Watch (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that these sources were consulted and either used or ruled out? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them were college students writing papers, and a substantial amount of the material that the sources discussed talked about the series as a whole (or grouped the series along with other horror games) and not necessarily the impact of the first game. There were some that cited Wikipedia itself. Brey, Clarke & Wang even noted that the game had a dearth of proper academic coverage in their book chapter on the subject. The Night Watch (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. With the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck, mind you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS spot-checked about 10% of the sources, but feel free to do some other checks if you think it would be good. Any sources stand out to you as questionable? WP:VG/S links to a few discussions on the reliability of the sources. The Night Watch (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I have specific concerns about a particular source but more that if there is a source that is unsuitable but only a videogame expert would know that, I won't notice and thus my comment here shouldn't be interpreted as approving of such a source. As for spotchecks, I usually do them only on request b/c they take time and I don't always have time and interest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. And thank you for the review! The Night Watch (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2023 [54].

Revolutionary Girl Utena[edit]

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Born from its creator's discontent over his lack of creative freedom as a director of Sailor Moon, Revolutionary Girl Utena is a defining work of 1990s anime. Whenever I try to sell Utena to someone (particularly someone that might be skeptical of anime), I describe it as a sort of cousin to Twin Peaks – much like that series outwardly resembles a standard network detective show but ultimately tells a story that is much more surreal and impressionistic, Utena uses the trappings and aesthetics of '90s girls' anime to tell an avant-garde coming-of-age story influenced by experimental Japanese theater and the works of Hermann Hesse.

I expanded this article significantly in February, and brought it to GA that same month. I then took the article to peer review, where it unfortunately did not get any feedback; nevertheless, I'm nominating it here because I believe the article meets requirements and is comparable in its scope and depth to the previous manga/anime articles I've taken to FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47[edit]

For this part in the lead, (and has received numerous accolades. The series has received particular praise for its treatment of LGBT themes and subject material), I would avoid using "has received" twice in such close proximity.
- Rephrased. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the full article so apologies in advance if this is already addressed. To the best of my understanding, after reading the lead, the manga adaptation was created during the anime's development, but the manga came out roughly a year before the anime's release? Is this further addressed in the article? The timeline just seems odd to me, specifically having an adaptation (the manga) coming out before the original product (the anime).
- Your understanding is correct: the animated series is the originating work from which the manga is adapted, though as animation has much longer production times than manga, the manga ended up beginning serialization before the original broadcast run of the television series. The article talks in more detail about the production of the manga in "Manga" under "Related media". Morgan695 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source link for File:Revolutionary Girl Utena logo 20170127.svg leads to an error message for me. I would also avoid having a bare link in the source parameter and I would include the title of the website there instead to give a fuller picture to readers of what the link leads to prior to clicking on it.
- Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says the manga is partially aimed at a josei audience, but when I do a search through the article, josei does not appear anywhere else. Do you have a citation to support this categorization?
- The demographic category of a manga series always corresponds to the demographic category of the magazine it is published in: the original manga and the Adolescence of Utena manga were respectively published in Ciao and Bessatsu Shōjo Comic Special, which are shōjo magazines, while After the Revolution was published in Flowers, which is a josei magazine. Obviously not a perfect 1:1 comparison since I imagine more people are familiar with sports than they are with manga, but in-context it's a bit of a WP:NOTBLUE situation in that the demographic categories of these manga magazines are unambiguous and self-evident in the same way you wouldn't need a cite to verify that Sports Illustrated is a sports magazine. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the explanation, and I agree with you completely on this. I made this comment prior to reading the article as a whole, and once I got the the parts on the manga's run in magazines, this became clear to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again if this is really obvious. I just have a quick clarification question about the "Plot" section. Is this story set in the "real world" (for lack of better words) or is it set in some sort of fantasy world or alternative place? I was just curious because when I read the beginning of the "Plot" section and got to the part on "a traveling prince", I felt uncertain about where this story was set, both in terms of time and place.
- It definitely leans more towards "fantasy world or alternative place". To go back to the Twin Peaks analogy, both Ohtori Academy and the town of Twin Peaks are clearly surreal and supernatural settings, but the exact nature of that surreality is never quite explicated, and isn't really the point of the story in the first place. Part of my concern writing the plot summary was that I didn't want to be too prescriptive in summarizing a story that hangs much of its narrative on allegory and symbolism, which understandably might inhibit the clarity of the summary, but I think is necessary to avoid foisting a POV onto a piece of media that by design is abstract and subjective. Morgan695 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, but I will not push this further and I will respect whatever direction a consensus goes on the matter. I do not see defining the setting of a story (even in a more allegorical narrative) as pushing a POV. I just think that it would provide readers, particularly unfamiliar ones like myself, with a fuller and more complete summary, especially since this story is set in a more world more outside of the norm.
  - If citations do describe the setting, I would not see any issue with explicitly saying that it is taking place is some sort of fantasy world. I think even answering basic questions on where Ohtori Academy is located would be something. To go with your Twin Peaks example, the article clearly locates it in a state (Washington), while I am guessing that Ohtori Academy is in Japan, but having that clarified would be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll review my notes and see if I can clarify the setting in the plot summary. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Apologies again for being a pain. It is a nitpick-y point on my part so it will not be something that holds up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "engaged" put in quotation marks in the plot summary?
- Similar to my rationale above about "engaged" in this context being at least partially allegorical. I've rephrased the section in question. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I have studied Japanese (even though I keep saying I'll return to it) so sorry again if this is obvious or it is not phrased entirely correctly. When Utena Tenjou and Anthy Himemiya are discussed, their first names are used, but for Souji Mikage, the plot summary uses Mikage instead of Souji. I would be consistent with one way or the other.
- This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME conflicts with consistency; Souji Mikage is referred to more or less exclusively as "Mikage" and never as "Souji" within the text of the work itself. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. It is best to go with the names that are primarily uses in the work itself as those would be the names primarily used in discussions on the work (whether in official coverage or by fans). Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link here (stabs Utena through the back) seems unnecessary in my opinion. It is an easily understood concept to a majority if not all readers, plus it just redirects to the general betrayal article anyway which further reduces its purpose.
- Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think bildungsroman needs to be capitalized.
- Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain of this use of "while" in this part (while director Kunihiko Ikuhara stated that he developed the cast of Utena using the self-described principle of "never give a character only one personality"). The word "while" is often used to suggest a contrast, and it just appears that Yōji Enokido and Kunihiko Ikuhara are discussing separate points on character development so a different word choice would be better in my opinion.
- Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anime should be linked in the "Characters" section as it is the first time it is brought up in the article. If it is linked later in the article, it should be unlinked.
- Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To tie into the above point, I am confused by the linking in the article. There are instances where items are linked repeatedly, such as with manga. Is there a reason for this choice?
- Can you cite specific instances? "Manga" should be linked once in the body and then never again (which should be corrected now), but there were some cases where I re-linked to subjects where they are discussed substantially in the section; e.g. I re-link to J. A. Seazer under "Soundtrack and music" because that section substantially discusses his contribution to the series, and the first mention of him in the article body is just an incidental reference. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bildungsroman is linked a few times in the article as well as Hermann Hesse and Demian. I believe those are the only instances of this though. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bildungsroman, Hermann Hesse, and Demian are now only linked in their first usages and again under "Coming-of-age", where they are discussed substantially. Morgan695 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are up to the "Development" section. I will continue my review once my above comments have been addressed. I hope this is helpful. I know absolutely nothing about this and have not seen or read anything outside of this article so I am enjoying going through it. But, to continue off a point I have made above, I find myself struggling to picture this story as I am not sure the time and place it is set in. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Responded to your comments with the exception of the note about the setting. I'm looking into improving it now, but the setting of the series is somewhat intentionally confounding; while Ohtori Academy resembles a contemporary Japanese boarding school, the series' focus on concepts like dueling tournaments, travelling princes, and chivalric romance certainly evokes an image of the European middle ages. (Or so goes my favorite J. A. Seazer song from the series, at least.) But your point is well-made, and I think the section can be clearer without being prescriptive about the allegorical material of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and for responding to my points. That sounds fair to me. When I read the article, I got the impression that the setting was more on the vague side so the article does represent that well at least in my opinion. From the sounds of it, it seems like the story sets up the boarding school as its own little world so keeping the focus on the school may be best. I did a very brief Google search and saw a mention of a "Houou City", but I could only find that in a Wiki so I am doubtful of it. Thank you for again for understanding and apologies again for being a pain about this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the note for the quote "a romantic action show". The note specifies the genre is tied to romance fiction and romanticism, but this seems obvious to me in the prose alone. Would the reader confuse this with something else to the point that a note like this is necessary?
- If it's obvious in the prose I have no problem removing it. Morgan695 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (the 1973 film adaptation of The Three Musketeers), I think it would be best to tweak the linking slightly to the 1973 film adaptation of The Three Musketeers. I recommend this to better match the links with the prose.
- Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment for this part, (with Saito advocating for the original romantic concept for the series over Ikuhara's new, more esoteric vision). I would avoid using the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as it is a note that I have seen rather repeatedly in multiple FAC reviews. I do not have strong opinions about it, but it seems to be something that is best avoided in FA writing. Another example of this is (with Ikuhara and Mitsumune participating on some choruses). Feel free to disagree by the way on this point.
- I'll leave it for now, and see if it comes up in the comments of other editors. Morgan695 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. As I have said above, I do not not have strong feelings about this. I have seen someone explain why this kind of structure is not an example of great writing, but I honestly cannot remember their rationale for it and if I was not already aware of this from prior FACs, it is not something that I would really point out or find particularly notable. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Style" subsection, there is a sentence with four citations, and I was wondering if it would be possible to bundle them to avoid potential claims of citational overkill?
- Done. Morgan695 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a clarification question. Were there any reviews for some of these adaptations such as the stage ones, the light novels, or the video game? It is obviously important to be mindful of the article's length, and I already think that the discussion around these adaptations are very well-handled. I still wanted to ask anyway.
- Not really. They're relatively minor media in the context of the broader series, and would probably be UNDUE if included. Morgan695 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got that vibe from the article. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This part, (As a bishōjo, Kotani argues), seems off as it could be read that Kotani is being described as a bishōjo.
- Rephrased. Morgan695 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about this sentence: (New York listed the car transformation scene in Adolescence of Utena on its list of "The 100 Sequences That Shaped Animation" in 2022.) It is so tied to the film that I think it would be best left to that article, and I am not sure if it really fits here. I only point this out because this is the first time the car transformation scene is mentioned in this article (unless I missed a prior mention), but it gets much more focus in the film article.
- Removed. Morgan695 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titles such as Revolutionary Girl Utena should be italicized in the citation tiles to meet WP:CONFORMTITLE.
- Done. Morgan695 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the full extent of my review. Just to be clear, I am focusing primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC as always. As always you have done excellent work here and my quotes above are mostly nitpicks. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses and for your patience with my review. I will revisit the article tomorrow to read through everything again. I doubt I will find anything to add here, but again, I just want to make sure I am as thorough as possible as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If you would prefer that I collapse my comments or move them to the talk page, feel free to let me know. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from PanagiotisZois[edit]

Man, I haven't seen Utena in almost 10 years. It actually was the 4th anime I consciously watched, once I realized what anime even were. I loved reading through the article and learning more about the series, and it's definitely made me want to rewatch it. Anyway, for now, I can only offer a source review, primarily in terms of formatting and whatnot. I understand that the FAC guidelines require sources to be reliable and high-quality. Personally, I found all sources to be reliable and relatively high-quality. I might leave this part however to more experienced editors, in case we disagree on what constitutes as "high-quality". Aside from that, here are my comments. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments on formatting from PanagiotisZois

With most sources that originate from books, including #1, you have the book cited in the "Bibliography" section and use the {sfn} template. However, with source #2 which also is a book, you don't list that in the appropriate section, or which page describes Utena as "surrealist".

I only have access to the ePub version of Anime Impact, which does not have page numbers. I've noted that it's the eBook edition, moved the citation to Bibliography, and indicated that the "Revolutionary Girl Utena" section of the book is where the relevant info is being pulled from. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Revolutionary Girl Utena: 20th Anniversary Ultra Edition", is it possible to specify each time you cite the source, which page you're referring to? Pages 76–105 is a quite significant page number. If for whatever reason this is impossible - maybe you don't have direct access to it - I guess it can be left as is.

Yes, this is a source where I only have access to the raw text of the section (which is not denoted with page numbers) and not the actual book itself. Not ideal, but hopefully not dealbreaking for a source review. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With source #4, link the Newtype magazine.

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding source #42, don't forget to link Anime News Network. Also, don't use allcaps.
- Also in sources #58-59, #74, #76-77, #79-80, #82-84, #87-88.

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning source #56, link CBR.
- Also in #114.

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source #64 should probably be in the "Bibliography" section.

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In sources #72 & 72, there's no need to have "Box" all in uppercase.

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In source #75, link CPM.

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In source #78, link ICv2. Only the v is lowercase.

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Most comments have been addressed. Regarding the first two points, I would say that the lack of page numbers can be excused. Based on this, the article passes the source review where it concerns formatting and consistency. I will look about checking to see whether the things being stated in the article are actually present within the sources at another time. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments on reliability from PanagiotisZois

Regarding the bibliography, most sources appear to be from journals that are peer-reviewed, or anime-related magazines that have existed for decades, or books from reputable publishers / authors. However, I do have some statements to be made here. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video from New York Comic Con probably shouldn't be listedn in the Bibliography, as it's not a literary source but a video one.
- This is mostly so I can use {sfn} to mark timestamps; is there a better format for this type of cite? Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, that's a very clever idea. Can't believe I missed it. No, that's a great way of doing it. Leave it as such. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much info on Mango Media. Are they a reputable publisher, or at least the two listed authors?
- One of the editors is Chris Stuckmann, who per his cited Wikipedia page seems to be fairly reputable - approved critic on Rotten Tomatoes, member of the Critics Choice Association, etc. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the online sources, I'm aware that ANN is recognized as kind of an expert on anime-related stuff, and I've seen articles from there be used in various other anime/manga-related pages that are featured articles. Same goes for websites like CBR. However:

What makes Pen-Online, Paste magazine, Collider, or SlashFilm high-quality, reliable sources?
- Pen [ja] is a Japanese lifestyle magazine that has been published since 1997, and is published by the same company that publishes that Japanese editions of Madame Figaro and Newsweek. Paste is a long-running American arts and culture magazine that I believe regarded fairly uncontroversially as reliable. Collider and SlashFilm seem to trend towards looser enthusiast-style coverage, but I think are situationally reliable in the incidental context in which they're being used in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Taking the above into account, as well as the statements the sources support, I'd say the article also passes the source review in terms of reliability & quality. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tintor2[edit]

Sorry for not commenting but I hope this review becomes active enough. Everything looks good but I'd suggest removing the quote boxes as the material chosen might come across a biased. Had a similar issue the To Your Eternity review as well as some Resident Evil.

I'll leave them for now and see if they come up as a point of contestation from other reviewers. I could see an argument for having a quote under "Reception and influence" being a POV issue, but I think the other quotes are fairly uncontroversial and add context to their sections. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section could explain what parts of each paragraph are the three arcs if they are worth mentioning.

I think I'll keep it as-is to avoid the overuse of subheads.. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The releases section should used before any other adaptation since it's the primary media (Right?)

Done. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Themes and analysis could be moved to production or reception if they are backed up by the anime stuff or third party sources.

I think that would just end up bloating those two sections; best to keep them in their own section (as has been done for The Heart of Thomas, Kaze to Ki no Uta, Banana Fish, etc). Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Hi, response above.

Support by Tintor2 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda concerned about "()" being accepted as part of the prose though.

Image review from voorts (pass)[edit]

Fair use rationales look good and the other images are public domain. The series logo is trademarked, but the image itself is marked as noncopyrightable. The images are illustrative of the article's content and the captions look good. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Link20XX[edit]

I gave this article a skim and could only find one thing that prevents me from supporting; the infobox lists the anime as having aired on KIKU and Sci-Fi Channel in the United States and Fly TV in Australia, but this is not sourced or mentioned again in the article. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Link20XX: Unfortunately, I can't find great sources to confirm that Utena aired on any of those channels. This article at Empty Movement references the series airing on the Sci-Fi Channel and "a television station in Hawaii" which I assume is KIKU, and while I would personally consider Empty Movement to be an in-context reliable source (the North American distributors of Utena consulted with them when releasing the series), they may not pass the smell test for an FAC. As for FlyTV, I can only find trace anecdotal evidence; this message board posting links to a TV schedule that purports to list the series, but the link is dead and again, not an especially reliable source. Perhaps it's best to just remove these entries from the infobox? Morgan695 (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably that's probably the best option if those are the best sources that can be found to back up the claim. Link20XX (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Link20XX: Done. Morgan695 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support great work with this one! Link20XX (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note / spotcheck[edit]

Hi Morgan, generally we waive spotchecks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing when nominators already have spotchecked FAs under their belt but as this would be your first solo effort I'm undertaking such a check...

FN23: Okay.
FN25a/b/d/e: Okay.
FN25c: Couldn't see where the film is clearly referenced in this fashion, have I missed something?
- That's me putting Ikuhara's comment that he "wanted to make it more naughty than the TV series" in Wikipedia language. I'm fine to either add the direct quote from Ikuhara or remove the prose entirely.
  - I get your point but I think you could do without the entire sentence.
    - Removed.
FN53: Source supports Adolescence of Utena being referred to by fans as The End of Utena, but can't see anything suggesting "affectionately".
- I guess that's maybe a bit of my own editorialization, but my rationale to keep the qualifier would be to clarify that the nickname isn't used disparagingly. I don't feel strongly enough about including it if doing so would inhibit an FA pass, though.
  - I don't doubt it is an affectionate appellation but we need to stick to what the source clearly supports; for someone unfamiliar with the subject it wouldn't read disparagingly if we simply lost "affectionately". Can you recall other instances of such minor editorialising in the article?
    - Removed.
    - And to my knowledge re: editorialising, no; the two sections you identified were pulled from the article on Adolescence of Utena, where I had access to fewer sources than I did for this article.
FN111: Link didn't work for me.
- Looks like it's a dead link, but the Archive link included in the source seems to be operating.
  - My bad, I overlooked the archived link -- okay.
FN114b: Okay.
FN116: Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Hi, reply above. And I actually have done a solo FAC, so I don't know if that changes anything w/r/t the need for a spotcheck. Morgan695 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morgan, what I meant was a solo FA that had had a spotcheck (I know at least one of your joint FACs passed a spotcheck). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Hi, reply above. Morgan695 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just acknowledging, will get to it shortly, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay tks Morgan, that satisfies my concerns. To maintain a safe distance though I'm going to recuse myself from closing and let one of my fellow coords judge if this is ready to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2023 [55].

Nuremberg trials[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the withdrawn FAC last year, I expanded the article with more information on the origins of crimes against humanity, the American, French, and British prosecution efforts, and the defense section. I incorporated new sources and also looked at Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (1977), but I did not see anything worth adding from that book. I'd like to thank everyone who commented on the article, particularly Brigade Piron and Ealdgyth. (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

Are the countries listed in the Origin section's first sentence in a specific order?
- Yes, chronological and also that used in the cited source.
"On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States issued the Moscow Declaration to "give full warning [...] justice may be done" - It is a bit unclear who this quote came from. Is it written in the Declaration itself?
- Yes, clarified.
"The British government, in light of the failure of trials after World War I, disinclined to endorse retroactive criminality, and unconvinced of the benefits of lengthy proceedings, still preferred the summary execution of Nazi leaders" - A long sentence, might benefit from a split
- Rewrote
"Germany surrendered unconditionally" could be piped to German Instrument of Surrender instead of the redirect German surrender
- Done
There seem to be over 700 usages of the word "the" in the article currently, so you could consider cutting some down. e.g. "Jackson's focus was on the aggressive war charge, which he described as the root of ~~the~~ crimes against humanity and of war crimes"
- I rephrased this sentence but am having a hard time wrapping my head around overuse of the word "the" as I'd never heard of it as an issue before. I read over parts of the article but am unable to identify cases of "the" that are detrimental.

My review is very general due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter. This is a very important topic of course and the article is engaging and well-researched in my opinion.--N Ø 16:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The "the" comment is more of an observation than a criticism. Satisfied with the changes.--N Ø 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling[edit]

refs look pretty. I request a spot check. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence: Do you have a reason for your request? -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to hazard a guess it has something to do with my comments on this fac. That said, any editor including Lingzhi is welcome to do a spot check. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is [56] this. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka[edit]

Between 1939 and 1945, Nazi Germany waged war across Europe, invading Czechoslovakia,... Can the German occupation of Czechoslovakia be described as a war? Even if it can, it was not part of WWII (which is linked).
- Rephrased. The point here is not that the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939 was part of WWII but it was an act of aggression according to the prosecution, although the tribunal also accepted the argument that the annexation of Austria was "a premeditated aggressive step" despite "the strong desire expressed in many quarters for the union of Austria and Germany"—which was deemed "immaterial". (Sayapin pp. 151–152). I am not sure that the annexation of Austria can be designated an invasion, so I did not list it.

~~My concern is that the link still suggests that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was part of WWII.~~

Removed from the list as the exact membership is not so important here.

~~...the systematic murder of millions of Jews... I miss a reference to other groups.~~
- The Jews are especially relevant considering the Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations which Hirsch mentions on the cited pages. I am not sure that others are relevant to mention specifically. From the Soviet perspective what mattered was not the individual groups of victims (especially given their "do not divide the dead" approach) but the war devastation and losing a lot of population. Western Allies encountered a mass of former KZ prisoners and they also did not have a good understanding of Nazi persecutions of specific groups of people.

~~I think the emphasis on Jews in the article's context should be explained.~~

Rewrite to show an evidenced link with the trial that does not exist in the case of other groups. Sellars writes, From the outset, the Allies had justified the prosecution of the leaders of the Axis powers on the grounds that the conflict had been unique in the annals of warfare because of its totality and barbarity. This argument rested primarily upon a singular event: the Holocaust. Although the judges at Nuremberg declared crimes against peace to be the ‘supreme international crime’,28 it was in fact the existence of the death camps that formed the moral core of the Allies’ case against the Nazi leaders.

~~...1⁄7th... Why not one seventh?~~
- Fixed
~~...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.~~
- Done
... eight governments-in-exile... Perhaps a very short explanation between dashes?
- Done
~~...Axis crimes... So far the article only referred to Nazi Germany's aggression. Why is Axis not linked?~~
- Corrected to "German" after checking the source
~~...war crimes... The term is only linked in the lead.~~
- Fixed
~~...without Soviet participation... Why?~~
- According to Hirsch, the reason they did not was because in exchange for recognizing the participation of British Dominions, the Soviets wanted each of the Soviet republics to be admitted individually, including countries such as Lithuania that the Western powers did not recognize as part of the Soviet Union. (p. 30). This seems too tangential to include
~~According to the corresponding article, China also signed the Moscow Declaration.~~
- According to the official text, the Statement of Atrocities referred to here was joined by USSR, UK, US but not China (as Heller states).
~~...Allies' intent... Allies is not linked yet. Did it declare of the Allies' intent or the intent of the signing powers?~~
- "the aforesaid three Allied Powers, speaking in the interests of the 32 United Nations", so I've revised to signatories
... those high-ranking Nazis who had committed crimes in several countries... Perhaps it indicates the limits of my English, but for me the sentence suggests that those Nazis who committed crimes in only one of the occupied countries were not intended to be persecuted.
- Clarified
~~Nuremberg Charter is linked twice (once as London Conference)~~
- I think these conference is separately notable from the final document that was approved, so I prefer to leave in the extra redirect.
~~Nineteen states ratified the charter... Could they be listed in a footnote?~~
- I'm actually not convinced that this detail is relevant to include since Gemahlich does not actually list them and I cannot find references to ratification by other states in Hirsch, Priemel, Heller, Sellars, and other sources I checked. Their role in the trial seems to have been nil so I've removed it.
~~Murray Bernays, a War Department lawyer, proposed the conspiracy charge. For me, this statement comes out of the blue. What is conspiracy charge? Why is his proposal relevant?~~
- Removed
Briefly introduce ~~Hartley Shawcross,~~ Auguste Champetier de Ribes ~~and Robert Falco~~.
- done
~~Consider linking indictment.~~
- Done
~~...the three official languages of the tribunal... Could they be listed?~~
- I thought it was obvious, now spelled out
~~...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.~~
- Done
~~Institutional rivalries hampered the search. Some context? My concern is that this sentence is too general, it could be mentioned in any context where at least two institutions are to cooperate.~~
- I could just remove this sentence.

~~Could the intitutions involved be mentioned or an example be added (to be more specific)?~~ Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue the review in one or two days. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the details would be UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Jackson is first mentioned in section "Legal basis" but he is introduced and linked in section "Judges and procedures".~~
- Revised
~~...even resorting to implausible lies Could you mention some examples?~~
- Douglas says that this tactic was used when denying knowledge of the final solution, for example Kaltenbrunner claimed that he thought Sonderbehandlung referred to prisoners getting privileged conditions. He lied so much that a prosecutor asked him, "Is it not a fact that you are simply lying?" Arthur Seyss-Inquart claimed that he sent people to Auschwitz but it was not bad there because there was an orchestra.
~~...expecting that the German people would favorably regard his loyalty to Hitler after his death I assume this is a PoV not a fact.~~
- I've tried to word this better but maybe I should just take it out.
~~...far more than any other group Could it be linked to an article?~~
- I don't know
~~...Despite the lingering doubts of some of the judges Could you mention some examples?~~
- It's not stated in the sources and perhaps not known which judges had doubts about the retroactivity of the crimes against peace charge.
In France, some verdicts were met with outrage from the media and especially from organizations for deportees and resistance fighters, as they were perceived as too lenient. Could you mention some examples?
- Done
Two pictures depict aggression against the USSR (File:RIAN archive 2251 Destroyed Stalingrad does not give up.jpg; File:Men with an unidentified unit execute a group of Soviet civilians kneeling by the side of a mass grave.jpg). I suggest that the first picture be replaced with a picture about the Destruction of Warsaw.
- I've removed the pictures which is what Brigade Piron suggested repeatedly. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue the review tommorrow or on Monday. After re-reading the article I concluded that it meets all FA criteria, so I support its promotion. Thank you for this thoroughly researched and well written article. Borsoka (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UndercoverClassicist[edit]

A really important article and, I appreciate, not an easy one to write or get right. I'm not an expert in the subject matter, and thse comments come with a context of a great deal of admiration for the article and the work done on it so far. The writing is extremely impressive.

- I realise I haven't really wrapped this one up: I am certainly leaning support on the basis of what I can assess, particularly the quality of the writing and explanation, which are really top-notch. I am a little hesitant to vote that way for comprehensiveness concerns: while I understand the rationale for a relatively short bibliography, there are also risks to that approach; similarly, while I think the ongoing moves to branch out some more expansive material (like the list of witnesses) into sub-articles are good, I think they also indicate that there's a slightly unresolved tension between brevity and comprehensiveness here. I'd be more comfortable voting support if another editor more knowledgeable about the subject matter were to chime in (and I recognise Buidhe's considerable expertise here): for the moment, I'll hold off until more content-focused reviews come in, but I'm happy to review that if there's a risk of the nomination being archived for lack of support. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German aggression was accompanied by immense brutality in occupied areas and the systematic murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust: I'm with User:Borsoka that it feels odd to implicitly exclude e.g. the disabled, LGBT people and Romani people from the "systematic murder" category. I appreciate that including them in the Holocaust is a very thorny topic, and that brevity is important here, but could we have something like German aggression was accompanied by immense brutality in occupied areas, including the systematic murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust and that of millions of people from other groups the Nazis termed "subhuman"?
- See the edit made to this paragraph
  - Happy with this: now threads the needle nicely.
~~Why one seventh but two-thirds? Personally, I'd hyphenate throughout.~~
- Done
representatives of nine governments-in-exile from German-occupied Europe issued a declaration on Punishment for War Crimes: not sure the capitalisation works here (as it's only correct for the title of the declaration, not the concept of the same name): either make Punishment for War Crimes a title and capitalise, so a declaration, Punishment for War Crimes, which... or make it a description, as here, and decapitalise. The link can stay either way.
- Done
~~and bogged down in the scope of its mandate: became bogged down, surely?~~
- Done
The Soviet Union wanted to hold a show trial similar to the 1930s Moscow trials, in order to demonstrate the Nazi leaders' guilt and build a case for war reparations to rebuild the Soviet economy, which had been devastated by the war.: I worry that this might be heading slightly towards an NPOV problem: did the Soviets openly want an unfair trial, or did they argue that a short, fairly perfunctory operation would be sufficient to establish the Nazis' guilt? Similarly, I imagine both sides would have called their proposal "fair". Appreciate the need for brevity here, but it might help to be a little more specific on the concrete differences of rules and procedure that each side wanted.
- On this point: this review of Hirsch gives the opposite impression: that the British and Americans were the ones originally pushing for extra-legal punishment, while it was Stalin's influence that ensured a courtroom trial was held at all.
- That is accurate. The Soviet Union wanted a trial in which the defense would not be given the chance to make a case, thus not a fair trial by Western standards. The trial would be held for propaganda purposes, not with the aim of securing a fair outcome. The UK especially was wary of the prospect of war crimes trials, as stated in the article, thus favoring summary execution of Nazi leaders. Indeed Hirsch argues that the trial may not have been held at all if the Soviet Union hadn't pushed for it (although this is not a claim made in the article).
  - Understood: I think the recent edits are a big improvement. I would still replace "fair trial" with a more neutral term to explain what would be fair(er) about it (for instance, including that point about the defence not being allowed to speak in the Soviets' definition of a "trial"). After all, whether the Nuremberg trials were fair was (and perhaps still is) something of a bone of contention, and the US's stipulations were certainly not all about ensuring fairness. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you are happy with the revised wording now. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the United States' new president: is it worth explaining briefly why he was new?
- I don't think it's relevant.
  - I think it's worth thinking, then, about why his newness is relevant: the point is, I think, that Truman is having to play the hand that Roosevelt, via Yalta etc, has dealt him. I don't see Roosevelt's name in the article at all: it would be good to make a little more explicit that the person who decided the US was doing this thing and the person who had to carry it out were different people. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sellars gives the impression that Roosevelt was not much involved in these plans at all and it was Truman who made the decision to announce an international court. (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose that raises the question of whether we need the "new" at all? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        removed (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~negotiated the exact form that the trial would take: "exact" could be omitted as needless here.~~
- Done
upended the traditional view of international law by holding individuals, rather than states, responsible for breaches of international law: will defer to the sources here, but is that quite correct as stated? For instance, the Leipzig war crimes trials of 1921 prosecuted individuals for war crimes under international law, such as sinking hospital ships on the high seas. The implication I read from the sentence as written in the article is that previously, a state would be put on trial rather than an individual, but that wasn't always true. From what I can tell, the difference is that the court itself was international, as opposed to justice being done under the law of one of the involved nations.
- The Leipzig trials were held by Germany under classical jurisdictional rules which include the provision that states have jurisdiction over their own citizens and can prosecute alleged crimes committed beyond their internationally recognized borders (extraterritorial jurisdiction is not the same as universal jurisdiction). There was a concept of war crime as a criminal violation of the laws of war, but it was effectual in Leipzig because of German ratification of various treaties such as the Hague and Geneva conventions that called for prosecution of violators. It is not the case that states were subject to criminal responsibility, but the principle of state responsibility was used in litigation when states sued each other at the Permanent Court of International Justice.
- What was different at Nuremberg was trying individuals for violations of international law, such as the acts of aggression and systematic crimes against humanity. They were not tried according to German military law (as at the Leipzig trials) but a separate legal code. The previous legal immunity for acts of sovereign states, and superior orders as a defense, were abolished in the case of international crimes. This was "the true beginning of international criminal law" according to Sayapin. It's possible that the article could do a better job of explaining this for a reader who might not know much about legal systems. (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense: I agree it could (and should) be explained more clearly in the article. The implication I get from the second paragraph of "legal basis" is that the idea of trying an individual for war crimes was novel. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The British proposal to define crimes against humanity as widespread and systematic attacks on civilians was accepted: this sentence is a little ambiguous: did the British propose "widespread and systematic attacks on civilians" as a definition of war crimes (so The British proposal to define crimes against humanity as "widespread and systematic attacks on civilians" was accepted?
- Technically, the wording of "Widespread and systematic" postdates Nuremberg; it actually is the wording used in the Rome Statute. I've added in a direct quote from the charter.
The final version of the charter limited the jurisdiction over crimes against humanity to those committed as part of a war of aggression: this one took me a minute to parse: "limited the tribunal's jurisdiction"?
- Done
Each state appointed a prosecution team and two judges, one being an alternate: alternate might be a touch WP:JARGONy: do we mean something like a prosecution team, a main judge and an alternate in case [what, exactly?]
- The difference was that the alternate was not allowed to vote on the final verdict unless the main judge was incapacitated. All the sources use "alternate", which I don't really see as jargon.
  - Perhaps not, but it's certainly not a word where readers will naturally know and assume the meaning intended by the article (it could very well mean that someone was going to choose between the two later, for example): I'd suggest explaining what you've just set out. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you happy with the wording change done by another editor? (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~As the numerically strongest delegation: why not "largest"?~~
- Done
The American intelligence agency Office of Strategic Services also assisted the prosecutors: it's usually referred to as the OSS, so suggest The Office of Strategic Services, an American intelligence agency, also...
- Done
  - The OSS is now not introduced, which it probably should be. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviet personnel's lack of knowledge of English: "personnel's" like this reads unidiomatically to me: style guides often advise avoiding the possessive of indeclinable nouns, because we end up with this awkwardness where it's inflected as if singular but semantically plural. Suggest either The Soviet delegation's or the influence of the Soviet personnel was limited by their....
- Done
  - Grammatically, I think it does need to be either "its limited English", "their limited English", "its members' limited English" or something like that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down to the top of "Indictment" at the moment: more later. Again, my hat off to you for this vital but demanding piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More:

The British worked on putting together the aggressive war charge: suggest hyphenation: aggressive-war charge per MOS:HYPHEN, since it's the war that was aggressive, not the charge. We'd do the same for e.g. short-story writers even when we wouldn't write "A Sound of Thunder is a short-story". The same has been done for "crimes-against-peace charges" further down.
- Rephrased
  - the French and Soviet delegations were assigned the task of covering crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the Western Front and the Eastern Front, respectively: now a little unclear: did the French get crimes against humanity and the Soviets get war crimes on the Western and Eastern front? It sounds more like we mean that both delegations were to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes; the French would have responsibility for those committed on the Western Front, and the Soviets for those committed on the Eastern Front. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed
It was also a way to indirectly charge crimes committed before the beginning of World War II, which the charter placed outside the court's jurisdiction: slight grammatical ambiguity here as to what, exactly, was outside the court's jurisdiction (was it World War II, its beginning, or crimes committed before its beginning)? Suggest "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II [or a specific date, since when WWII began is not a straightforward question], which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction"
- The Nuremberg charter neither gives a date range for its applicability, nor does it strictly speaking limit its jurisdiction to the war itself. However, because the enumerated charges were crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity only when there was a nexus with the preceding crimes effectively its jurisdiction was limited accordingly.
  - Gotcha: I think "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II,[EFN if felt helpful] which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction" is clearer then: it's the crimes, not the war or its beginning, that were outside jurisdiction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy charges were especially central to the cases against propagandists and industrialists; the former were charged with providing the ideological justification for war and other crimes, while the latter were accused of enabling the war with the economic mobilization necessary for the German war effort: lots of war here, and it's better to use a colon to link sentences where the second explains the first. Suggest Conspiracy charges were central to the cases against propagandists and industrialists: the former were charged with providing the ideological justification for war and other crimes, while the latter were accused of enabling Germany's war by facilitating its economic mobilization.
- Done
  - Ends a little abruptly now; "enabling Germany's war effort" would be better than simply "enabling Germany's war", if a full explanation is felt unnecessary. I appreciate the need for brevity (on which see my comment far below about the article's scope), but the prose still needs to thread the needle with quality and clarity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~the three official languages of the tribunal—English, French, and Russian—as well as German: was German not an official language of the tribunal?~~
- That's correct, but all proceedings and documents were required to be translated into the defendant's language. See Nuremberg charter Article 25.
~~difficulty in recruiting interpreters should be difficulty of in this context, I think.~~
- Done
Jackson also rewrote the indictment with the intent of keeping the proceedings under American control by separating out an overall conspiracy charge from the other three charges: I don't understand how separating this charge would keep the proceedings under American control.
- Rewrote
~~Lodging a mild protest against "committed suicide", though I understand that it's permitted by the MoS.~~
- Changed 2/3 uses to "Killed himself"
  - Out of interest, why not the third? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think "Killed themselves" sounds kind of awkward and I don't really like other suicide wordings. In this case no one can object to stigmatizing Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler although suicide was the least of their crimes. (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~The final list was based on one drawn up by the British Foreign Office in 1944 and haphazardly added to: do we know who added to it? Was it just the British?~~
- Removed, see Priemel 81-83 for wrangling over the list but I'm not sure it's relevant to mention
  - I'm a little concerned that we're making a lot of decisions to cut down and simplify the story: I'd understand that if the story was going to be told at more length elsewhere, but this seems like the lowest-level article for most of what we're talking about. Not so much a quibble on this individual point as part of a general unease about comprehensiveness. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have added multiple paragraphs on this to List of defendants at the International Military Tribunal. (t · c) buidhe 19:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Observers of the trial found the defendants mediocre and contemptible.: can this be nuanced a little: all of them (on both counts)? What does Priemel base this statement on?
- This was the general impression, based on Priemel's reading of caricatures and private papers among other sources
  - Could we nuance slightly: perhaps name some of these observers, or talk about the press, if they're involved? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson demanded changes and expansion of the defendants list: we wouldn't say changes of the defendants list, so "changes to and expansion of" would work, or else "Jackson demanded that the list of defendants be changed and expanded as late as October."
- Reworded
~~tried in absentia: italicise in absentia, as is normal in HQRS?~~
- Done
~~What exactly does headlined the trial mean?~~
- Reworded
they prioritized the Wehrmacht's reputation over the lives of the generals on trial: I'd suggest that this might be better placed where it would have some tangible consequences: did any of the lawyers throw their defendants under the bus, so to speak? Also, a question mark on the term Wehrmacht, firstly for accuracy (not everyone on trial was military or a part of that organisation, so do we mean "German national honor" or something similar?). Secondly and more vaguely, there's a tendency in Anglophone scholarship to use German-language terms (Wehrmacht, Panzer, Reich, Luftwaffe...) for Nazi institutions where we'd translate the equivalent term in other languages (it's always French tanks, never French chars, or the Japanese Empire, or the Italian Army...), which can have the consequence of giving them a sort of exotic gloss. I'm not saying that it's doing that here, but I'd always think hard about whether translating is a better option, given that not doing so can put us in some unsavoury company. More prosaically, if Wehrmacht is staying, it should be wl'd (only) on first mention.
- Priemel does say that the lawyers seemed to be in general agreement that the Wehrmacht’s reputation mattered a great deal more than Keitel’s and Jodl’s lives but on reflection I've removed it as the article already has enough other coverage about defense of the Wehrmacht's reputation.
The American and British prosecutors focused on documentary evidence and affidavits rather than testimony from survivors, as the latter was considered less reliable and more liable to accusations of bias, but at the expense of reducing public interest in the proceedings: a run-on sentence which becomes ungrammatical: "at the expense of..." grammatically modifies "focused" but describes a consequence of downplaying survivor testimony. Suggest The American and British prosecutors focused on documentary evidence and affidavits rather than testimony from survivors, as the latter was considered less reliable and more liable to accusations of bias, a strategy which reduced public interest in the proceedings., or else split the sentence after "testimony from survivors" and say something like "This strategy increased the credibility of their case, since survivor testimony was considered less reliable and more vulnerable to accusations of bias, but reduced public interest in the proceedings."
- Done
After the American prosecution flooded the trial with untranslated evidence: a nice metaphor, but would suggest rephrasing into more literal language for accessibility. Did the judge want the evidence read in translation into the record?
- Reworded
~~both substantive and conspiracy charges: perhaps a legalism, but are conspiracy charges not substantitive?~~
- Reworded
forcefully countered this strawman: a very internet-native turn of phrase. Suggest "and made forceful arguments against the notion". Has Priemel explicitly said that the idea that Nuremberg wanted to create collective blame (a la Versailles) was false? If so, we could more neutrally add "which Priemel has described as "utterly bananas", or a similar phrase.
- I am not sure that this is an "internet-native turn of phrase"; references to strawman arguments have been common since around 1960 per the NGRAMS results and it doesn't seem like unencyclopedic language to me. I have mulled it over and cannot think of another way to concisely convey the same information in different words. Priemel makes it clear that the prosecution did not seek to present the entire German nation as guilty as the defense claimed.
  - Perhaps something like Defense lawyers often made forceful but false arguments that the prosecution was trying to promote German collective guilt, though the defendants disavowed this assertion.? Not a huge problem, but I really can't imagine seeing that phrase in a printed academic work of history. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Jackson's focus was on the aggressive war charge and the crimes against peace charge: see comments on hyphenation above.~~
- Reworded
~~American prosecutors were not any more effective: "no more effective"?~~
- Done
~~documentary evidence on the conspiracy: of the conspiracy, surely?~~
- Reworded
a "saturation point of horror": per WP:NONFREE, this quotation needs to be attributed: we've got two sources cited in the sentence, but it isn't clear which one the quotation is from. Ideally we'd have "reached what Soandso has called...".
- Reworded
~~Italicise Einsatzgruppen as in the eponymous article?~~
- Done
~~Unlike Jackson, he attempted: suggest "Shawcross attempted", as the last person mentioned is Lauterpacht.~~
- Done
~~the complicity of the Foreign Office, the German Army, and the navy.: as there is a British Foreign Office, suggest "the German Foreign Office, army and navy.".~~
- Done
Sonderweg is linked for a second time under "French prosecution".
- Fixed
~~I'd briefly explain the technical term mens rea, as it's quite important to understanding the sentence it's in.~~
- Done
instead focused on forced labor, economic plunder, massacres, and Germanization.: this reads a little like arson, murder and jaywalking: is there a better way to phrase "Germanization" (Cultural genocide?) to get across the seriousness of it to the French prosecutors?
- If it sounds like arson murder and jaywalking that is the same impression that the judges must have gotten, because many of the French prosecutors' charges seemed much less serious than the crimes presented by the other delegations, particularly the Soviet Union.
  - Perhaps the order needs some thought, then: massacres certainly don't seem trivial, and going straight from there to Germanization creates a jarring effect that I'm not sure would have been in the original prosecution, or the sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~The focus on economic exploitation was in part in order to substantiate reparations claims: "in part in order" is a little inelegant: "partly in order"?~~
- Done
~~Unlike the British and American prosecution strategy: are we presenting these as a single, unified strategy? If not, suggest strategies and, later, cases.~~
- Done
~~calling eleven witnesses: were these themselves victims?~~
- I believe they were all or largely members of the French resistance but am unable to find sources saying so. The most famous was probably resistance fighter and Auschwitz survivor Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier.
  - Worth naming? Again, I'd read this suggestion alongside bigger points about brevity and scope. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~The only part of the French charges that were accepted: prune to "the only part of the French charges accepted"?~~
- Done
The next week, the Soviet prosecution suddenly produced former field marshal Friedrich von Paulus,: suddenly could be read as a little sensationalising: had they not revealed that they would be calling him in advance?
- There was no advance announcement, it was a surprise when he showed up.
  - I think it would strike a better tone to state the first part of that: perhaps "...von Paulus, who had not been disclosed as among their witnesses", or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there doesn't seem to have been any requirement to announce witnesses in advance (although the defense complained about it). The Americans also called surprise witnesses according to Hirsch, but it was Paulus' appearance that caused the most surprise, the court had to be adjourned temporarily. However, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the overall legacy of the trials, so I removed the word "suddenly". (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~at times they blurred the fate of Jews with other Soviet nationalities: it was the two fates, not the fate and the nationalities, that were blurred: so, "they blurred the fate of Jews with that of..."~~
- Done
~~casting the entire proceedings into question: either "casting doubt on the entire proceedings" or "calling the entire proceedings into question".~~
- Done
~~poet Abraham Sutzkever, who eloquently described: I'm sure he was eloquent, but is it encyclopaedic to say so in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of a secondary source?~~
- Removed as unnecessary
None of the defendants tried to assert that the Nazis' crimes had not occurred.: I understand the importance of saying in this article that the defendants accepted the reality of the Holocaust, but I'm not sure that the link quite works here, since more than just the Holocaust was in contention.
- The only relevant article I can find to link is the Holocaust denial article, but I could unlink it if you don't find the link helpful.
  - I think the link might be a little misleading: it implies that we're talking strictly about the Holocaust here, but we're not: we're also talking about waging wars of aggression, massacring PoWs, and so on. How about "None of the defendants tried to assert that any alleged Nazi crimes, including the Holocaust, had not occurred..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed link (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
arguing that because Germany was a civilized country few Germans could have supported Hitler: we've got a parenthetical clause in here: either comma it off ("arguing that, because Germany was a civilised country, few...") or rearrange ("arguing that few Germans could have supported Hitler, because Germany...")
- Done
Many of the defense lawyers prioritized the reputation of the Wehrmacht above the defense of their clients.: this is repeated from earlier: is that intentional? As before, I think it would be useful to say something concrete about how this made a difference, if indeed it did.
- Removed, see above
~~Other absent and dead men including Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, and Bormann were also blamed: again, comma off the clause "including Himmler... and Bormann".~~
- Done
~~To counter claims of conservative defendants having enabled: suggest better as "claims that conservative defendants had enabled..."~~
- Done
~~expecting that the German people would favorably regard his loyalty to Hitler after his death: Hitler's or Goering's?~~
- Reworded

Stopping for a bit, halfway through "Defense". An extremely complex subject navigated extremely skilfully. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a tu quoque defense: as with mens rea further up, I'd explain this: it isn't ideal for non-Latin-speaking readers (apparently we have some of those!) to have to click a link to understand the sentence.
- Done
and their lawyers argued that this invasion was undertaken to prevent a British invasion;: it only becomes clear from the wikilink that this is a British invasion of Norway (rather than, say, of Germany). Suggest a rephrase to something like "this invasion was undertaken to frustrate a British plans to invade the same country".
- Done
~~effectively incriminated the defendants: effectively can mean either "to great effect" or "more-or-less"; I don't think the ambiguity works in our favour here.~~
- Reworded. The point is that defense lawyers called witnesses who actually/inadvertently bolstered the prosecution case.
  - Nice job: can we say "inadvertently" here, or is there any chance that some of them were doing it deliberately? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Priemel strongly implies that the damage was inadvertent, but on the other hand I am not sure that he directly states it as necessary to avoid WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Midway through the trial, Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech denouncing the Soviet threat delighted the defense: suggest Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech denouncing the Soviet threat, made in the United States midway through the trial, delighted the defense}}: current phrasing could be read as implying that Churchill delivered it at Nuremberg.
- I ended up removing the sentence because I'm not sure it's essential to include.
  - Hm: there is a definite thread in this article about how the trials go from being a (fairly) all-Allied affair and basically situated in WWII, to an early-Cold-War face-off between the Western Allies and the Soviets: I think the Iron Curtain speech is important to that narrative. At the risk of beating a worn-out drum, this is another point that makes me suggest that the IMT needs its own article to allow sufficient comprehensivity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-added. See my comments below about the scope (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The United States ... tried its best to shut the Soviets out of the proceedings: this is a little vague and could do with some concrete substantiation. Given that the statement is almost at the end of the trial, I'm not really clear on how it intersects with what went before: is this a general feature of the whole proceedings or did it emerge during the defence portion?
- It seems like during the defense the US and British prosecutors split up most of the cross-examinations between themselves, but did allow French and Soviet prosecutors to intervene, so I removed it.
In the context of the brewing Cold War, the trial became a means of condemning not only Germany but also the Soviet Union: likewise, I think this could do with some explanation or expansion to ensure that the article is comprehensive.
- The main examples are already given, namely Seidl's shenanigans and the Western judges letting the defense use the trial as a platform to criticize the Soviet Union.
  - Would they be better moved or recapped here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A master of self-promotion, Speer managed to give the impression of apologizing, although without assuming personal guilt or naming any victims other than the German people: I'm not sure "a master of self-promotion" is quite encyclopaedic in Wikipedia's voice, and although should be followed here by a finite verb: although he did not assume... or name...
- If anyone can be described as a master of self promotion in wikivoice it would be Speer. Nevertheless, removed and reworded.
  - Yes, entirely fair: I'd be happy with it as "described by a later biographer as a 'master of self-promotion'" vel sim. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
because war in general is evil: not sure about the read of this one: how about "stating that war was evil in itself, and "to initiate..."
- The actual words were "War is essentially an evil thing"
  - Yes: it just reads a bit Sunday-School to state that so baldly in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of the tribunal. I like the solution of making it a direct quotation: still suggest linking malum in se on "essentially an evil thing", which also helps to disambiguate "essentially" as meaning "in its essence" rather than "more or less". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Used quote instead. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~The judges did not attempt to define aggression: italicise aggression per MOS:WORDSASWORDS?~~
- Reworded
The judgment found that there was a premeditated conspiracy : sequence of tenses (the conspiracy was done by the time of the judgement): "the judgement found that there had been..." More optionally, consider "Austria had been a victim..." later.
- Done
  - We still have The judges ruled that there was a premeditated conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, which implies that the conspiracy was still ongoing when the judgement was made ("John said that there was a cat behind that tree" means that the cat was still there when he spoke; "John said that there had been a cat behind that tree" means that it's gone.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~the Soviet judges preferred a broad interpretation: I'm not sure what exactly a 'broad interpretation' would be in this context.~~
- Reworded
The war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants who were charged being acquitted on those charges: a little confusing in the phrasing: suggest "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants charged on those grounds being acquitted", or "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best; only two defendants charged on those grounds were acquitted."
- Done
~~The judges interpreted crimes against humanity narrowly: this seems to mean something closer to "the judges interpreted their jurisdiction over crimes against humanity narrowly".~~
- Done
~~as disproving its criminality: perhaps clearer "as asserting its innocence"?~~
- I want to include a link to war crimes of the Wehrmacht which isn't possible with that wording.
  - A reasonable compromise, then. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's taken me until about this point to realise that some of the people we talked about earlier - the industrialists, and possibly the propagandists - weren't actually on trial. It certainly seemed from the "Defendants" section that Krupp would be part of the legal proceeding that was described afterwards, but now it turns out that he was part of a different trial. More generally, I'm still a little confused as to how the IMT and the NMT fit together, and the extent to which each "counts" as "The Nuremberg Trials".
- Both industrialists and propagandists were charged at the IMT; although a greater number of industrialists were charged at the NMT. As stated in the article, Gustav Krupp was charged at IMT but not tried because of his poor health. Prosecutors had actually meant to charge his son Alfried Krupp but the error wasn't caught in time. Combining the IMT and NMT makes sense from a US and German perspective but less so from the other countries' perspective. When I started working on this article, I wanted it to cover the IMT exclusively. But now I realize that there are prominent works such as Priemel and Weinke that do deal jointly with the IMT and NMT as "Nuremberg trials", which justifies the article organization. (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it would help considerably to set out the scope of the trials more clearly - in particular, the division between the IMT and NMT - before we dive into the IMT. This might need a bigger structural rethink. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure about that. The form that the NMT took and their scope was heavily affected by the fact that plans to hold additional international trials fell apart. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Striking this one as the discussion has moved elsewhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The case law of the trials fleshed out the skeleton provided by the Nuremberg charter: I would generally shy away from metaphors like this in encyclopaedic writing, as above: they trade precision and accessibility for literary flair, when we generally want to do the opposite.
- Reworded
~~resistance fighters: wikilink to French resistance?~~
- It would be a duplicate link as the French resistance is wikilinked earlier in the article
Many Germans at the time of the trials focused on finding food and shelter; few followed the trial closely: this could do with fleshing out a little more. Presumably, the basic point is that most Germans were in too miserable a physical condition to care much about a trial?
- Rewrote, a more recent source presents evidence that a majority of Germans actually did follow the trial despite their circumstances.
~~Many Germans considered the trials illegitimate victor's justice and the imposition of collective guilt: an imposition, surely?~~
- Done
  - Is it worth pointing out that "collective guilt" had an emotive legacy in Germany: did the German press draw a link to Versailles, for example? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Priemel mentions that the defense lawyers tried to mention Versailles, but the judges wouldn't let them pontificate about it. I'm not sure about the public in general, but I'm not sure it would be WP:DUE since most results for searches of Nuremberg trials Versailles focus on aspects of the treaty that could be seen as a legal precedent. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were vociferous proponents of amnesty, which had cross-party support in West Germany, which was established in 1949: the double relative clause is awkward (and vociferous is a loaded word: close to line of WP:NPOV). Suggest "The German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were determined proponents of amnesty. The idea also gained cross-party support in West Germany, which was established in 1949."
- Done
By then, the Americans were hoping to use the offer of pardon to convicted war criminals in order to bind West Germany to the Western Bloc.: who exactly was receiving (and so in a position to accept or decline) the offer: the criminals themselves or the West German state? Not sure "in order to" works here: you use something to do something.
- Reworded
~~High Commissioner John J. McCloy: High Commissioner of what, exactly?~~
- Linked Allied High Commission
The last prisoner was released in 1958: would be worth saying who this was. Also worth being extra-clear that this is specifically the last prisoner sentenced by the NMT, as we find out soon after that IMT prisoners were still behind bars.
- Reworded
The International Military Tribunal, and the drafters of its charter, invented international criminal law essentially from nothing: I think this has to be framed as a secondary source's judgement: international criminal law definitely existed before 1945.
- I have changed "invented" to "developed".
  - Not sure the meaning has substantially changed (if you develop a vaccine from nothing, you invent it): I'd be much happier with "have been credited with" or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to relying on a quote from reliable source as you suggested. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~During the two decades after the trial, opinions were predominantly negative: opinions of what, exactly?~~
- Reworded
The charge of crimes against humanity, the charge of conspiracy, and imposing criminal penalties on individuals for breaches of international law were also novel but attracted little criticism: difficult to follow with the long final list item: suggest "Other novel concepts, such as the charge of crimes against humanity, the charge of conspiracy, and the imposition [don't mix gerunds and participles] of criminal penalties on individuals for breaches of international law, attracted little criticism}}
- Reworded
Some defenders of the trial argued that the legal principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law) was not binding in international proceedings: could this be expanded slightly to make the implications explicit: were some defenders acknowledging that no law prohibited what the defendants had done, but arguing that they could legitimately be tried for it anyway? IF so, how about adding "...was not binding in international proceedings, and so the defendants could be tried under natural law" (or whatever justification they came up with).
- Clarified. But the argument was mainly that retroactive application of criminal law was acceptable in international proceedings.
  - Well clarified. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The trials were the first use of simultaneous interpretation: since simultaneous interpretation only technically involves the interpreter not waiting for the speaker to finish, should this be something more like "the first use ... in a major criminal proceeding" or "the first documented use"?
For comprehensiveness, it would be good to have a link to the legacy of the trials (specifically, the precedent of "crimes against humanity" and universal jurisdiction therefor) in France (see and Google-translate French Wikipedia) and for Eichmann in Jerusalem.
- The legal legacy of the trials is more closely connected to the ICC, ICTR, ICTY (all mentioned) than the Eichmann trial, which was based on a law only partly inspired by Nuremberg (other countries like France also adopted crimes against humanity into their domestic law, but I think it is more relevant to crimes against humanity than this article). Universal jurisdiction is unrelated to the justification for prosecution at Nuremberg.
  - Again, struck as the discussion is now elsewhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of material in the Russian FA that I don't see here, for example:
- On the accommodation of defendants, soldiers and lawyers during the trial, and the (extensive) security operation around this.
- The substance of the final statements made by the defendants, only briefly alluded to here.
- A short section on how the simultaneous translation worked, which is notable as this is part (admittedly, one smallish part among many) of the trials' legacy.

A more general comment on sourcing: we have an article, Nuremberg Trials bibliography, which is roughly four or five times the length of this article's bibliography. I notice in particular a lot of reliance on Hirsch and Priemel, who together seem to account for a substantial majority of the citations. Given the contentious and sensitive nature of the subject matter, I think it would be useful to weave in a greater range of authorities, even if that would simply involve swapping a citation from one source for another that says the same thing, to ensure that the article reflects and can be seen to reflect the scholarly consensus. The French article has a lot of bibliography not used here, as does the Russian FA (not just books in Russian); I notice in particular that there's only one book in German: again, there's a lot of works cited heavily on German Wikipedia that don't appear here.

OK, that's me. I know there's a lot here: please take that as a measure of the article's scale and importance rather than its quality. Overall, most of the above is polish for the prose or questions for clarity: if there are any question-marks, they are over whether the article is fully comprehensive on this huge subject, and how thoroughly it has been able to integrate and reflect the volume of scholarship on it. Again, it's a hugely impressive piece of work, and it's important that Wikipedia does this one well, so thank you for taking it on in such a way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current article length is nearly 7,000 words. At this point if I were adding significant new content I would also be looking to see if I could reduce the article length elsewhere. I'm certainly willing to consider if there are overlooked aspects but the length also should be kept under control.
I know there are different approaches to citing sources. I used to use a more "kitchen sink" approach but now my opinion is that the best way is to start with the most high-quality, well-regarded and recent overviews of the stated topic (in this case certainly Hirsch and Priemel), filling out any gaps with other sources. This approach leads to a smaller bibliography and I don't really believe in citing other sources simply for the benefit of having a larger bibliography. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

3 of the sources are in French and 3 are in German. Can you make the case for completeness grounds with such a limited use of non-English sources?
Tusa & Tusa 2010 and Musa 2016 come from smaller publishers. Of the millions of words that have been written about the trials, are these two sources the best option?

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tusa & Tusa and Musa were both added as a result of Brigade Piron's concerns about covering the British contribution. I would be ok removing Tusa & Tusa as it is the oldest and weakest source cited but I wouldn't call Brill a "small publisher". (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that there's conflicting concerns here, and something of a difference of philosophy. Personally, I would be much more comfortable erring on the side of including more sources: this is a much-studied topic, and I'd see it as a corollary of WP:DUEWEIGHT (specifically, the stipulation that articles need to reflect the balance of HQRSs) that we're going to have some big articles where the subject matter doesn't split well but has a huge historiography. On the approach to sources, again, there's pros and cons, but secondary sources and monographs always embody a particular author's interpretations: how does a reader of this article, or we as a scholarly community assessing it, know what's the communis opinio versus what's Hirsch's own pet theory? This is particularly true when we're implicitly assuming or stating that you can get practically everything you need to get in the historiography of this topic from English-language sources, and I'd be amazed if that were the case given how differently these trials were viewed in (particularly) France, the Soviet Union and Germany. At the moment, this is more a hypothetical concern, since I can't point to much specific that I know hasn't been included (though I do think the closing statements are significant and should be in this article), but others who know the field better may be able to pronounce with more confidence in either direction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, note that WP:NONENG - which is policy - states "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." So each non-English language source used will need a justification as to what it brings to the article which no English language source could. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point: I'm somewhat taking as read that the scholarship in other languages looks different to that in English. It's almost universally the case that scholars from different countries will have different theoretical paradigms, perspectives, interests and so on in a given topic: if a certain perspective is well-represented in (say) German scholarship but not in English, then some of that German scholarship needs to be included for the article to be truly comprehensive. As I read WP:NONENG, the only rationale for systematically not including non-English sources would be that there's nothing in them which can't also be found in Anglophone ones. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - Further to this: from reading some of the comments below, it seems that we've got here an article originally intended to be on the IMT, which has now (sensibly) expanded to include the NMT. We're also now brushing up against problems where we can't really be comprehensive on the IMT without introducing page length concerns (which, in my view, are far less of a concern that comprehensiveness, but that's perhaps a philosophical difference). Given that, I think there's a very strong argument for hiving off the IMT, like the NMT, into its own article, and using this one to summarise the process as whole: which could include, as User:Piotrus states below, why Nuremberg was chosen as a site, and some more detail, as discussed above, as to the precise place of the trials vis-a-vis the understanding of international law that came before and after them. In turn, the split would then allow more detailed coverage of the IMT itself in the corresponding article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus[edit]

1. This is possibly out of FA scope, but it is a bit jarring to me: interwiki problems. This may also be within FA scope as it may concern article's scope or name. On English Wikipedia, International Military Tribunal (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1667613) does not have an article, it redirects to Nuremberg trials, a term used to cover 1945-1946 trials. Then we have an article on Subsequent Nuremberg trials for American-presided trials for 1946–1949. Assuming we are happy with the name and scope of our articles, should we crate an article about the IMT? And I do find it a bit confusing that the concept of "Nuremberg trials" on English Wikipedia is limited to the IMT only, with the other trials split of the to "subsequent" article. Is this really how historiography defines the topics? For the record, pl: Procesy norymberskie (lit. Nuremberg trials) links to IMT, and our Nuremberg trials article does not have interwikis to pl or de wikis at all (since those go to the IMT one). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. My second comment is about comprehensivness. Polish Wikiepdia article has a section 'Poland and the IMT' (pl:Międzynarodowy_Trybunał_Wojskowy_w_Norymberdze#Udział_Polski). It contains some information that seems relevant, yet that is not present in our article. For example, only one of two Polish witnesses is mentioned (I added a link to his pl wiki article - this raises the minor technical question of whether FAC require checking if red links have articles on other wikis and using some form of {{ill}}? There are few other red links in this article which I did not check against Wikidata). Seweryna Szmaglewska is not mentioned. The article doesn't discuss the controversy related to limiting the IMT to only Big Four (Poland, for example, was not indepdently represented). See for example [57] ("The thesis also reviews Poland's participation in Nuremberg trial, Poland's omission in the indictment..."). See also, for example, [58] (article is in Polish, my translation from open mirror): Even before the end of the war, the Allies decided that only representatives of the great powers would sit in the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Poland, through its representatives, unsuccessfully demanded that it be granted special status due to the ravages wrought by the Nazis. Poland's complaint that the official indictment of Hans Frank did not take due account of the suffering of the Polish nation went unnoticed. Eventually, thanks to Soviet support, the Polish delegation was accredited and brought its own indictment, but its role was limited to providing evidence to the Tribunal; in addition, she gained access to the relevant documentation and the right to interrogate persons suspected of crimes committed on Polish soil. The Polish government, which sought formal recognition and wanted to counteract what it saw as the downplaying of Poland's suffering in the international arena, and wanting to achieve its goals in domestic policy, decided to establish its own tribunal and give it appropriate publicity (Supreme National Tribunal). Our article does not even mention the SNT. I think the article needs to discuss the Polish dimension in a dedicated paragraph in order to be comprehensive --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing. Poland did not participate in the trial, there was no Polish dimension. Overviews of the subject don't cover this aspect significantly; for example, in Priemel there are 12 mentions of "Poland" in comparison to 54 for "France". I believe it makes more sense to write about what actually happened, not what might have happened. Not every witness is mentioned because there is finite space in the article. Most of the 37 prosecution witnesses and 89 defense witnesses are not mentioned, including none of the eleven French witnesses. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering WP:NOTPAPER, and the fact that this stuff is covered in some academic sources, I think you've just helped to further illustrate the problem of this article not being comprehensive (a concern that seems to have been raised by others above). The French section seems too short anyway in my view, but that aside, it is ~200 words long, so a ~40 words mention of the Polish dimension (which, yes, is a thing, per soruces cited) would not be too much. And the article is not too long, a rough word count suggests it is only 80% the size of our article on The Holocaust, for example. The French article on fr:Procès_de_Nuremberg is more than twice the size our English article, and covers more aspects (for example it has a section dedicated to why Nuremberg was chosen as the site of the trials, something our article does not seem to touch upon). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with adding a mention about Poland (or possibly Czechoslovakia and other countries) trying to get a role in the proceedings but not being accepted; what I disagree with is adding an entire paragraph. As for comprehensiveness / length, I think there is room for some expansion but at the same time there is so much written about these trials that I want to keep in mind balance, summary style, and conciseness. There is no reason that Poland and the International Military Tribunal couldn't be created if it is a notable topic. (So is the Office of Strategic Services and the International Military Tribunal which gets 1 short sentence in the article at present). (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few sentences are required to address the case of Poland. Now, I don't think it would be bad if that single paragraph discussed not just Poland but also some other countries in similar situation. Perhaps that would be a reasonable way to deal with that. A separate issue concerns other aspects of comprehensivness, from location to the mention of Seweryna Szmaglewska (her testimony is mentioned in a number of works, ex. here, here or here (this is another work that discusses the "Polish dimension" of the trial in at least several paragraphs). I am not sure if we should mention all witnesses, but I think her name should be somewhere in the article, her testimony is seen as relevant by a number of scholars writing about the trial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the comprehensivness issues are addressed. (The naming issue is complex and I am not saying other wikis do it better, and fixing interwikis is outside of the FA's scope). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that I actually did add the content you asked for, imo disproportionate to Poland 's actual influence on the trial or lack thereof? (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, since you did not ping me or comment in this thread since 12 days ago. The Polish participation aspect is now mentioned in one-and-a-half sentence, which I guess meets the vare minimum. But what about other issues mentioned? Seweryna Szmaglewska, choice of Nuremberg, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After checking various sources, I don't see them giving more weight to Szmaglewska than to other Soviet witnesses who testified about crimes that they had experienced. I'm not sure what you mean by "choice of Nuremberg", but the decision to hold the trial in Nuremberg is briefly discussed in the "Legal basis" section. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do think this illustrates how our article is not comprehensive. We should discuss the " other Soviet witnesses" and non-Soviet ones too. Right now the article's coverage of this is random. The French section, for example, says "Eleven witnesses, including victims of Nazi persecution, were called; resistance fighter and Auschwitz survivor Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier testified about crimes she had witnessed." Why is Vaillant-Couturier singled out for a mention? That sentence does not even impart the reader with any useful information (it should clarify she testified on what she had seen during the three years she spent in Auschwitz). Why is she mentioned but not Leo van der Essen, Hans Cappelen or others? Soviet section mentions witnesses Samuel Rajzman and Abraham Sutzkever, but not Nikolai Lomakin, Joseph Orbeli, Erich Buschenhagen, Friedrich von Paulus, etc. This seems very abitrary. PS. I do appreciate the creation of List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal, with the very useful column on "Testified about". I do think, however, that all of that information should be included in our article, in the prose format - and the fact that the list of witnesses is still incomplete is a testament to the fact that our article is likewise incomplete, and until this is addressed, it is not ready for a Featured status. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-in query because I do not fully understand Piotrus' concerns. Do you suggest that 1. all witnesses should be mentioned; or 2. each reference to a wittness should be explained; or 3. specifically Szmaglewska should be mentioned in addition to other witnesses already listed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that naming all the witnesses would give undue weight to the role of witnesses in the trial, compared to prosecutors, defense lawyers, defendants, documentary evidence, etc. (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you, but I'd like to understand Piotrius' proposal. Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 is not necessary, but I would not oppose it. 2 is certainly needed. 3 - probably. To build on 1 and 3, I think we should mention more than a few witnesses, from my reading of the sources some where quite important. As for due weight, my point is that right now there is no explanation why the few witnesses we mention in the article are featured, and not the others; and again, my reading does not suggest that the ones we mentioned are the ones who are seen as "the most important". Instead, the fact that we mention very few witnesses, seemingly chosen at random, illustrates the haphazard nature of this article, or perhaps better put, its lack of comprehensivness. I think the article needs more content; barring consensus in sources saying that "among witnesses at Nuremberg, X, Y and Z are considered the most influential", a good rule of thumb would be too ensure it mentions all currently blue-linked witnesses (and yes, also prosecutors, defense lawyers, and defendants; in fact, if the latter are not all mentioned, I'd be shocked - how can we have an article about a trial that does not even list all defendants??). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the defendants, judges, and chief prosecutors of the IMT are mentioned. But there were a number of assistant prosecutors (some of whom are named) and others who helped with the proceedings; the various delegations to Nuremberg, as stated in the article, numbered around 1,000 people. I don't see how it is possible to mention everyone who participated in the proceedings or had any non-trivial role in the formation of the trial, yet still end up with something resembling an encyclopedia article. (For example Hirsch's book is over 400 pages and she does not mention all the prosecution witnesses). Thus, I have tried to mention those whose role is considered most historically significant, as indicated by being given weight in reliable sources, although it is always possible I'm mistaken about which ones to mention. (t · c) buidhe 05:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the straw man arguments aside, please. I am not asking you to mention 1,000 minor people. I am saying that this article should mention more than few witnesses - there were less than a hundred. They seem much more important than some assistant prosecutors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From your comment it was not clear to me which individuals involved in the trial you wanted mentioned. However, there were actually 120 witnesses at the trial and mentioning them all—certainly if you expect not just a list, but an explanation of each person's testimony—would give undue weight to the witness aspect. (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And mentioning just a few, picked arbitrarily, gives them too little weight. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we all agree that all wittnesses should not be listed. How do you think those who are mentioned in the article should be selected? Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this in my comment above, signed at the moment "12:55 pm, Yesterday (UTC+9)". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to your following comment ([59]), specifically to your suggestion about "barring consensus in sources saying that 'among witnesses at Nuremberg, X, Y and Z are considered the most influential', a good rule of thumb would be too ensure it mentions all currently blue-linked witnesses". I am not sure that a reference to all currently blue-linked witnesses from the List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal would be in line with WP rules, because WP does not regard itself a reliable source. Why should we accept the present state of the list to edit an other article? Neither am I sure that reliable sources dedicated to the Nuremberg trials often contain statements about the witnesses' importance. Could you refer to scholars who mention, for example, Seweryna Szmaglewska as one of the most influential witnesses? Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[60], for example, calls her book (I plan on stub it shortly) "a major piece of evidence at Nuremberg" ([61] here's another ref that confirms her book was part of evidence at trials). This work, following a sentence "Named and described are the most important participants of the trial", names Szmuglewska (the only witness named in the work's abstract). In either case, it is the nom's responsibility to tell us why the witnesses they mention are important. I'll let the nom first tell us why Rajzman and Vaillant-Couturier deserve a mention, compared to Szmuglewska and others I mentioned (for the record, based on my readings, I certainly think Rajzman should be mentioned - but the article doesn't tell us why at present). Otherwise I stand by my view that the examples in the current article represent random cherry-picking and lack of comprehensivness. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I think now I understand your proposal. It looks reasonable although I do not know how it could be implemented consequently. Nevertheless, I still think that the article meets FA criteria. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajzman and Sutzkever were the only survivors of the main atrocity on trial to testify at it, as noted by Priemel. That is the reason they are mentioned, and it is already obvious from the article text. I hope you appreciate that master's theses are not generally reliable sources and they probably are not helpful in determining which witnesses are most significant. I am not sure a book titled Never Forget Your Name: The Children of Auschwitz is a great source for that either, since by the nature of the book it would seem to focus on one particular aspect of the trial insofar as it is relevant to the stated topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seweryna Szmaglewska was the only survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the death march among the witnessess, for this fact alone she deserve a mention. Also it's weird to mention Rajzman but to omit Szmaglewska, since they both were Polish, testified together, and their testifies are complementary. Marcelus (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, however; Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier also testified. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously going to judge a book by its... title? It's a reliable work. Academic reviews: one, two, three,... newspaper: one, two, three, and there are many more. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article on the IMT[edit]

Since this has been suggested above, I'm going to leave this here: only 411 words—under 10 percent of the article's non-lead content—are not about the IMT, so even if this article scope was limited to the IMT and moved accordingly, which I don't really oppose, it would not give much additional space for expansion. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMT =/= the trial. Although they are closely related, sure (this tribunal held only a single trial, right?). At minimum, we should wikidata-link the redirect (International Military Tribunal to Q1667613). Analyzing how the information is split in those other wikis may give us more idea on how to divide the content. Anyway, I think this term might be a disambig to the Nurember trials (International Military Tribunal)/Nurember trials (1945–1946) and Subsequent Nuremberg trials/Nurember trials (1946–1949)/Nurember trials (U.S. military courts) (and I am still waiting for a discussion regarding whether the term 'subsequent', and the split we have, is common in literature?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that, in practice, one can cover the IMT separately from the trial held before it. As far as I can tell, sources don't make that distinction. It also doesn't seem right to talk about "Nuremberg trials" when just the first trial is meant.

You can find sources just about the IMT (i.e. Hirsch, Mouralis) just the NMT (Heller) or both (Priemel, Weinke). There has been dispute over the title of the subsequent Nuremberg trials article, I am one of those who supported the official name, "Nuremberg Military Tribunals". (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a move to NMT if you were to start another discussion (and if you do, please ping me). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

The Oxford comma is not used consistently
- Fixed the two missing commas I could find
Kim Christian Priemel is linked in his second mention rather than his first.
- Fixed
"the latter to make the many charts" --> Should that be "lattermost"?
- Changed to "last"
  - D'oh
", but reduced public interest in the proceedings" is a dependent clause and doesn't need that comma.
- The comma here is to set off , since survivor testimony was considered less reliable and more vulnerable to accusations of bias,
"German Foreign Office, army, and navy" -- Why is "Foreign Office" capitalized and not the rest.
- I don't know if there's a good solution here since "Foreign Office" (actually Reich Foreign Office) is the official name, whereas army and navy are not (usually if it's in English and capitalized it's Kriegsmarine and Heer, but I'd rather not introduce the audience to unfamiliar words if I can avoid it). The foreign office does not look right without capitals (although that might be the way to go), but neither does Army, and Navy.
"The next week, the Soviet prosecution suddenly produced former field marshal Friedrich von Paulus, captured after the Battle of Stalingrad, as a witness and questioned him about the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union" -- I might use dashes instead of commas. The sentence briefly confused me.
- Done
I might word "and the Soviet contribution to victory" as "and Soviet contributions to victory" but that is just me
- Done
"discriminatory laws" --> why not just say "Jim Crow laws"
- Reworded based on checking sources again.
"United States admiral Chester Nimitz" --> Should "admiral" be capitalized
- Done

This is a topic that definitely deserves feature quality. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tytire[edit]

The presentation of the section "Legal basis" could be clearer. The uninformed reader may expect a (brief) presentation of this sequence: (1) what was the applicable legal basis / framework at the time; (2) what were the different expectations / references (the text now refers to "acrimonious disputes over fundamental matters" which cannot be understood from the text); (3) how did they get to the charter? - Most of the info is there but the logical sequence is not so clear.
Contemporary reactions: the opening sentence "The IMT judges proved their independence from the governments that appointed them, etc.)" : whose assessment is this? this needs to be qualified, whether Priemel's assessment (not contemporary) or otherwise. Again, the uniformed reader is left wondering how we went from this unreserved appreciation to "During the two decades after the war, opinions of the trial were predominantly negative...".Tytire (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments.

I have retitled "Legal basis" to "Nuremberg charter" and rewrote to clarify what some of the disputes were and how they were resolved. As for the pre-existing law, there wasn't much—this is covered in the "origins" section.
I removed this sentence since unfortunately, the source is not entirely clear whose assessment it is. I'm not sure there is a contradiction though, the sources mention appreciation of the procedural and evidentiary aspects of the trial along with criticism of its lack of legal basis or "retroactivity, selectivity, and jurisdiction" as Sellars puts it. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better to me now, thanks. Tytire (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Brigade Piron[edit]

I think the recent changes to the article have been a big improvement and would be willing to support. My only (very small) reservation is the first paragraph of the "Legacy" section which seems to be missing a sentence about the changes in perception after the initially negative response. Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I am working on it. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hopefully, I believe the more positive evaluation is related to the additional developments in international criminal law and tendency of drawing a straight line from Nuremberg to the Hague (as Priemel puts it) but I can't find sources that say it explicitly. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Buidhe:. I'm happy to add my support. I would say, though, that this discussions does not appear to have transcluded correctly to talk:Nuremberg trials. Can we get an admin involved to fix this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FACs are not supposed to be transcluded to the article talk page. (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:, one final concern - which body is meant by "Polish government"? The Polish government in exile in London, or the Communist government of People's Poland? I think this is reasonable to clarify because the former did still have some international recognition until the 1950s. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done (t · c) buidhe 14:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

While I am here, a few comments. No major concerns.

Does Kirsten Sellars really rate a red link?
- There are several reviews of her books, so a clear WP:NAUTHOR pass. I realize there are different philosophies with red links, but I generally support their existence whenever a notable topic does not have an article.
And the link to "Poland and the International Military Tribunal" in the Judges and prosecutors section?
- It is a notable topic also.
Why is Rudolf Hess's surname spelt with an eszett (Rudolf Heß) in "Contemporary reactions"?
- Fixed
"this was narrowed to six: the Reich Cabinet, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Gestapo, the SA, the SS and the SD, and the General Staff and High Command of the German military (Wehrmacht)." That makes eight. Re-phrase to make this clear, perhaps with the aid of semi-colons.
- The commas divide the six organizations as defined in the indictment. I could replace the commas with semicolons but I'm not sure that would make it more clear
"Law No. 10 issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States forces had arrested almost 100,000 Germans as war criminals" That is incorrect. Law No. 10 was issued by the Allied Control Council, not the US Joint Chiefs of Staff [62]
- Fixed
"Admiral Chester Nimitz" should be "Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz"
- Done
Duplicate links: "war crimes", "Einsatzgruppen", "anti-partisan warfare", "German invasion of Norway", "Foreign Office", "Expulsion of Germans"
- I think most of these should be kept per the recent policy change on duplicate links.
The United States not only does not recognise the ICC, but authorises military action in retaliation for the arrest of a US citizen.
- I know about the Hague Invasion Act, but I don't see how it's relevant to the article.
Typo: "mustache"
- Fixed

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments + image review. (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Lots of images, although not always made best use of those available. Each image needs to be properly licenced in both the country of origin and the United States. The latter has less freedom than most other countries.

File:Color photograph of judges' bench at IMT.jpg, File:The Palace of Justice in Nurnberg.jpg, File:Evidence about Ernst Kaltenbrunner's crimes is presented at the International Military Tribunal.jpg, File:Goering on trial (color).jpg, File:Soviet-called witness addresses the International Military Tribunal.jpg, File:Telford Taylor delivers the prosecution's opening statement during the Ministries Trial.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US Army Signal Corps images - US PD - okay
File:Selection on the ramp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 1a.jpg, File:Monowitz prisoners unload cement from trains for IG Farben.jpg - Polish image so under EU. Copyright term was 50 years which expired in 1994. Suggest adding a URAA tag for the United States. - okay
File:A.N. Trainin speaks at the War Crimes Executive Committee.jpg, File:Evidence in Nuremberg trials.jpg, File:Press at the International Military Tribunal.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - Harry S. Truman Library says US PD - okay
File:Ruins of Nuremberg after World War II.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US Air Corps image - US PD - okay
File:At a solemn session in Berlin, the representatives of the various nations handed over to the Tribunal their indictments for the Nuremberg Trials.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US government image - US PD - okay
File:Defendants in the dock at nuremberg trials.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US Army Signal Corps image - should use PD-USGov-Army instead - US PD - okay (It would be nice if the description identified the defendants.)
File:Nazi Concentration Camps.webm - Germany image - copyright expired - US Navy image - US PD - okay
File:Proces Neurenberg, Bestanddeelnr 901-2078.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - CC0 image in US - okay
File:Главный обвинитель от СССР на Нюрнбергском процессе Р.А. Руденко.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - Russian CC 4.0 copyright in US - okay
File:1946-10-08 21 Nazi Chiefs Guilty.ogv - Germany image - copyright expired - released into PD in the US - okay
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-032-29A, Nürnberger Prozess, Zeitungsleser.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired in in 2016 - CC-BY-SA 3.0 in US - okay
File:Benjamin Ferencz - Chief Prosecutor in 1947 Einsatzgruppen Trial - In Courtroom 600 Where Nuremberg Trials Were Held - Palace of Justice - Nuremberg-Nurnberg - Germany - 01.jpg - Wikipedian image - CC-BY-SA 3.0 - okay

All image have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Will look in more detail later today. First question:

Sources used look excellent, with one possible exception: What makes Tusa & Tusa, The Nuremberg Trial, published by Skyhorse Publishing, who according to their article also publish conspiracy theories, a high quality reliable source?

More in a few hours! —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I added that source in response to feedback to beef up the British prosecution section, but since then I found other sources to cover it, and I think I could remove the Tusa & Tusa source. (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing that would be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mouralis 2016: there is a PDF with page numbers, so you don't need to cite things like "Mouralis 2016, 3"; if you do it like this, say what the "3" stands for.
Same for Gemählich. In the online version, the paragraphs are numbered but we don't have pages; in the PDF, we have page numbers but not paragraph numbers.
If you link directly to other Wikipedias for authorlinks, you should also include fr:Guillaume Mouralis.

With the possible exception of Tusa & Tusa, everything is high-quality, recent scholarly sourcing. The formatting is also excellent, with just the query about page numbers versus "locations". —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review.

Removed Tusa & Tusa.

The bare numbers are the paragraph numbering as that's the only one you can access without downloading a pdf which all readers may not be able to do. I am not sure how to indicate it if you feel it is necessary or beneficial to do so.

Linked fr:Guillaume Mouralis. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great if you can go without Tusa & Tusa. I haven't done spot checks for your replacement, but I did a few yesterday and was fully satisfied with respect to both source to text integrity and paraphrasing.

For the other query (Mouralis 2016 and Gemählich), we are close to hair-splitting territory, but here goes. You are currently citing Moralis 2016 as

"Le procès de Nuremberg: retour sur soixante-dix ans de recherche" [The Nuremberg trial: a look back at seventy years of research]. Critique Internationale (in French). 73 (4): 159.

So formally you are citing a traditional paper based journal that has page numbers and does not have these paragraph numbers, which are incomprehensible to people using the paper version or the PDF. The paragraph numbers are only on the website [63], so if you use the paragraph numbers, shouldn't you cite the web version instead of the paper version? (I would strongly prefer to cite the paper version). A compromise suggestion that keeps full verifiability for the paper version and has ease of access would be to use {{sfn|Mouralis|2016|page=[https://www.cairn.info/revue-critique-internationale-2016-4-page-159.htm?contenu=article#pa3 160]}}, linking directly to the paragraph on the web version but giving the page number for people using the paper-based journal. —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled since for me it would make sense to use cite journal for an academic journal that had no print edition or page numbers. The links already go to the web version, which is cited. I could remove the page numbers from the bibliography entry, but I'm not sure that would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the situation at hand, we have a classic journal with page numbering here. If you really don't want to add page numbers to the sfn (I still can't see any reason not to do that, but maybe you can explain) you need to explain what the loc you give means, in a way that is comprehensible to users of the paper edition. —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe and Kusma: is there more to come on this source review, or has it stalled here? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what to say because I already explained the rationale for not using the page numbers. (t · c) buidhe 13:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buidhe. That makes sense to me, and you are only required to provide a citation to the version of a source which you actually use; not to any other versions that may exist. Kusma, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: As I said, if you do not use the page numbers, you should explain what the uncommented numbers you use ("Gemählich 2019, 19.") mean. A reader of the PDF (a rather natural thing to download for a user following the citation) will find the numbers totally incomprehensible. A reader of the online version probably can make an educated guess that these are the paragraph numbers. Spelling this out, for example saying |loc=paragraph 4 or using page numbers or using page numbers together with a link to the paragraph (or page numbers together with paragraph numbers that make it clear the numbering is not relative to the page) would all solve the issue.

@Gog the Mild: Other than this formatting issue affecting something like 15 out of the 282 footnotes, the source review would be an easy pass: the sources given are top class and the rest of the formatting is excellent. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added paragraph as requested (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better, but you could improve by using plural "paragraphs" where that is correct. "paragraph fn 82" is also suboptimal. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, that's what I deserve for doing search & replace on my phone lol. (t · c) buidhe 02:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now, the source review is now a pass with flying colours. —Kusma (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note the oppose from Piotr, and the various comments since, in particular Borsoka's. There seems to me to have been sufficient scrutiny of this article, especially since Piotr's oppose, without other reviewers also opposing, for me to consider that there is a consensus to promote, notwithstanding the actionable oppose.

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2023 [64].

Frank McGee (ice hockey)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A second attempt here. The previous nomination was withdrawn to work on prose, and after work by the WP:GOCE, I hope it's good to go now. I'm going to ping both @ChrisTheDude and Gog the Mild: as they were good enough to go through the first nomination, and if they're willing I would appreciate a second look from them. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

What value is the health form image believed to provide? It's not particularly legible at this size

It confirms details relating to his enlistment, but based on your note about legibility and uncertainty to copyright status (from below) I've removed it.

Don't use fixed px size

Fixed

Suggest adding alt text

Done

File:Silver7.jpg: what is the author's date of death?

1961, so I removed that tag

Since this is hosted on Commons, it does still need a tag for country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fixed, but please let me know if I'm missing something. Image licensing tags always confuse me. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank_mcgee_enlistment.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain, so based on this and above it's removed.

That should clear up all concerns here, thanks for reviewing everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris[edit]

"After his hockey career ended, McGee worked with the Department of Indian Affairs" - unless this is standard Canadian English, I would change it to "worked for" or "worked in", as current wording makes it sound like he didn't actually work for the dept but just collaborated with them
"McGee had a passion for sports; he participated in ice hockey, rugby football, lacrosse, and rowing.[8] McGee played" => "McGee had a passion for sports; he participated in ice hockey, rugby football, lacrosse, and rowing.[8] He played" (avoid starting two consecutive sentences with his name)
Link ice hockey on first use in body
"McGee's rise in the civil service was aided in part due to" => "McGee's rise in the civil service was aided in part by"
"However, he excelled on the ice" => "He excelled on the ice, however"
"for lead goalscorer for most during the challenge games" => "for lead goalscorer during the challenge games"
"McGee's brother Jim died in a horse-riding accident" - no need to relink Jim
Think that's it from me! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for taking a second look. Addressed everything up here, but if you see anything more just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll leave comments in a week or so. Intend to support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan77777. I hate to seem to harass you, but this one is going to be timing out vey soon unless it gets some further attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said when I would do the review. You've got a problem with that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Add a footnote to briefly explain what a rover is.

Done

a lieutenant in the Canadian Army ===>>> and later became a lieutenant in the Canadian Army.

Done

Personal life

clerk can be linked to Clerk of the Privy Council (Canada)

Done

Should "clerk" be capitalized?

The article for the position doesn't capitalize it, so I'll follow that lead.

"a role considered to be the top civil servant position" <<<=== perhaps just "the top civil servant position". I assume it's not ambiguous (?), and removing "considered" would make it seem more official and important (it is official and important, right?)

Agreed, and done

briefly explain what "Father of Confederation" means

Done

instead of "and was assassinated", "which led to his assassination" (otherwise, it seems ambiguous)

The circumstances of his assassination aren't directly tied to his role in Confederation, though it is related. I've moved that note to a separate clause though, which should help I think.

McGee was one of nine children born to John Joseph McGee and Elizabeth Helen McGee (née Crotty). <<<=== Suggest making this the second sentence of the first paragraph (and starting with "He was"). The main issue is introducing his father twice.

Done

Suggest reducing the number of paragraphs from four to two (perhaps combine the first three, or combine the first two and the last two). It doesn't seem like they would be too long if combined, and they're kind of short as is.

Done

his father, a clerk of the Privy Council, ===>>> rephrase to "his father as a clerk of the Privy Council," to avoid sounding like you're introducing him again

Done

Hockey career

McGee was the youngest member of the team and was 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) tall, small for hockey players of the era <<<=== For better flow, suggest "and at a height of just 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) was small for hockey players of the era"

Done

"and was considered to have an ideal body type" ===>>> "which was considered to be an ideal body type" (to avoid an extra "and")

Done

"second overall in the league." ===>>> suggest "second in the league behind Russell Bowie". (unclear what "overall" adds to the sentence?)

Done

Before the last sentence of that paragraph, make a note that they won the right to play for the Stanley Cup (how? and against who?)

I tried to clear this up, let me know if it makes sense.

You need to say that the team won the Stanley Cup too.

Done

After a brief retirement from the sport, <<<=== remind the reader that this is related to his job. As is, it sounds like it's related to his family wanting him to retire because of the potential danger.

Done

"in the league, with 17 goals each" ===>>> just "in the league with 17 goals"

Done

Suggest combining the 1904-05 season paragraph with the next paragraph on the challenge games from that season

Done

Stanley Cup hockey game ===>>> Stanley Cup game ("hockey" isn't necessary as a qualifier)

Done

"with Ottawa's 23 goals setting a record" ===>>> "and Ottawa's 23 goals also set a record"

Done

"it was learned that McGee" <<<=== learned by who? McGee or everyone else?

Changed to disclosed

Legacy

described McGee ===>>> "described him as" (one too many "McGee"s)

Done

both league and challenge ===>>> including both league and challenge

Done

ever scored in a single Cup challenge match <<<=== suggest "game". "match" sounds like "series"

Done

same comment on the next sentence

Done

First World War

Okay.

Career statistics

Suggest writing out "St-Cup totals" as "Stanley Cup totals"

This is a convention of the tables used, and I find it's abbreviation isn't too much of an issue, honestly.

References

In "Frank McGee Biography", "biography" shouldn't be capitalized. It should also be something more like "Frank McGee biography, HHoF".

Done

"Bibliography" isn't the right way to title the section because it's confusing as to whether it refers to the sources (which it does) or McGee's own works (which it isn't). Suggest calling it "Sources".

Done

Looks good, nothing major. The biggest comment is probably the context on the Stanley Cup. It's a short article, so I didn't expect too many issues. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've addressed everything here, but if you have anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more small comments:

In the lead, "Government" in "Government of Canada" probably shouldn't be capitalized.

Changed

On "A well-known player of his era, and known as a prolific scorer" <<<=== suggest something other than "well-known" so that "known" doesn't appear twice, or just combine to "A well-known player of his era for his prolific scoring"

Changed

On the "despite risking total blindness" comment brought up by SchroCat, perhaps it is not total blindness he is risking specifically, but rather he would have a greater risk for any kind of hockey injury because he is already blind in one eye.

I changed it to "one good eye". What do you and @SchroCat: think of that? Open to further suggestions of course. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, regardless. Excellent work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I really do appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting that a different FAC coordinator handle this nomination and Gog cease all involvement. Gog recused coordinator duties to review on the previous nomination and now they're harassing me as a coordinator. Complete hypocrisy of "recusing". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777, I don't think this is harassment, nor does recusing on one FAC mean a co-ord has to recuse on all subsequent ones. And I advise against accusing any of the co-ords of hypocrisy when they're just doing their job. - SchroCat (talk)

Sportsfan77777, please read WP:AGF and WP:NOPA. I carry out this role as a volunteer, for "fun", and do not appreciate that sort of attack. If you are unhappy with anything I do, you can let me know without calling me a hypocrite. For my information, if I am considering archiving one of your FAC nominations in the future, would you prefer that I simply do so, without giving you and any prospective reviewers a few days' notice? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I don't mean to suggest you are a hypocrite. The process is at fault for allowing this kind of "un-recusing". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of giving notice. You shouldn't be trying to archive the nomination at all. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777, the FAC instructions are very brief, but a key part is that starting "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ..." One of the less pleasant parts of my role as a coordinator is having to make those judgements, it is not something I enjoy. If you feel strongly, perhaps you could start a discussion on the FAC talk page? I would shed few tears if the requirement were removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nominations that have been around several weeks and don't appear to be heading for consensus to promote are archived as matter of course to help ensure the list doesn't get too long and unwieldy. There is no shame in this for the nominator, and there's no limit to how many times an article may be re-nominated at FAC if it doesn't achieve consensus to promote the first time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) While this is my nomination, I didn't want to comment here, but feel I should make a few quick remarks: I appreciate any and all reviews, and also am familiar enough with the FAC process to not be worried if a nomination is archived due to lack of action. While I of course would not want that, I do understand it happens. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Lead

"A legendary player of his era": legendary is a MOS:PEACOCK term that shouldn't be there

Changed to "well-known"

Personal life

"awarded the Military Cross for his efforts": "for his efforts" seems a bit weak (and what else was it going to be awarded for?) Just delete the last three words.

Done

"quitting" isn't encyclopaedic: "giving up" would be less jarring

Done

Hockey career

"1899–1900 season. During that season": two "seasons" in quick succession jars a bit. "During that period" or "At that time" would work better

Doen

"However": delete. It's not great at the start of a sentence in most cases, particularly here

Done

"was known to be strong and muscular, and which was considered to be an ideal body type for the sport": I'm struggling with "and which was": it's grammatically poor and makes no sense.

Deleted the "and", which should help clarify things.

"with Ottawa's 23 goals also set a record": again, grammatically wrong

Should have been "setting a record" as per comments from earlier in the review, but wasn't properly adjusted. This is fixed now.

"1906 season, but returned to the team midway through the season.[37] Appearing in seven of the ten regular season": I think some variety in terminology would be best here

I've changed up two of the "season" uses here, so it should be a little better.

"Historian Paul Kitchen": you've already introduced and full named him above. You can just call him "Kitchen" here

Done

Legacy

"Only Russell Bowie": making a comparison to someone many people won't have heard of isn't the best way to demonstrate his ability.

I clarified it's only one other player now.

"14 goals against Dawson City, he holds": hopefully you'll take out the Bowie reference in the preceding sentence, because "he holds" could be misconstrued as meaning Bowie, not McGee

Changed "he" to "McGee" so it should be clear.

First World War

'with either eye."[2]': should be 'with either eye".[2]', per WP:LQ

""Fixed

Notes

"and all players would then skate to the other end": All players? Including the goaltender?

Would "opposing players" work here?

Yep., much better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

"Ref 42 is "Frank McGee biography, Hockey Hall of Fame"; Ref 47 is "Francis 'Frank' McGee": it would probably benefit from being consistent by making it "Francis 'Frank' McGee, Ottawa Sports Hall of Fame"

Done

I hope these help. I'm close to opposing on this at the moment, but we'll see what happens with these comments and another readthrough. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed what you noted here, and if you have more please let me know. Hopefully can swing your opinion here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"(also known as the Silver Seven)": Not sure we need that in the lead. It's not a repeated term in the lead and this is an article about McGee, not the club. Having said that, you don't make the same connection in the rest of the article, the next references in the text are "ending the Silver Seven's three-year reign" and the picture caption. Best to include the nickname further up in the body – probably on the first mention of the club.

I added a mention there. The team is far more well-known as "Silver Seven" so it would be good to keep that there.

"two years of play due to the injury" -- > "two years of play because of the injury" (you have "due to" repeated in close succession)

Done

Personal life

"McGee was one of nine": -- > "He was one..." (named in the previous sentence)

Done

"Elizabeth Helen McGee (née Crotty)": -- > "Elizabeth Helen (née Crotty)"

Done

Hockey career

"despite risking total blindness": was this a common occurrence of the time? I'm presuming they played without the protection common today, but it still comes across slightly oddly.

I wouldn't say it was common, but injuries to the face did happen. The concern was that he was already blind in one eye, which happened directly from the sport, so the chances of it happening again were not impossible. Not sure how to convey that here, but if you have any thought I'm happy to incorporate it.

It's difficult to know what to say (if anything), as I don't know what the sources say. If it's possible, something like "despite risking blindness from an injury to his other eye". I know it may sound like stating the obvious, but at the moment it reads like playing hockey causes blindness. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Jenish available on hand (though can have it ready in 24-48 hours if need be), but the McKinley ref (#17) says: "...putting his remaining eye at considerable risk, given the propensity for stick-swinging melees in the early sport, he came back to play hockey." Kaiser matias (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1903, McGee decided to return": there are four uses of "McGee" in this paragraph: you only need the first and last

Fixed

"but it was noteworthy that McGee only scored one goal in that game": -- >"~~but it was noteworthy that~~ and McGee only scored one goal in that game"

Fixed

"After the first game, the Nuggets' manager": -- > "After the game, the Nuggets' manager"

Fixed

First World War

"known how McGee was allowed": Change McGee to "he"

Fixed

"McGee was initially assigned": there are three uses of "McGee" in this paragraph: you only need the first

Fixed

"McGee was later": again, just "he" will suffice

Fixed

Reading much better now, and I think this extra polish will help. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all these addressed, with one note for you above there. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is about the right level now to be considered right for FA status. He looks like he was an interesting individual. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I definitely think the article is in better shape for it. And I agree, a very interesting figure, for more than one reason. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

~~Booking a slot. My friend and colleague SchroCat has drawn this review to my attention and I'll be adding my two penn'orth shortly. Tim riley talk 16:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Only one suggested tweak from me: in "He was given the option to transfer to a less-active post" I don't think we want the hyphen. Otherwise the prose is clear and pleasing to read, the sourcing looks wide and thorough, the text seems comprehensive and impartial, and the illustrations are, I'd guess, as good as possible given the period. I'm happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 17:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for reviewing, and hyphen removed. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from UC[edit]

Saving a space, though it might be next week before I can properly get to this. On a quick read, I've got a few fairly minor points I'd like to see addressed, but it's certainly almost at the line for me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit quicker than I thought. Nothing too difficult here, I hope. A tightly-written piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, a fairly straightforward support from me. What's left is far too minor to affect the passage of what I believe to be an excellent article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note a: as someone with no knowledge of ice hockey, I think I'm the target audience for this explanation, but it's quite a long way over my head. In particular, I'm not sure what would often play on both ends of the ice means.

It refers to doing both offence and defence. I've updated the wording to explicitly use those terms for clarity.

~~the top civil servant position reads as a little vague and informal: "the head of the Canadian Civil Service"; "Canada's most senior civil servant" or similar?~~

Done

Which football did McGee play for Ottowa?

Rugby football, as noted before, and now noted here.

Generally called Rugby in the UK; is that term used in Canada, and if so, should we simply say that at least on second mention plus? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~disputes among top-level hockey in Canada: not sure this works with a singular abstract noun: top-level hockey teams or hockey players?~~

I've added the qualifier "teams"

appointed Temporary Lieutenant: as this title isn't in apposition with his name, should be lc (and probably "appointed as a...", "...to the post of..." or similar).

The source (Reddick) writes it with upper-case ("...he was appointed Temporary Lieutenant, 21st Battalion."). I'm not familiar enough with Canadian military ranks to say whether that was a mistake or not.

~~when the armoured car he was driving was blown into a ditch by a shell explosion. he was sent back to England on December: either capitalise he or replace the full stop with a colon.~~

Fixed

~~He was given the option to transfer to a less active post in Le Havre: do we know what sort of job this was: staff work, managing logistics...?~~

Yes, clerical. This has been noted.

Hyphenate less-active as a compound modifier. I realise that I'm dissenting from User:Tim riley here: our MOS (MOS:HYPHEN) makes an exception for regularly formed comparatives ending in -ly, but this isn't one of those.

I'll split the difference and remove the phrasing with the above-noted "clerical".

McGee was killed in action on September 16, 1916, near Courcelette, France; his body was never recovered. An artillery shell landed on or beside him and he was killed instantly. : suggest moving this bit around to be chronological: McGee was killed in action on September 16, 1916, near Courcelette, France. An artillery shell landed on or beside him and he was killed instantly; his body was never recovered.

Done

~~Harper 2013: we wouldn't normally capitalise the midstream in title case.~~

Done

~~D'Arcy 1992: we would normally capitalise its.~~

Done

Clarke 2011: capitalise McGee per our usage.

Before I do so, I'll note that this was a typo included in the original article.

~~Ottawans in casualties, Lt. Frank McGee's Death Was Officially Announced Saturday: capitalise casualties.~~

Done

Lieut. Frank McGee Heroic Unto Death: Former Ottawa Hockey Idol inspired His Men Killed At Coucellete: capitalise inspired but decap unto and at.

~~John Jos. McGee Died Last Night At Age 81 Years: decap at~~

Done

Frank McGee biography,: capitalise biography

Done

Houston 1992: we should be consistent here on whether newspaper titles use sentence or title case (rather than simply following what the original publication did: many will have used all-caps, which we certainly shouldn't!)

What do you suggest modifying here? The heading as it stands is what the article has, but happy to adjust to fit MOS.

Thanks for your review, I believe everything here is addressed, with two comments on titles noted above. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a few matters above: our MOS (MOS:CONFORM) would have us change punctuation, capitalisation and any other features that don't affect the meaning or reading aloud of a quotation to fit Wikipedia's MOS. If it's really important to give it exactly as written (for instance, if the capitalisation of Mcgee was somehow important), use {{sic}}UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, that really helps. And thanks for supporting as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. Is Hockey Hall of Fame Book of Players a commonly cited source? Do "Free Kicks", The Globe, Toronto, Ontario, September 12, 1900, "Lieut. Frank McGee Heroic unto Death: Former Ottawa Hockey Idol Inspired His Men Killed at Coucellete", The Globe, Toronto, Ontario, November 11, 1916, "Ottawans in Casualties, Lt. Frank McGee's Death Was Officially Announced Saturday", Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, September 25, 1916 and "John Jos. McGee Died Last Night At Age 81 Years", Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, April 11, 1927, "Sad Death of Ottawa's Captain", The Globe, Toronto, Ontario, May 15, 1904 have a byline?

Thanks for the review. The Hockey Hall of Fame Book of Players is authorized by the Hall of Fame itself, and would be reliable. For the newspaper articles you mention, no bylines are provided. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. With the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2023 [65].

Florence Petty[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Petty was an interesting individual who spent her time trying to improve the lot of others through food, which is a noble aim in life, as far as I’m concerned! A great PR saw comments from HAL333, Mike Christie and Tim riley, which were all extremely useful. Any further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. What minor concerns I had were addressed in the peer review. ~ HAL333 19:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, User:HAL333, they were much appreciated. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

There is going to be murder done if you persist – every damn' time! – in using the American "on So-and-So Street" rather than the English "in So-and-So Street" (in the caption of the second picture in this case). Otherwise, I'm entirely happy with the article. Curiously, although at PR I could see – though I didn't agree – why you were concerned that the article was on the short side, on rereading for FAC I had no such thought. It seems to me that you have said all that needs saying about this quietly splendid person. The article strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria: evidently comprehensive, balanced, a good read, admirably referenced and as well illustrated as I imagine is possible. Entirely happy to support. – Tim riley talk 20:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I like to kee you on your ties with the “on”: I shall try and make it a permanent fixture! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie[edit]

I reviewed at PR with an eye to FAC and can't find anything more to kvetch about. Will plan on doing the source review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The only comment I have is that when I dug up the Times "News in brief" citation, it doesn't really have a title -- I can see that "News in brief" is the sort of thing it is, but it might be better to just say "Untitled". That's not enough to hold up a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike, for your comments at PR and above, and your source review. I’ve swapped to the “Untitled” suggestion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

"In 1922 she presented at least a hundred lectures to the public.[1]" Why a hundred rather than one hundred?
Can anything be said of her personal life?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Wehwalt. The 'hundred' sorted; there's absolutely nothing about her private life that I can see - even the ONDB has zero information, except that she lived with her sister. Thanks for your comments - they are much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt. As always, your comments are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden[edit]

Fascinating article about a fascinating person. I only have two minor concerns:

Both the pamphlet and book contain practical information on how to make and use a haybox. - This sentence seemed odd to me when I read it. What is the significance of a haybox, and why is it relevant to Petty?
- It's there because she taught people how to make one - I've clarified the reasons why (the rest of the details are in the body). - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
although her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because in an attempt to get the women in the habit of cooking regularly using familiar and inexpensive ingredients: for the first three months of her demonstrations they made suet puddings—plain, sweet and meat—until the women began to show pride in their ability to cook. - I had a hard time understanding this sentence, probably because of the colon and the lack of commas. I would add a comma after "because" and replace the colon with a comma. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point: now reworked per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Golden: that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm happy to support. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 11:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Golden - that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UC[edit]

Commenting as requested. Certainly the sort of article we could do with more of, and evidently impeccably researched. My main overall observation is the length of the article: I appreciate that relatively little has been written on Petty herself, but I think we could fill out those lacunae with some more general context about the world she lived in and how her work fitted into a broader social and historical picture. Some more specific suggestions below, along with the usual nit-picks. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put a bit into the lead, if we can, about Petty's status, reception etc: bluntly, tell the reader why they should be interested in her. More generally, I think the lead is a little parsimonious about what from the article it includes: there's definitely room to expand a little to make sure that the key information is covered.

Now increased. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the new lead - nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

north London or North London? My very subjective opinion from experience and a quick Google is that the second is marginally more common, and avoids the observation that Somers Town is, by any reasonable geometrical measure (which I appreciate Londoners don't go in for), more or less in the centre of London. Otherwise, perhaps worth a link to clarify that 'north London' means more than just 'the northern bit of London'?

Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a brief gloss or explanation as to what a haybox is, and perhaps some indication of why we're singling out this detail: it would seem odd to say "both the pamphlet and the cookbook include a recipe for cheese on toast", but presumably there's something about hayboxes that makes them significant?

For the lead? That seems to be a little too detailed, but I'll look at it when I beef up the lead a bit (per your first comment). - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~economical ingredients and cooking methods: might be worth a slight rephrase to be clear that both the ingredients and the methods were economical.~~

Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~On Vector 2022, I see a small MOS:SANDWICH between the first two images.~~

I'm not overly concerned by this - it's only by a small amount, and that depends on the width of a reader's screen. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huge issue, though moving the Mothers' and Babies' down would make for nicer balance anyway. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK - moved down one paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~a clerk at a timber merchant: if using at, I'd say at a timber merchant's: the merchant is the person, not the company. Do we know anything about Jane Norris?~~

Done the possessive; nothing is known about Norris, as far as I've been able to find (information on any aspect of Petty's life is scant, unfortunately). - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

commonly known as the Mothers' and Babies' Welcome: consider italicising per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Not sure about this, but I think the The was part of the common name (people called it The Mothers'... and so should be capitalised here.

Yep: both done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in the deprived area of Somers Town, north west London: it was socially deprived in the lead, which I think is better; if nothing else, it's odd to be more specific in the lead than the body. Could we have some contextual information as to how deprived it was: in particular, do we know anything about childhood malnutrition there, or in poorer areas of Britain more generally at the time? There's a comment in a moment about infant mortality: again, can we add any context to that, perhaps drawing on works outside Petty's strict biography? In terms of background: was she the first person to do something like this? There's definitely a broader 'trend' for this kind of missionary-like social work between the late Victorian period and the early C20th that I think could be explored a little.

Added a little context on the area - more on the rest later. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a bit on her approach and how it fitted in with a wider trend. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~She described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods": assuming this was indeed a description, rather than a formal job title, it should be lc per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.~~

A couple of sources say that was how "she defined herself"; one says "she was employed as", so I've split the difference. I think the capitals fit best here, rather than lower case. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to kick up a major fuss here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", although her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because, in an attempt to get the women in the habit of cooking regularly using familiar and inexpensive ingredients, for the first three months of her demonstrations they made suet puddings—plain, sweet and meat—until the women began to show pride in their ability to cook: quite a beefy sentence. At the moment, the 'main' clause functionally is not the main clause grammatically: suggest flipping the "although" and writing "Although she described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", her students..." to put the weight on the substantial bit.

Yes, much better. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Perkins, Petty's biographer in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, observes that her case notes for the women she was instructing are "matter-of-fact but also sympathetic rather than clinical: observes, to me, implies a statement of indisputable fact, which doesn't sit well with this inherently subjective judgement. What are these case notes, exactly? I'm not clear whether this is a sort of course report or if Petty was more some kind of social worker assigned to these women: for whose consumption was she writing?

I've changed to "considers" to give a little more leeway, and to just "notes". It's not clear from the source who she was writing for, or in what context. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

was riven with poverty: not sure the WP:TONE is right here; can we show rather than tell ("was one of the most deprived areas in London")? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra detail now added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 1910 the St Pancras School for Mothers published an account of its work in The Pudding Lady: A New Departure in Social Work: it took me a moment to remember that this was the Mothers' and Babies' Welcome: I'd suggest being consistent about what we call it in the article. I'd also give a little more context as to what The Pudding Lady was: is it a mass-marker book, a pamphlet for a specific audience, a radio broadcast... We say that it's an account of its work (that is, of the SPSfM): is that accurate, or is it really an account of her work?

Tweaked and added some background here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

published an account of Petty's work. .. examining her work and the impact she had: slightly tautological now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tweaked: how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~the secretary of the National Food Reform Association (NFRA): can we introduce what this was, and possibly link it?~~

Now introduced, but there doesn't seem to be anything to link to. I'm not sure about a redlink - I'll do some digging to see if there is anything notable about them. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think note 14 should come before the dash.~~

I thought the opposite, but on reading MOS:PUNCTREF, I see you're in the right. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~a series of "demonstration-lectures": quote marks sit oddly here. Presumably, they're there because someone called them this: could we say who?~~

We can, and now do (The Times, if you're interested). - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Briefly introduce Lady Meyer (it sounds like there's a philanthropic edge here as well?)~~

Very much so. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~on wartime cookery: can we contextualise a little and explain what made wartime cooking different from regular cooking?~~

I've added something on the rises in food prices/cost of living: does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something to be said about the specific types of food that were hit? From memory, for example, Danish bacon was a particular problem, but potatoes were encouraged because they were widely grown domestically (certainly during the next war, they had the slogan "remember spuds don't come in ships!"). We mention later that "some foods" were rationed; it might be helpful to be a little more specific on which ones were hit the hardest. From the existence of the thesis cited in the bibliography, there might be more to say to put Petty into the context of the broader food-economy movement here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've added more on this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

goods such as mild and potatoes: should that be milk?

Indeed it should. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trade estimated the cost of living for the working class increased to 45 per cent between 1914 and 1916: increased by, surely?

Yes it should - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little odd to mix % and per cent in close proximity.

Now made consistent - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think I'm slightly missing something on hayboxes: yes, the haybox itself doesn't use any fire, but you do have to heat the food up with something first.~~

OK - I've added a bit of outline on how it works, but the linked article should do most of the heavy lifting here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think she (and many others) slightly mis-sold it as "fireless", but you do a good job of explaining the point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~which could also be used for doing the laundry, cleaning tins and saucepans, and keeping butter cool in hot weather: I sort of get the last one, but how do you use a haybox to clean your saucepans?~~

Added a footnote with the details on this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more you know... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the time The Pudding Lady's Recipe Book was published, Petty had become a qualified sanitary inspector: I assume this was 1917, but we only actually said that it was written in that year: it's entirely possible that there was a gap.

Unfortunately the only information we have is as we describe it here: there are no dates on when she was qualified. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a date on when the book was published, though? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Yes: now added. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the time The Pudding Lady's Recipe Book was published in 1920 We've talked about editions in 1917 and 1918, so should this be republished? As phrased, this sounds like it should be the first publication of the book. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No - my typo there: it should have been 1917. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the war Petty continued lecturing on and writing about cookery: suggest after the war, as the first think we mention is three years after the Armistice.

Agreed - done - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in 1923 she wrote the paper "The Cook as Empire Builder" for the Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute: quite the title: what did she say about cooks as empire builders? How did it go down? Was it unusual for a working-class woman to be publishing in what seems to be quite a respectable learned journal?

She says virtually nothing about empire building - it was an odd title to choose! The only reference to it is based on a something done in Essex. Petty writes: "The Chairman of one of the Essex Medical Inspection Sub-Committees wrote, "Such work as this is done for the Empire.""
There's no information on how the article went down (no third party references to it, no commentary in subsequent issues, etc). Looking back over some previous issues, the journal had several previous female writers (I've found them back to 1911 issues). - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm conscious that this is the era of the WSPU and so on: can anything be said about women's participation in the academic press more generally? Again, this would likely be from a source other than a direct biography of Petty. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's getting a bit too far from the heart of things. As I said, the journal had a number of women contributors dating back to at least 1910, which was over a decade before Petty. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She spoke on the "Household Talk" series of programmes: fairly obvious from the title, but suggest a little context as to e.g. format, subject matter, listenership... As with the paper above: how big a deal was this?

I've added a little colour here to give some context. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~WL or explain the Good Housekeeping Institute?~~

Yep: done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Making the most of a Minimum Wage: should be Making the Most of a Minimum Wage, I think.~~

Of course: now done. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It reads a little oddly to mix (OK, self-explanatory) titles with simple descriptions, and it isn't always grammatical ("a programme on the topic of dinners for a Week on a minimum wage"). Suggest She presented talks titled "Making the Most of a Minimum Wage" and "Dinners for a Week on a Minimum Wage", as well as others on the subjects of...)

Agreed: reworked along those lines. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, this is a short article. That's not a major problem in itself, but means that for comprehensiveness we should make sure that every opportunity to give detail and - importantly - context is taken.
~~She lived in Montrose until her early 30s when she moved to Swanley, Kent: any idea of why, or what she did there?~~

No idea why, but added that she was involved in horticulture. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petty wrote on cookery, with works aimed at those also involved in social work, and with a cookery book: I'm not sure that the withs here are quite grammatical. Suggest "producing works... work, and a cookery book", "authoring works..." or similar.

Tweaked this. How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the comma before the and is grammatical, as she produced that book too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very optional, but as we now have X... and Y... and Z..., consider publishing works aimed at those also involved in social work, including a cookery book (yes, that brings the comma back from the dead...) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of primary sources in the bibliography: it might be worth separating these out (or, if you prefer, separating out secondary sources as "Biographies of Petty" or similar. Mindful of WP:PRIMARY, I think it's good to do as much as we can not to dress up the mutton of primary sources as secondary-source lamb.
- Yep. I've split into the usual categories I've used previously. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not totally clear which sources are being treated as primary and which as secondary. Bibliographical formatting is very much a matter of nominator's preference, but it does read a little oddly to lump Roland 2008 and Davin 1978, for example, into a section of basically-primary journal articles. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd rather leave them as they are now, separated into the normal categories. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When in Rome... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By writing an article on someone, we're taking as read that they're notable in the sense that they've had some kind of impact (if nothing else, in other people's writing) beyond the simple facts of their life. I'd like to see some kind of "Legacy" section here: were her contributions to food education recognised (or not) in her lifetime or beyond? Was she criticised for her public prominence? Did her work lay the groundwork for any future initiatives, programmes or people? Has anyone written about how she didn't get the recognition she deserved?

Nope - unfortunately! The closest thing to it is at the end of the DNB article, which says "No newspaper of record appears to have published her obituary. Most of her recipes use a handful of inexpensive items and rely on simple procedure. In this they prefigure Second World War efforts by the Ministry of Food to convince the populace that substitution of cheaper for familiar ingredients was worthy and even enjoyable." The 'pre-figuring' is a long way from any form of legacy, so I'm not sure we can make the connection too much. No-one else really covered her life or legacy, unfortunately (or, at least, not as far as I have been able to find). - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had the Ministry of Food in mind when I wrote this: personally, I'd definitely bring it in to contextualise where she fits into the broader history of British food-based social relief. Even if she wasn't a direct (or acknowledged) inspiration for what came later, it's helpful for readers to be able to see that she and her work didn't exist in a vacuum, but are part of a longer story. I'd definitely put in the comment about her obit not appearing in any newspaper, as we can cite that to a secondary source: there's a definite "unsung hero" vibe to this article and it's good that we can make that more than an implication. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added something of her legacy at the end. There isn't anything I could find that made a more concrete connection between her work (or that of the The Mothers' and Babies' Welcome) with the Second World War Ministry of Food approach. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Nice work: clearly took a lot of archival digging, and the article wears that research lightly indeed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still have the Lead and haybox to do, plus a couple of other smaller points, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I've covered all the above comments as they currently stand. Hopefully they are all in line with your comments (or, at least, explained why I haven't done something), but I look forward to any additional comments or further thoughts you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Great stuff. Afraid I've managed to find two or three more things, but we're certainly no more than a nose's length away here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I've covered all the new (and formerly unresolved) points, but please let me know if I've missed anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to support. Another excellent piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many thanks UndercoverClassicist, yet again another fantastic review, and I thank you for it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Placeholder for now. JennyOz (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, so sorry for delay! I have a few suggestions and questions...

All very much worth waiting for! - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

move good article template above EngvarB

lede

women to get them in the habit - get? to encourage?
- I think I'll leave this how it is: it was more about getting them in the habit of cooking as much as anything. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
allowing her to use their own limited equipment and utensils - to demonstrate how to use their own...
Because she taught the women how to make suet puddings - insert 'firstly' before "how"?
where heated food is place in an insulated box - tense placed
Her approach to teaching nutritious but cheap food - you can't teach food (or is that an Engvar thing?) - food cooking/cookery? teaching and promoting
- All done, bar the first. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

life

Somers Town had high levels of poverty - why plural? does that mean pockets of ie in some areas a high level?
- You've got me thinking about this. I take "a high level" as a singular (possibly consistent) level, but "high levels of" as multitude of levels that vary, but all are high, and it's the second one I'm after. (I may be wrong to make the difference along those lines, but that's my feeling on it). - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chalton Street - worth a link?
Among other activities, The Mothers' and Babies' Welcome provided cookery lessons for mothers, but realised that this was of limited success as many of the women lacked the basic equipment or utensils needed. - in their homes, at home
women's own homes, using only their own equipment and utensils - demonstrating how they could use their existing
Although she described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because... - there is no "despite of" in this to warrant "although"? It's not like the students would have otherwise called her "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods". Petty described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods. Her students nicknamed...
Westminster Health Society - is London Early Years Foundation "Founded in 1903 as the City of Westminster Health Society primarily"
- Good spot! - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the cost of food rose by 61 per cent the same time - at the same time or during?
Petty wrote at least one pamphlet for - link pamphlet? lest readers think leaflet?
cooking process is finished; because the cooking is finished by the latent heat - 2x cooking and 2x finished - maybe swap first to 'where the cooking continues'?
300 recipes on a variety of basic foods - Engvar? recipes on? based on or 'using'
- "On" sounds natural to me, but "using" is probably better anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The food chemist Katherine Bitting described it as - Petty's book
the book sold 20,000 copies.[38] The book was reprinted - It was reprinted?
Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute - that institute became the Royal Society for Public Health. And the ibox on Perspectives in Public Health says (one of) its former name was "(1894-1955): Royal Sanitary Institute. Journal (United Kingdom) (0370-7334)"
- I'm not a fan of wikilinking only part of a title (I think there may be something in the MOS about it, but I may be misremembering that), and Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute is the journal's full name. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
began presenting talks on the radio on 2LO station for the BBC - "on the radio on" maybe tweak? eg began presenting radio talks on the BBC's 2LO station
Also "began presenting talks on the ... and spoke on the "Household Talk" series" Did she give talks and separately spoke on the HT series? If not, remove "and" and change spoke to speaking?
- Both (although Household Talk was also on 2LO) - tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
spoke on the "Household Talk" series v the Household Talks programmes - different formatting intentional? ie italics and plural
- No, just my sloppiness. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The historian Julie–Marie Strange - has authorlink but no link in prose intentional? And change dash in name to hyphen?
- All done, except where noted otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works

Chapters "Cookery and Vitamines" [sic] and - The e was included in original spelling (per Vitamin#"Vitamine" to vitamin) and was just being dropped in 1920s. I know use of sic can be broader but most commonly it suggests an error. It depends on your purpose I s'pose. If your intention is to stop other editors from "correcting" it, you could swap to a hidden {{not a typo|original spelling}} template. If your intention is something else ... ignore me:)
- Didn't know about that little template: that's a useful one! Now included and de-siced. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hunter, Michael - link Michael Hunter (historian) (per archive Hunter, Michael Cyril William)
Vernon, James - link James Vernon (historian)
Davin, Anna - link Anna Davin
Mc, M (December 1910). - McC
- Name links all added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cats to consider

Category:British nutritionists
Category:Environmental health practitioners (because Sanitary inspector redirects to Environmental health officer which has "Some past titles for this role include inspector of nuisances, sanitarian, and sanitary inspector.")
Category:British women radio presenters or
Category:Scottish women radio presenters
Category:English health and wellness writers
- I went for British, rather than English, but just a wider field
Category:Food activists
Category:British health activists
Category:British nutritionists
- All these cats added - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

any way to break up article? I have nothing to suggest
- It's a tricky one. There is no 'natural' break point - her career just rumbled on without a particular event marking a point we could use, so anything would have to be arbitrary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no mention of any personal life, presume she did not marry nor have children. Do we usually say "nothing is known about..." or just stay silent?
- I think we leave it blank on the off-chance someone else finds something. There's only the information that she lived with her sister which is what we've got there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
add pic of a haybox? None at Commons usable? The last one of a woman constructing her own is from First World War period though German (by Marie Goslich)
- I found one from 1913 from a US writer which I've added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look in Trove (a large number of contributions to Aust newspapers in that time was from British correspondents).
One piece on age staging young children's recipes but nothing usable here.

Another piece, again not usable, but it might explain angry warring WP editors ...indigestion! "good cooking and a knowledge of dietetics made for greater happiness in the world, and would probably lead to peace knowing as one did, the close connection between indigestion and bad temper, individual and national."
I loved reading that last article - it made me chuckle! - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all that is comprehensible! I enjoyed reading about Floss. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks JennyOz. Excellent comments as always and all very much to the point. Hopefully I have done justice to them, but please let me know if I've erred or if I've missed anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All great thanks SchroCat. Very happy to add my s'port. JennyOz (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenny - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Image licencing and use seem OK to me but I can't find the licence for File:Mothers and Babies welcome, Bunting, A school for mothers Wellcome L0007064.jpg. I would use consistent capitalization for ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Alt text tweaked and the URL updated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this doesn't seem to be a compatible licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book is possibly in copyright: the images aren’t. There isn’t a record of the photographer, so according to this, it’s out of copyright. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the image needs to have its licence template changed to {{PD-UK-unknown}} then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Cheers Jo-Jo Eumerus, now swapped. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2023 [66].

Daytona USA[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are if you've ever been to an arcade or a bowling alley, or anywhere that has arcade games, you've seen one of these machines. Daytona USA is iconic and anecdotally considered one of the best-selling and greatest arcade games of all time, so much so that it's still reasonably common to see around today. Its success was a good way to kick off the run of what was arguably Sega's most successful arcade system board, the Model 2 — a board so advanced for its time that its graphics were built by US military contractor GE Aerospace, which later became part of Lockheed Martin.

It's been three years since I last brought an article to FAC. This has been an article I've worked on and off since about 2019, and it's taken me waiting to find sources to flesh out what I felt was missing to ensure this article was covered in depth and could be considered complete. I'm taking a deep breath and a leap of faith on this one as I've only written one FAC on an actual video game and that was one that had been canceled, so this feels like new ground to me. But, it feels as ready as I can possibly make it. I thank all reviewers in advance for their feedback. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Daytona_USA_arcade_flyer.jpg: source link is dead, needs a more expansive FUR
- Only had a few minutes at the moment, but I dug up an archive link for the original source link and significantly expanded the FUR. Will work on the rest tonight. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Daytona_USA_screenshot.png needs a more expansive FUR
- Done. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Daytona_Twin.jpg: what's the status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: The image is uploaded as CC-BY-SA 4.0, though if you're inquiring whether or not it truly is, I found it difficult to determine whether an arcade cabinet displaying a game running on it could be copyrighted or not. The best I could figure out is that while the game displayed would likely fall under copyright, the cabinet itself would not (though it contains trademarks). The best I could find on the subject was here - the game would be a work of authorship, but its method of operation is not protected by copyright, and the arcade cabinet would be the game's method of operation. If the screen in the picture is the issue, I can pull up File:Two-seater IMG 0174 (19411605993).jpg, crop it down to remove excess, and utilize it, as it does not have a lit screen. Please do let me know your thoughts. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the case of the cabinet, its utilitarian function is separable from its artistic design; compare commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Image removed. No arcade flyer exists that has both cabinet designs pictured, and I do not see uploading a non-free image of the other cabinet as meeting the minimal usage standard of WP:NFCC. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

~~"Inspired by the popularity of the NASCAR motor racing series in the US, players ...": needs rephrasing; as written the first clause modifies "players".~~
- Done. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "release" as an intransitive verb ("The first game released on ...") is a fairly recent usage and I don't think has general acceptance yet, though I gather it's common in video game journalism. I would suggest making it transitive throughout.
- It is quite common in video game journalism, yes. I'd like to push back on this a bit in that when I checked over Wikipedia:Featured articles#Video gaming, every article I looked at had this same usage of "released" or "was released" -- I would therefore make the case that it has been accepted as language meeting the FA standards. If you still disagree, I would either ask for a third opinion or how you might go about rephrasing these uses. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm sympathetic to the idea of subject-specific language; I write articles on magazines and occasionally someone wil change wording that is standard in the industry but not common outside it. But "was released" is uncontroversial -- that's just the passive form of the transitive verb; other than the common dislike of passive voice, I don't think anyone could object to that. You've changed the only instance that I thought was a problem ("The first game released on the Sega Model 2" -> It was the first game to be released on the Sega Model 2") so I've struck this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The first game released on the Sega Model 2 arcade system board, a prototype debuted at Tokyo's Amusement Machine Show in August 1993 and was location tested in Japan the same month, before the complete game released in March 1994." This is a bit confusing because it's out of chronological order. Can we avoid saying the game (was) released both at the start and the end of the sentence? I think there's a distinction being made between the two releases -- one refers to the arcade hardware, the other to the "complete game", but the distinction isn't very clear.
- Actually, I went ahead and cleared out the whole prototype bit because I don't think it's necessary for the lead. If I remember right, this may have been a remnant from an editor pushing to state the game came out in 1993 on the basis of the prototype, and that editor has been subsequently blocked as a sock. That there was a prototype I think is appropriate for the body but not necessarily for the lead.
"after a meeting of the heads of Sega's regional offices for a game to debut the Model 2 hardware": I think this would be better with a verb instead of just "for"; e.g. "a meeting [...] to decide on a game".
- Rephrased, using your wording.
~~Do the sources say why Namco's Ridge Racer was in Sega's sights? Was it the dominant racing game of the time?~~
- The sources on Daytona USA don't say specifically why, but yes, you have the right idea. Ridge Racer came out late in 1993 and not only was it renowned for being a dominant racing game and very realistic, but its graphics were praised as the best in 3D video games to that point, and it was compared as superior to Sega's own Virtua Racing. I brought over some of the reception from Ridge Racer (1993 video game) to help illustrate this, in the body. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That works; it would be nice to have the specific assertion but the reader can infer it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The game's camera system presents four different view perspectives from which the game can be played, similar to Virtua Racing, and also includes the ability to view behind the car." I think technically this should be "similarly to", but that feels a bit clumsy. How about "As in Virtua Racing, the game's camera system presents four different view perspectives from which the game can be played, and also includes the ability to view behind the car."
- Used your wording.
"The arcade version offers multiplayer and up to eight players can compete depending on the number of cabinets linked together." Suggest "The arcade version allows up to eight players to compete with each other, depending on the number of cabinets linked together".
- Used your wording.
Possibly not an issue for this article, but you mention "deluxe cabinets"; I had a look in the article on the Model 2 and it doesn't mention such a thing. Were these Model 2 cabinets or a later cabinet?
- Let me clarify some confusion here for you: the Model 2 is an arcade system board, not an arcade cabinet. Think of the arcade system board as the computer, and it's the most important part of the arcade cabinet, which also includes the game's controls, screen, decoration, seats (if applicable, but especially in racing games), etc. So certain games will have different types of cabinets such as uprights, sit-downs, or deluxe cabinets, but that's unique to each game and not to each arcade system board. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, thanks for the clarification. I had another look at the paragraph and I don't think any change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The person given direct responsibility for the project was AM2 director Toshihiro Nagoshi,[1] with himself and Suzuki serving as producers." Suggest "AM2 director Toshihiro Nagoshi was given direct responsibility for the project, with Nagoshi and Suzuki serving as producers."
- Used your wording.
"Nagoshi was aware of the number of racing arcade games already on the market and decided he wanted to take his game in a different direction." It's not the number, surely? Presumably the intended meaning is that he was familiar with the contents, or the approach taken, or the design of, the many games on the market.
- Removed "number" - I think the point of emphasis in the source was that there were many racing video games out there in 1993, but I don't think any meaning is lost removing it.
~~"and recalled how it was a new experience for him": suggest "and later recalled that it was a new experience for him".~~
- Used your wording.
"Nagoshi's team selected different ways to research for the project." I don't have access to the source, but I would guess that the three sentences that follow this are examples of these different approaches. I think it would be more concise (and would avoid implying that these three are the entire team) to cut this sentence and instead make the point in the transition between the sentences. For example, "As research for the project, Nagoshi read books and watched videos on NASCAR, although he found it difficult to convey the emotions of the sport to his staff in Japan. In contrast, game planner Makoto Osaki said he purchased a sports car and watched the NASCAR film Days of Thunder more than 100 times. Programmer Daichi Katagiri was an avid player of arcade racing games at the time and leaned on that experience."
- You are correct in that was what the source was doing. Used your wording, minus "In contrast" as I don't really feel like it's a contradiction as much as it is just a different approach.
"Suzuki also reached out to Sega designer Jeffery Buchanan, who suggested placing interesting features in various locations. Some of these features included a dinosaur fossil and a clipper." Suggest "Suzuki also reached out to Sega designer Jeffery Buchanan, who suggested placing interesting features, such as a dinosaur fossil and a clipper ship, at various locations within the game."
- Used your wording.
"Mitsuyoshi said this was the only way to include vocals, due to technical limitations of the Model 2." Do we need to attribute this to Mitsuyoshi inline? That implies others might not agree; is there any reason to doubt him?
- Removed attribution to Mitsubishi on this line specifically.
~~Can we say how the hidden track "Pounding Pavement" was accessed?~~
- Done, but I'll be honest, my reservation about explaining this was avoiding WP:GAMECRUFT. I'll let you decide if the addition is appropriate or not.
  I wouldn't argue too much if someone else wanted to remove it, but given that you've mentioned the fact that the track was hidden, I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~What is location testing? Putting one or two machines in an arcade and monitoring them?~~
- Explained this out a bit; more like a small, highly limited release to see how it did in sales before doing a full launch.
~~"It was a Western launch game for Saturn": what does this mean?~~
- Linked to the term launch game in the Glossary of video game terms - let me know if you'd rather I spell it out in the article. A launch game is one that is newly released at the time its console newly releases.
  I think the link is enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In Japan, two separate Windows releases were done in September and December 1996, with the first released version supporting different graphics cards such as Leadtek's WinFast GD400." Seems an odd way to say this -- normally one says the second instance of something is different to the first, not the other way round. Does "different" here mean different to the second version, or something else?
- Changed "different" to "specific". It is a little odd, but factually accurate. Nothing I have in a source, but I'm guessing the second version had expanded compatibility with more graphics sets and the first was more restrictive that specific ones had to be used. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That fixes it. You're right it wasn't technically wrong, but this way it doesn't make me pause to parse it as I read the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Which Windows version was released in Europe and the US?~~
- Difficult to say whether or not it even was one of the versions released in Japan, as that doesn't exist in any source. It's worth noting the game is the same content-wise, so it's only a matter of technical requirements, and to dig through all of that to determine based on the requirements would be WP:OR. As such, I think it's fine to just call it the "Windows version".
  That's fair, but how about making it "A Windows version" rather than "The Windows version"? The reason I asked was because "The" made me think we were being specific, and since two Windows versions had been listed it was ambiguous, but since as you say it could have been a third version, using "A Windows version" would avoid the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Done. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"due to no longer having the rights": suggest "as Sega no longer owned the rights", or "as Sega's license had expired".~~
- Used your wording.
"In a 2002 report, Sega said it was one of the most successful arcade games of all time." You might consider cutting this -- as it's sourced to Sega it's not particularly valuable, and there are plenty of other sources given that say the same thing so we don't need to hear Sega agreeing.
- I'm okay cutting this if needed, but let me justify it a bit: everyone else is going off of anecdotal evidence and that it's said it's that successful. Although we don't have numbers, surely Sega would know absolutely how many they sold and how that compares in the industry? If you don't agree, that's fine; it's a cut I would be okay with.
  I see your point. Does the source have additional information about why Sega said this -- e.g. did they say something like "It's one of the top X games we've ever made, based on units sold"? They're a reliable source for the relative popularity of their own games, and since they're a major player in the industry that implies a game that's successful in the industry. If there's no additional context like that, then on balance I think I'd cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer appears to be no, so removed. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of instances of A said B in the reception section. For example, the second paragraph of the "Arcade" subsection has four sources cited, one after the other, starting with Rik Skews. Can we combine some of these sentences so that they collect similar statements together? For example, almost everyone quoted in this paragraph praised the graphics; could we make a statement about the reception of the graphics, instead of a series of indirect and direct quotes that mention them? There's a little bit of the same problem further down the section.
- I took a shot at reworking the paragraphs in this section; let me know what you think. This is an area I struggle with, so I'm open to feedback.
I don't think you have to name every single source inline, either; that's what citations are for. If a reviewer has particular cachet, you might want to name them inline, but does the reader care that it was Skews and Straus and LaMancha writing for those publications? Or even which publications the opinions you cite appeared in?
- Does the reader care? No. But as I've always understood it one should identify the writer if the publication does, because it's their words and opinions and not actually that of the publication - and if a publication doesn't list a writer, then it's more of the publication's voice. That being said, your last line confuses me a bit in that how would you attribute in a paragraph who said what?
  I'm supporting below, since I don't think this is a key point, and because I think there may even be a guideline somewhere that says that one should attribute inline. Also I understand that when you use a quote, it's often better to attribute inline. But I think the reader is usually going to care that, for example, the graphics were praised and the soundtrack was not, or vice versa, but not that publications X, Y and Z praised the graphics and writers A, B, and C disliked the soundtrack, so sometimes it makes sense to use quotes without attribution. For example, you could do this with part of the "Arcade" second paragraph: "It was very well received on its North American debut at ACME 1994, with some reviewers considering it the game of the show, though one commented on the expensive cabinet price. The gameplay, sound, damage physics, and "state-of-the-art" graphics were praised, and Daytona USA was described as the best arcade game one reviewer had played in years, while another reviewer asserted that "the stakes in the arcade wars have been raised again". I'm not suggesting you make this change, just that this seems easier to read to me, and doesn't lose any information, since with citations in the right place the reader can find Rik Skews' name if they want it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Similar to the arcade version, the Saturn version was compared to Ridge Racer's PlayStation conversion." I'm not sure what the first clause is intended to convey -- that the game was similar?~~
- It was intended to connect to the arcade section where the arcade game was compared to Ridge Racer. Rephrased.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the reception section I have either addressed or left feedback to each comment. I'll work on reception in the next couple of days and get back with you. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes and a couple of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie All addressed and ready for a second pass, if this doesn't get archived first. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The remaining unstruck comment doesn't affect my support; I think this article complies with the accepted approach to attributing reviews. Other than that this seems to me a well-researched and well-written account. Red Phoenix, if this does get archived, let me know when you re-nominate so I can comment/support again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ProtoDrake[edit]

Support: This seems a perfectly sound article to be an FA. If the article still gets closed due to lack of activity, I'll be okay to give a fresh support at a second nomination. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must've been gone from here too long; could've sworn six weeks was about the standard to let a FAC run. In any regard, I'm unfortunately not surprised as even among video game editors, arcade games are a niche in part because it's a format of gaming that's been dying a slow death since the 2000s. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I’ve left a request for more feedback at WT:VG to hopefully bring additional reviewers within the next few days. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RP, a very rough and ready rule of thumb is that if a nomination has not gained two general supports within three weeks, or at least shown signs of shortly getting there, then the coordinators will be watching it and it is unlikely to make it to four weeks unless the situation improves. The divide for "Older articles" is set at three weeks to help everyone keep an eye on this. Sometimes simply having a warning like this posted will prompt reviewers to come forward, or those who have commented to expedite their support/oppose decision making. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SnowFire[edit]

Overall, looks good to me. Not really my area of expertise, but I'll give it a shot.

Is mentioning "realism" really lede-worthy? Assuming this is referring to the GamePro review, it's one line of a very short and insubstantial review that mentions the word "realism", yes, but as part of a sentence that says "Daytona takes an actiony game and a realish game and makes a combination that's great!" That's not 100% the same thing as praising realism. This is a game where (assuming I'm not confusing it with a different sit-down arcade game) you can drive around the track backwards and do head-on collisions with the other racers and be totally 100% fine. If a lot of other reviews other than GamePro brought it up, maybe, but otherwise, I'd rephrase it.
- I'll strike - there are more reviews that do discuss realism, but I wouldn't say it's a significant enough quantity - especially in comparison to its primary competition, Ridge Racer. Changed to "gameplay", which does have stronger feedback. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, was using satellite photography & photographs really lede-worthy as well? This is totally optional, I know there are differences of opinion here. But this just doesn't seem that important. Satellite photography wasn't restricted to super-spies in the 1990s, it was reasonably accessible - "the developers checked Google Maps to get a sense of the terrain" for a 2023 game wouldn't be that interesting, so I don't see why the 1992-94 equivalent would be so much more interesting.
- Reworded - it was more or less a reasonable attempt to discuss development a little more in the lead; the new wording doesn't fully drop the concept but reduces the focus a bit. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" the first lap of each race measures the skill of the player and adjust the difficulty of opponents accordingly" - Shouldn't this be "adjusts" to match?
- Done. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Visually, the game runs at 60 frames per second " - I don't have access to the source, but just to verify, the source is attributing the "smooth appearance" at least partially to the 60fps? Because that's a bit surprising to me, I'd think that older graphics wouldn't be particularly improved by 30fps vs. 60fps. It's a pretty subtle difference even with post-2010 graphics IMO, but if the source does say this, it's fine.
- Removed - the source is at least more focused on the texture filtering for being the reason for graphics being smooth. 60 fps is a capability of the Model 2, and is listed at its entry at List of Sega arcade system boards, so it shouldn't be any great loss not to be here. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"For the Saturn version, the vocals and instruments were rerecorded with real instruments" - is this really in the Gamasutra / GameDev cite? That interview talks about the original work and the 15th anniversary edition, but I'm not seeing a lot about the Saturn version in that source. Maybe ref order got swapped around? Or am I just missing it? (Also, on behalf of music majors into electronic music, I dunno about referring to electronica as "false" instruments... but the phrasing in the source should be honored, whatever that source is.)
- Hrm... I think you're right but I couldn't sort it as it was. Rephrased to note the audio was at least remixed, with a new citation. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better way to phrase "The Xbox 360 version was made compatible with Xbox One on March 21, 2017"? That sounds like the day that Sega engineers got it to boot, or fixed the last bug, when it really means "was released to the public in a buyable state." While on that note, I don't see a date in the given reference. The article was from March 21, sure (or possibly just updated on that date?), but it just says that it's coming to the XBox One. Is there a better reference out there? If not, I'd say that just saying "2017" is about the most that can be taken from the article (assuming it really was published in March 2017).
- The title of the article said it was happening "today". That being said, it does sound awkward and it's not truly a release date since it is just compatibility with another system of the same release, so removed and simply noted it was made compatible. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mike Christie brought it up, I'll just echo my endorsement of calling out the authors directly to properly attribute opinions that the article currently does. No, most readers won't care, but it's the accurate and proper thing to do, so no changes needed here.
- Cool. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Air Hendrix review appears cut off - it ends on a semicolon now. Checking the history, I see it didn't always - will leave it up to the nominator whether to replace with a period or to restore the older sentence structure.
- Done. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there possibly a better quote to use from the Eurogamer Martin Robinson review that called it "a fitting epitaph to the genre?" Because speaking from 2023 rather than 2011, this is totally bananas, and might mislead casual readers into thinking that racing games are dead. Mario Kart 8 has sold 53 million units and routinely was a top 10 seller even in years after its release.
- Done - I'm pretty sure Robinson was referring to arcade racers, not "racing games". That being said, there was a better quote about how the 360/PS3 version is a tribute to the original, so I tucked that in instead. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The star {{rating}} template in video game reviews has been deprecated per Template:Video_game_reviews#Guidelines. I'd suggest replacing without a good reason to prefer it here.
- Done. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While on that note... the number of reviews included in the template might be a tad excessive? This may be a larger topic than just this article, but the question of comprehensiveness vs. tl;dr has come up before. The template documentation technically says "Only include reviews if they are cited within the text" but this advice is frequently ignored, and sometimes for good reason (e.g. including Famitsu is good for an international perspective, even if not directly discussed). That said, there are a few reviews that might be better shuffled off to a talk page "holding pen" just in the name of shortening the template, e.g. Game Informer / GameFan / GamesMaster don't appear to be used outside it.
- I trimmed out AllGame as it's more noteworthy for its database than its reviews. On the rest - yes, international perspective is part of it (i.e. Gamest in Japan, Player One in France, Sega Magazin in Germany), and some of it is scores for the Arcade version, as not all video game magazines during that time (or now, for that matter), scored arcade video games even if they'd cover it. I don't see harm in it personally, but do let me know if you want me to strike more reviews from the box. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that the rest of the world doesn't exactly match the Wikipedia article's "definition" of best games, but I'd use some caution with the more narrowly tailored lists as examples of "best games of all time." Best computer games, sure, whatever, but "best coin-operated games" and "best arcade games" feel like they might be better served as a new sentence. Additionally, I'm not sure how much hype a mention in the Guinness Book of World Records Gamer Edition is. I suppose it probably sold better than many "serious" gaming books, but being a heavily young kid based target market kind of reduces the potency of the endorsement.
- Done - including striking the Guinness Book.

SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: Thank you for your feedback. I've acted upon it and responses are above; comments should be resolved unless you have more for me. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Looks good. On the Eurogamer article, fair point that the title says "today", but it still says "updated March 17, 2017" (rather than "published"). Checking the Wayback Machine, I don't see it on a March 18 snapshot of Eurogamer's front page, so either it was some quiet update to an old story, or it wasn't significant enough to hit the main page? But that seems doubtful, game magazines aren't so flush with content they can afford not to highlight their latest articles. I suppose you could email Eurogamer or the article's author for information on when it went up if you wanted to nail down the date more precisely, but I doubt people are THAT interested in the date on the citation.
- TOTALLY OPTIONAL: This isn't a huge deal, but it was a little surprising to land on French / German Wikipedia for some of the reviewer links in the reviews table on the magazine you mentioned. If you have time to kill at some later point, maybe translate the articles over to English Wikipedia so they can be normal blue links? Alternatively, you could use {{ill}} so that it's less surprising, although maybe it would be distracting in a table. This is up to you, avoiding red links isn't a FA criterion, but might be a nice short project.
- Support. SnowFire (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing [this version], spot-check only upon request. I don't know most sources and am assuming that stuff mentioned as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources can be relied on - are Jalopnik, Game Machine, Games World, RePlay reliable sources? Does Edge not have bylines? I note that many sources don't have any author information, is this normal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, and thanks for reviewing. To answer your questions:

Jalopnik is published by G/O Media, the same publisher as reliable source Kotaku except Jalopnik is focused on car topics. This article was published before the July concerns over AI-written content at G/O and should be reliable, but if you disagree, this is all also covered in the Horowitz book used extensively as a source in this encyclopedia article. I’ve doubled the cite as insurance.
Game Machine is a Japanese arcade industry publication for arcade operators in Japan, published in magazine format until 2002, see here for a translation on the Japanese Wikipedia article.
Games World is published by Paragon Publishing, which published a number of video game magazines. I updated the links to link to Paragon, since Games World doesn’t reflect the magazine itself, but the linked TV show was the inspiration for the magazine.
RePlay, along with Play Meter, are/were the two foremost arcade industry publications in the United States for arcade operators. At some point I may have to write the article on RePlay.
On author information… yeah, in older video game magazines it’s shockingly common that articles in the magazines didn’t credit who wrote what, and that includes reviews. Edge is perhaps the worst offender, but Computer and Video Games isn’t much better. Others certainly did do a better job. I was very diligent to ensure that every time an author was listed that they were credited and only excluded that when one was not. I also do not believe a credit to “Staff” is warranted, as that’s pretty much the same assumption as when an article is uncredited to a person.

Red Phoenix ^talk 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. With the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your review! Red Phoenix ^talk 20:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: This has been open for two months and we finally have completed source and image reviews to go along with three supports. Anything else needed for this article’s candidacy to be completed? Red Phoenix ^talk 20:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick read-through and see if anything stands out to me. Hog Farm _Talk 23:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 00:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [67].

Boukephala and Nikaia[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the adventures of Genghis Khan, we move to the life of another Asiatic conqueror, Alexander the Great. Two cities, founded either side of the river where he took one of his most famous victories—one named for the battle, the other for his horse. Alexander died only a couple of years afterwards but the Alexandrias live long in the memory of men. I took the main topic article to FL status in February, after taking the related city of Ai-Khanoum to FA last November. This particular article was reviewed at GA level by Mike Christie in late April. I now set it before you and hope you enjoy. This submission will be used for WikiCup points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

(t · c) buidhe 21:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

Comments

"The cities, two of many founded by the Macedonian king, were founded shortly after" -- to avoid repetition, could you change the second "founded" to "established" or something similar?

Done

I'm confused by the use of italics in "Nikaia"...

So am I, actually. Removed.

"in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and on the Tabula Peutingeriana" - I might try to concisely mention that these are written works. I was initally confused.

Done.

"The cities' location is unknown" --> "The cities' locations are unknown" unless we have a Dallas/Fort Worth situation

Well, we sort of do, but changed anyway for clarity.

"Alexander the Great, king of Macedon, had invaded the Achaemenid Empire in 334 BC" -- Is the "had" needed?

Removed

"to confront Bessus, who had declared himself Artaxerxes V, and soon defeated his enemy's forces" -- I would clarify who "defeated his enemy's forces"

Clarified.

"a task he had performed previously at Arigaion" -- "previously" is redundant

Removed.

"a gymnastic and horse contest" - Was this a single, combined event or two separate ones?

Single, hence the singular "contest"

"N. G. L. Hammond theorises" -- Hammond is dead, so I would make that past tense.
Ditto Albert Brian Bosworth, Arrian. You do it right with A. K. Narain and Tarn.

Done, with others too.

"Arrian separates the clauses detailing the location and naming of the cities, so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city." Although I understand this sentence, I might reword it. I'm not sure it's grammatical as is.

I'm not sure what I would reword it to...

Reword "in the area would have helped it to survive" per WP:WOULDCHUCK - maybe "in the area likely helped it survive"

Done

On a tangential note, the bit about Bucephalus possibly emerging in Hindu and Buddhist traditions is fascinating (and quasi-amusing).

Was a surprise for me when I wrote the article!

That's all I got. Short but well done. I like seeing the classics get their share of love. ~ HAL333 01:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAL333; responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ~ HAL333 13:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a455bcd9[edit]

It may be because I'm colorblind but I'm struggling to read File:AlexanderIndiaMap.jpg (for instance "Eschate"). Without clicking on the map, it's hard to know where these two cities are located. (Compare to Carthage, Nineveh, Ugarit, or Palmyra [FA]) Also, the map shows "Bucephala" and "Nicaea", terms that appear nowhere in the article. Besides, the legend mentions "Alexandria Boukephala and Alexandria Nikaia", names that appear neither on the map nor in the article. (The article only says: "Ancient sources are generally consistent in the naming of the cities. Boukephala is less frequently named "Boukephalia", or "Alexandria Boukephalos" in the Byzantine period."). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second. ~ HAL333 14:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering removing it; this has encouraged me. Replaced with the Pella mosaic; and included a very nice photo of the Jhelum River in the article. Hal, I'll get to your comments shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we still need a map. Can we use {{Infobox ancient site}} with two coordinates (see Palmyra for one location)? Otherwise {{Location map many}} should work. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second that as well. If you end up moving the mosaic back down, you might want to consider making it into a horizontal double image template along one of Bucephalus (maybe the classis mosaic of him and Alexander). Although feel free to disregard the latter - I'll (eventually) support regardless. ~ HAL333 17:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9 and HAL333: I've done something—see what you think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. ~ HAL333 15:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Unlimitedlead[edit]

Comments

"...mentioned by Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy, it appears in..." The comma would also make sense as a semicolon.

I think I prefer it this way.

Adding reign templates for the rulers mentioned in the article would be prudent, giving the reader a stronger grasp on the article's chronology.

Added for Alexander and Darius. As the reigns of Menander and Porus are sort of unknown, I think that's good enough?

"...who had declared himself Artaxerxes V..." Artaxerxes V of what place?

Persia, I guess, but he didn't really get around to defining specifics. Added nonetheless.

Why is Hydaspes not linked in the body?

I did through Jhelum (I didn't particularly want two links to the same article four words apart).

Are there really only five chronicles of Alexander? The five mentioned all date to antiquity, but besides that, what made these five in particular significant?

Five major ones, yes—added "primary" to represent that—see Historiography of Alexander the Great. They are broadly the only ones to discuss Alexander's campaigns in detail.

Why are there scare quotes around "a gymnastic and horse contest"? Is this a quotation from someone?

Arrian. Attributed.

Introduce N. G. L. Hammond.

Done

"...so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city..." I do not understand what this is saying.

Neither do historians ;) simplified.

Introduce Bucephalus.
This paragraph does not make it clear that Boukephala was named after Bucephalus, methinks.

That is very true, don't know how I missed that. Fixed that and his introduction.

Introduce Aurel Stein.

Done.

"exact location of Boukephala and Nikaia was already a matter of dispute in antiquity. The same is true today."[20] : The comma should be outside the quotation mark.
Stein "concluded it was impossible to indicate the site of Nikaia."[24]: The comma should be outside the quotation mark.

Assuming you mean period, done both.

"Although the Buddha connected these cities to the mythical king Mahāsammata, it is possible that they were in reality the cities of Boukephala and Nikaia" : What is the reasoning for this?

Eggermont doesn't provide his reasoning in usable detail, but I would think that "two cities across river, one named after horse" is probably the long and the short of it.

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Unlimitedlead, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UndercoverClassicist[edit]

A few comments, mostly on MOS, grammar and clarity:

Comments

The article makes quite a lot of use of elegant variation "two cities founded by Alexander the Great .... two of many founded by the Macedonian king. This isn't great for encyclopaedic writing and can be unclear, particularly to those with less subject knowledge or a weaker grasp of English.

Removed that instance, let me know if there's anything else you find troublesome.

There's now a small MOS:SANDWICH between the battle map and the infobox on my display. Moving the map to the right (better for accessibility anyway) would fix.
~~"spring 326 BC": MOS:SEASON advises against using seasons to indicate parts of the year, as they're not the same across the world.~~

I sort of dislike that MOS guideline, but removed. Can't replace as don't know the exact month.
"Early in 326 BC", or "in the first half of..."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done early, not sure if I like it to describe May. In the first half makes it sound irritatingly like a football match. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Built on the battlefield": suggest a rephrase here, as "on the battlefield" has a common metaphorical meaning of "during the battle". Grammatically, I'm not sure this clause quite fits with the sentence that follows. Suggest "The city on the eastern bank, where the fighting of the battle took place, was most likely called Nikaia ("city of victory")...". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite make it clear that the city was located on the site of the battlefield, merely that the fighting and the city were both on the eastern bank. I've added "the site of" to the article—see what you think.

Works well. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"...Alexander's famous horse...": suggest omitting "famous" as WP:PUFFERY.~~

Done.

"Supervised during construction by Craterus...": would rephrase (generally, I don't think these kind of fronted clauses work too well): presumably it was the construction itself that Craterus supervised, rather than the cities themselves.

Good catch. Separated the clauses.

"mentioned by Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy, it appears in the Periplus Maris Erythraei manuscript and on the Tabula Peutingeriana map": I'd give a (rough) timeframe for these, as they're quite far apart.

I mean, I can give the Periplus as 1st-century AD, but I don't feel confident giving even a rough date of composition for the TP (see Tabula Peutingeriana#Archetype).

Yes, I appreciate that it's a tricky one, especially as the Tabula isn't itself consistent as to which time period it depicts. We could call it the Roman T.P. map, or give the terminus post quem ("the T.P., a Roman map made sometime after the turn of the 1st century AD"). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone for "later"; I don't really want to get into a digression on the T.P. in the lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The cities' location are unknown": grammar wonky here: either the city's location is or the cities' locations are.~~

Wonkier than Willy Wonka. Fixed.

~~Suggest saying which country Jalalpur and Mong are in, per WP:POPE.~~

Added in first sentence.

~~I'm not sure I like "city of victory" as a straightforward gloss for Nikaia: I'd err on the side of saying that the name is from nike (victory).~~

Done, I think

~~Is the word Persian consciously avoided in relation to the Achaemenids? It's the name by which most people would know that state and its (dominant) people.~~

Not consciously.

~~"Within a few years he defeated the Achaemenid armies, first at Issus...": Issus was the first time he defeated Darius, but not Darius' armies.~~
"Within a few years he defeated the Achaemenid armies, first at Issus and then at Gaugamela, while his enemy Darius III was murdered in 330 BC by Bessus,": the phrasing here implies that Darius was murdered while Alexander was fighting at Issus and Gaugamela.

Rephrased paragraph.

Suggest giving a bit more of a clue as to where the various places mentioned from the Persian empire are. A map would be extremely helpful.

See a455bcd9's comments above. I'm trying to get it to work.

I see the rather nice one of India in the infobox. Is there a broader one of the Persian Empire/Alexander's Empire in the pipeline? Given how many of the various places mentioned here are location-unknown, it might not be as game-changing as I thought. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like something like I had at Ai-Khanoum#Site, but either their information/sourcing is dubious or they're not easy to read (see above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"the Hydaspes river (the modern-day Jhelum River)": suggest making the capitalisation consistent here.~~

Done.

"Alexander, forced to return a few months later after his troops had mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern-day Beas River), ordered them to help repair damage caused by the monsoon": because the troops are only mentioned in a parenthetical clause, them seems to refer to the builders, which I don't think is intended. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. Hopefully fixed now? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the title "Alexander's chroniclers" for the five historians. Alexander did bring chroniclers with him; we just don't have their accounts. There were also a great deal more ancient historians who wrote about Alexander; the only thing that these five have in common is their (somewhat coincidental) survival. Suggest "all five surviving ancient accounts of Alexander's life" or similar.

I agree with the sentiment, but the primary WP:RS used in the article are rather unsentimental. Fraser outright uses the phrase "Alexander-historians" in the first sentence of the book, while Cohen refers to the five as "the major narrative accounts of Alexander's life".

I'd go closer to Cohen: Alexander's chroniclers, to me, suggests the people who actually travelled with him and wrote the "raw data" of his campaigns. Perhaps "the five major surviving accounts...", unless Cohen has taken a time machine back to Alexandria. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

~~"naming one Nikaia and the other Boukephala": italicise names per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.~~

Done.

"a task he had performed at Arigaion.": tell us where and when.

Where is unknown, and when is uncertain. Done my best.

"Another city, called Arigaion..."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Diodorus additionally recorded...": we usually refer to writers in the present tense; the past tense here creates the implication that Diodorus was an exact contemporary.

See HAL333's comments above; I prefer your way.

~~"Alexander celebrated his victory and foundations with "a gymnastic and horse contest" near the western city": attribute this quotation.~~
"when Alexander returned a few months later after his troops had mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern-day Beas River), his troops were ordered to help repair damage caused by the monsoon.": the passive voice for the second part reads oddly, as if someone else ordered them. Suggest doing away with the repetition of his troops if possible. It might also help to break down the steps in this narrative, and explain a little about how the mutiny connects to Alexander's return.
~~Introduce N. G. L. Hammond.~~

All done.

"According to Arrian, Alexander may have initially established the port at Boukephala, although Curtius Rufus implies otherwise": what does Curtius Rufus imply, exactly?

Actually, he states, not implies. Put in article.

"Arrian separated the clauses detailing the location and naming of the cities, so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city.": suggest trimming and clarifying this sentence.

Done.

"this conclusion is quite tentative due to the grammatical uncertainties": quite can have different meanings depending on your dialect: is this somewhat tentative or extremely tentative?

Somewhere in the middle ;)

"Arrian also noted...": noted implies an indisputable fact, so doesn't work here when we're dealing with debated information. See also the tenses on these authors.

Done

As with Pliny, something like "wrote" or "stated" would be better; "recorded" still comes down on Arrian's side, to me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" it was probably under the rule of the Mauryan Empire (c. 320–185 BC)": putting this date range (and the later one) in brackets is a little unclear: are those the dates for the empire's "lifespan" or its rule over the city?

Clarified.

I'd give some idea of the dates behind the scholarly debate as to Boukephala's endurance.

Done my best. Let me know if there needs to be more.

I'm not sure I was very clear here: I meant for the debate itself, not the ancient history. I've gone and made a bold edit giving more context to the two scholars. I've also swapped them round, as Tarn was much older than Narain; my hunch from their book titles is that we're talking about the 1950s for both, but I don't want to be more specific without evidence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine, many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the presence of a symbol on his coinage which could only have been minted at a Greek city": this sounds odd: there might have been Greek symbols on the coinage, but I don't think non-Greeks are struck down when they attempt to draw them (see the many "Alexander" coins made in the northern Balkans, for a comparison, and the pseudo-Arabic found on early medieval English coins.)

It's Tarn, he's given to slightly wacky conclusions. Made it clearer that it's his claim, not a fact.

Well clarified.

"Pliny the Elder, who notes that the city was the chief of three controlled by the Asini tribe": notes here gives Pliny a little too much credit for factual accuracy.

Very true.

I think records does much the same (that is, implies credence). Ancient ethnography, as a rule, wasn't exactly scrupulous about fact-checking. How about "who names the city as the chief of three controlled by the Asini tribe"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. done.

".. to the east of Paropamisadae.": where's that?

How annoyed will you be if I say we don't really know?

See later on as to how we might communicate that in the phrasing.

Cohen's quotation is, I think, better paraphrased: we don't generally want to quote directly unless the specific phrasing is important.

Trimmed.

~~"as proposed by Aurel Stein": a rough date here would be helpful.~~

Finally, something I can provide a definite answer to!

"A monument ... the building": was the monument definitely a building? We don't generally use that word unless it's got walls and doors, and most monuments don't.

It's a building. It's got walls and doors and windows and even a room with computers in it. See the archive link in the source.

The 'missing link' Lane Fox provides is that part of the monument is a study centre, and indeed refers to the whole thing as a "centre" ("Built from 1998 to 2011, the “centre” was declared open by ambassadors from the EU: now it is padlocked and festooned in barbed wire. The white paint is peeling off the big Greek pillars on the platform and the study rooms and lone computer have gone mouldy."). I'd use the same terminology. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or I could avoid any readers' confusion ("centre? centre of what?") by just using an it. That good? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"located 10km east": "10km east of it" or "10km to the east". Suggest using a convert template here.

Done.

"Others have suggested that the settlement was located in the vicinity of Sukchainpur.": clarity on the location would help, especially as it's a redlink.

Stares vaguely into the middle distance, whistling tunelessly and hoping to be ignored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On this: something like "in the vicinity of a city called Sukchainpur" would, I think, do enough to say that we don't know where that city was. Perhaps "Indian city", going only by the name, if you're feeling brave. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have been even more unclear than I thought. I'm blaming the sources. See what you think now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the quote on Nikaia: to me, "the village of Sukchainpur" implies that we do know where it was. Perhaps "the now-lost village..." or, as before, "a village called...", both of which imply or state that we don't. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue with Sukchainpur is that it's a modern village which exists, and some people know where it is but I don't know, and there isn't an article on it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you put "Sukchainpur, Pakistan" into Google you get this place: possibly a bit close to OR, but it's just over the river from Jhelum... that's got to be it, surely? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh good find! I mean, it's unlikely that there's another village with the same name near the same river ... probably? I still feel a little uncomfortable, tbh ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce Alexander Cunningham (he's obviously connected with the British survey, but good to know exactly how and when).
Dates would be helpful in the Buddhism passage.

Also somewhat unknown. Being a semi-mythical prophet who lived 2,500 years ago will do that.

Our own article gives the composition of the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya as the early C1st AD, happily with a nice source and quotation, so I'd include that at least. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why are long vowels marked for Ādirājya, Bhadrāśva and Vitastā but not elsewhere?~~

Because they're Sanskrit transliterations, and I have no clue whether removing them makes their meaning dramatically different. Any help would be appreciated.

Good enough for me; I'm not about to go smashing up Sanskrit in the name of Wiki-consistency! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"an old Hindu tradition": can we be more specific?~~

Sadly not.

~~"above Jalalpur": suggest rephrasing to be clearer on what "above" means (a compass direction would be better).~~

Source says "on the hill above Jalalpur". Looking at a map, it probably means the high ground to the northwest of the town. However, I'm fairly certain that a recent MOS RfC stated that looking at maps to decide such things is WP:OR.

The image [:File:River Jhelum at Jhelum City from Old Railway bridge at Jhelum City.jpg] seems, to my eyes, pretty huge: I see the logic for up-scaling the map and mosaic, where there's a lot of fine detail, but this one compresses the text quite a lot on the Vector 2022 skin. For accessibility, images should be on the right unless there's a good reason otherwise (a consistent left margin is much easier to follow): is there one here?

Nope, just looked nice and I don't use Vector 2022; size decreased and moved rightwards.

Link to the specific editions of ancient sources used. I would also give the dates of the editions.

I've provided links, but I find it weird when ancient sources are given dates like "1919" or "2008", as there's no |translation-date parameter.

Yeah, that's true. Could cheat and give the translator's name as e.g. "John Smith (2009)"?

I'm going to plead nominator's preference on that one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Berkeley linked but Oxford not?

I think I thought Oxford is more likely to fall under BLUESKY. I remember being chastised for that at Ai-Khanoum.

Be consistent on whether publishers and places are given, and on ISBN formatting (dashes or no dashes?). this tool helps to convert between formats.

Done. I think I generally go for: locations and publishers with books, publishers only with journals, and no dashes in ISBNS.

Thanks for an extremely keen set of comments, UndercoverClassicist. Responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support; there's still one or two bits to pick through here, but nothing that will substantially change my view of the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks exceedingly, UndercoverClassicist. I think I've responded to your remaining comments above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Comments

Sources are reliable. Links all work.

For the ancient texts, I think we should have full citation information for the translations used, for consistency with the modern sources.
You're inconsistent about using publisher locations -- they're optional but should be consistent.
You give an ISBN for Tarn (1948), so I assume you're using a more recent edition. Suggest using the orig-year parameter.
Can you confirm the 1986 Lane Fox edition you're using really has a 978 ISBN? The 13-digit ISBNs weren't introduced until 2007. I know ISBN-10s can be converted, and if that's what you've done that's OK, though personally I think it's a bad idea as a reader might want to use the ISBN to check against a physical copy, which they can't do if the number has been converted. But I see you haven't done that with a couple of other ISBN-10s so I thought I'd check.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the ISBNs used when I get home; I use locations for books but not journals; and as for the ancient texts (remember our similar discussion at my last FAC?) I've tried incorporating date information in the link. Is that good enough Mike Christie? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't understand your position on these texts -- can you clarify? In my mind the way it works is that you find a copy of e.g. Arrian, either online or on your bookshelves, and cite it; then add the citation information for the book you cited to the list of sources. Why wouldn't you mention that the publisher is Hodder & Stoughton, or that the publisher location is London? I know from citing translations of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the particular translation one cites can be important, particularly for older translations which may have since been corrected. I've often cited Swanton's 1996 translation, but would be cautious about citing Gibson's 1692 edition -- but either way I'd want the reader to have the citation information for the version I used. What's different here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly it's that the online versions I'm citing doesn't have the information (publisher, location) you want. I know they can be considered reliable, because they're from reliable repositories, but I don't have the ability to put anything more from the source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I think what's bothering me is that formatting as you have done is neither fish nor fowl. If it's a citation to a book we should have the bibliographic details. If it's a citation to a website we should format it as such, and evaluate reliability on that basis (e.g. is attalus.org a reliable source?). We already have the bibliographic data for Arrian, since the Gutenberg transcription gives all the necessary details. For Plutarch, this page links to a facsimile of the relevant biography (L099). This is a blog but the author is an academic organization. That leaves Justin; I'll see if I can find something online for that with the right details. Or if you happen to have a physical copy of Justin, you could cite that and use the link in the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  And here is a link to an online copy of Watson's translation of Justin that has the requisite bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh, I see what you mean. I've done the locations + publisher Mike Christie; better? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but why use the orig-date instead of the year? These editions were really published in those years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Because then the sfns would say "Arrian 1883" or whatever, which just feels wrong. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Jumping in here: in classical scholarship, it's completely unheard of to cite an ancient text by its date of publication (modern or ancient): you invariably use author-title-location (so "Arrian, Anabasis, 1.23") We had this problem with the FAC for Panagiotis Kavvadias, and the solution arrived at there was to use a secondary-source citation for the verification, followed by a primary-source citation for more information: so e.g. "Rosenzweig 2004, p. 56. For Pausanias's description of the route, see Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.27.3." We can of course simply use ref={{harvid|Arrian}} to use SFN without any date at all. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, that standard does make sense to me -- I can see why Arrian 1883 would look wrong to a classicist. I think we need a complete citation for the edition actually consulted, so a citation in the form you describe would work. Any solution that provides a full secondary source citation is fine; e.g. using the existing citation and changing the title to "Arrian: The Anabasis of Alexander" would seem OK, and would remove "Arrian" from the author field, meaning it would be Chinnock (1883). Or would you be OK with something like "Arrian. The Anabasis of Alexander. Translation: Chinnock, Edward James (1883). London: Hodder & Stoughton." with the citations going to "Arrian" with no date? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we including works under "Sources" which are not cited. Surely, if they are are mentioned outside the main article at all - and I see no reason why they should be - it should be under further reading or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we are, Gog the Mild? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. You are quite right, you don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Harvard errors come up for me, and they're all in citation templates, so I think they're all used. A small observation, though: Lane Fox's FT article (note 22) is cited in full and not in the biblio, but everything else is SFN and bibliography. I know some style guides treat newspapers etc differently, but it reads a little odd when that puts a single citation out on a limb, especially when we have an author and date for it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I am one of those oddities; I prefer to have online/newspaper sources cited inline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, starting again as the conversation above digressed a bit. If you just add the dates to the translation sources, but don't add them to the citations, I think that takes care of that issue. Other than that it's just the questions about the ISBNs above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I forgot about the ISBNs. I've added the dates. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I've corrected the ISBNs for Lane Fox and Tarn, and added the reissue date for the latter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 22:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [68].

Five pounds (British gold coin)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another in the sovereign series of British gold coins, this one the largest, in fact one of the largest gold coins actually struck for circulation.Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

well-known portrayal of St George and the dragon - "well-known" is iffy...

All right.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the well-known portrayal of St George and the dragon by the Italian sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci, which has traditionally been used" --> to something like "sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci's portrayal of St George and the dragon by the Italian, which has traditionally been used

I did a variation on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The five guinea gold coin started out (in 1668) as a coin worth 100 shillings (5 pounds), and was sometimes called a five-pound coin. This was before the fluctuating value of the guinea settled at twenty-one shillings (in 1717) -- Why put the dates in parentheses?

I've eliminated the parens, which were in the article before I started work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, Richard Lobel, in his Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins, there is some case that the five-pound piece issued after the Great Recoinage of 1816 is merely a continuation of the earlier coin, which was last struck in 1753. -- "According to", I assume

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost every speaker" -- I might link this for those who aren't familiar with British politics

Link what? What is meant is that every one who addressed the issue in debate favoured the denomination, not multiple speakers of the House of Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. ~ HAL333 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would link St George and the dragon in the body as well.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A comma is needed after "A Guide to English Pattern Coins"
Lobel, in describing the 1820 five-pound piece, noted that on a copy of G.F. Crowther's 1887 book, A Guide to English Pattern Coins presented to an unknown person with the publisher's compliments, there is a pencil notation that work on the 1820 piece was completed a few days before George III's death, and after Pistrucci, walking home on the day the king died, heard church bells announcing the demise is a bit longwinded too.
sold in 2021 for US$1.44 million (£1.04 million Since this is a British coin, should the pound value be first? Ditto elsewhere.

I'm not certain. The dollar figure is the amount it actually sold for, the other a conversion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

put paid to the preparations seems a tad too idiomatic. How about "ended the preparations"?
Edward later requested a set of -- "later" is redundant

I don't think it is. This places it after his kingship.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gold had vanished from circulation for over 20 years doesn't seem like it's worded right...

Why? Gold ceased to circulate much after the start of the First World War. It did not return, even Churchill's much-vaunted return to the gold standard in 1925 did not involve gold circulating as it had pre-1914.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording suggests that it vanishes from circulation every year after itnroduction. I understand the point of the sentence, but "for over 20 years" implies that it is continuously disappearing, rather than having just become absent over 20 years prior. ~ HAL333 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The resulting wording would continue to be used on Elizabeth's coinage --> "The resulting wording continued to be used on Elizabeth's coinage"

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well over face or bullion value --> "well over face and bullion value", right?

No, I think it's better as is. Face value is one thing, and of course by the 1980s a five-sovereign piece in gold is going to run you more than five pounds, the stress is on the fact that the collector's pieces cost more then their bullion value. I could delete "face or" but I'd rather keep it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

very year until and including 1998 -- Is there a more ergonomic way to put this? I like your later "Pieces up to 1984" etc. Ditto for the 2015 line.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might link Royal Arms

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford comma is used in someplaces and not in others...

Can you point to the one providing the inconsistency? It is the style of this article not to use a comma after the penultimate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow missed this. These are the unwanted uses of the Oxford comma:

among Royal Mint officials, prominent numismatists, and other important people
a bust of King George by Bertram Mackennal, Pistrucci's reverse, and a legend
in 2002 (by Timothy Noad, depicting a crowned shield within a wreath), in 2005 (a more modern interpretation of the George and dragon, also by Noad), and in 2012

That's all I got. Everything else looks good. ~ HAL333 02:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, I've either done as you asked or respond/questioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did the one remaining item from the original list, plus the thing about the gold vanishing from circulation. All done. Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Happy to support another numismatic article. ~ HAL333 21:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commas done now. Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from CT55555[edit]

I think, but I'm not sure, that "Saint George and the dragon" should capitalise Dragon

I've capped

I think, but am also not sure, that Jubilee coinage could do with words around it to explain that the Jubilee coinage was. I assume coin collectors might know this term and other readers might not.

I've cut it for lead purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also not sure, should the "S" be italic or in inverted commas for "mint mark S"? Same for "an encircled U"

Since these are symbols and not legends, it is the practice in numismatic articles not to italicise them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a link to Royal Mint when first used (in lead), likewise for Shilling, Coinage Act,

That's done, but Coinage Act is just a reference to the Coinage Act 1816, which is linked

Unlink second Saint George and the dragon, consider capitalising "dragon"

Capitalized. This article follows a standard practice of linking once in the lead section, then once for the same term in the body of the article.

"the broken spear" implies the reader has been introduced to a broken spear. But I think they have not. So "a broken spear" would read better to me, or earlier introduce a broken spear.

I've introduced by mentioning it's on the coin.

Should "Victoria five-pound coins" be "Queen Victoria five-pound coins"? (I don't know, just a suggestion). Same with all other monarchs, currently it assumes the reader know's Victoria's job title.

It's my thought that this is not a basic-level article and we can assume a certain level of knowledge. Besides, the infobox introduces Victoria as a past British monarch.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need a full stop after "modern sovereign"
Unlink "death of Elizabeth II" the second times it is used, I think.

See my comment above about linking once in the lead and then again in the body. It is also permissible to link a term once per section if desired (see MOS:DL but we don't go that far.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, lots of very minor comments, no major issues identified. I'm too new to this to offer a support/oppose. CT55555(talk) 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek, I've just seen that my "unlink the second use of..." themed comments contradict Hal333 above. Sorry. Feel free to disregard those comments. CT55555(talk) 15:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done or responded to at least. Thanks for your helpful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

This will be a layman review, as I know little about coins. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add years to image captions of the coins?

Never mind, I see this is already present on the coins themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know most people who are going to read this article know what "numismatic" means, but link it anyway for the rest of us who may encounter it and don't know what it is?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"shows Benedetto Pistrucci's St George and the Dragon design" Perhaps give context for why this motive was used? The connection is probably known by most Brits, but not to the rest of us.

I added a sentence on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Una and the Lion are characters in Spenser's The Faerie Queene" Give year it was published? And though perhaps known to all Brits by surname, spell out Edmund Spenser for the rest of us?

First name added. Century works better than year, and I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"removing BRITT OMN (of all the Britains)." Do we know why?

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a version resembling the original" Just resembling, or was the original image used?

It's described by the Royal Mint as Pistrucci's original so I've gone with that.

Link "Una and the lion" in the intro?
Bullion could probably be linked.

Both of those done. I think that's everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice, only thing left is that Benedetto Pistrucci is now linked twice, and I would think George and the dragon should also be linked at first mention instead of what is now second?

I think I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to my untrained eyes. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor points, none of them affecting my support:

"the Italian sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci's portrayal of St George" – is Pistrucci's nationality relevant here?

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The examples struck in preparation for the coinage of Edward VIII are highly-prized" – I don't think you want the hyphen

Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a copy of G.F. Crowther's 1887 book" – I think the MoS bids us put a space between people's initials, so that the author would be G. F. Crowther, rather than G.F. Crowther.

Spaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"mintmarked" – the OED makes "mint mark" two words, but then rather sabotages itself by citing uses of "mint mark", "mint-mark" and "mintmark" – so I think any of the three will do fine.

I think "mint mark" is more common, but as a verb, "mintmarked", yea, though I battle my autocorrect that wants to make it two words.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some debatable capitalisation or lack of it: I might ask why "empress of India" appears cheek by jowl with "Prime Minister" but as I have concluded that attempting to understand capitalisation of job titles is an infallible means of going mad I refrain from further consideration of the matter.

That's my lot. Make of these few inconsequential comments what you will: I am happy to support either way. – Tim riley talk 09:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've done the specific ones and will continue to look over the capitalization.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. This is another top-notch coin article by our maestro, and be careful not to look too intensely at the capitalisation – we don't want to see you sticking straws in your hair. Tim riley talk 13:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The first paragraph is 67 words long and comprises two sentences. Both are beautifully written and grammatically flawless, but there are both a bit on the long side and a little convoluted. I think the information could probably be done a bit more smoothly with shorter sentences and less linguistic acrobatics. I won't push the point because nothing is actually wrong with them, but it's worth a thought.

I split the lead sentence. There's a lot of connected material to get through in that first paragraph, I think I'll leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

The first paragraph swaps between numbers as figures and numbers as words(it goes five, 100, 5, five, twenty-one, five and two) –these should be made consistent where possible

Done--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"there had been no issuance of coins more valuable than a guinea and intended for general circulation": I'm not sure what the "and" is doing there – it confuses rather than clarifies

It's to exclude the pattern two- and five-guineas coined in the 1760s and 1770s. But I suppose the "and" can be cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early issues

Worth linking or piping pattern coin – this is the first use since the lead

OK

"surrounded by a Garter": 1. Is the capital correct; 2. Maybe worth a slight tweak to have two links for "garter circlet"

Probably simpler to pipe to the Order of the Garter and let the reader make of it what they wish. As for the capitalisation, I believe it necessary to signal to the reader that this is not simply an item of clothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"heroic efforts": I'm not sure there was anything "heroic" about it – maybe reword a shade to make it less peacocky?

I've made it clear that this was the author's perspective and it is not in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria five-pound coins

You have "Queen [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Victoria]]", when you could (and should) have "[[Queen Victoria]]"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the most famous and attractive": needs to be attributed – it's POV as it stands

Attributed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the reverse shows Queen Victoria": She can just be "Victoria" here

She can be she, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'mintmarked "S",': Shouldn't' that be ' mint marked "S",'?

In my experience in numismatics, it is more commonly one word than two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then the four uses of ‘mint mark’ should be made consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided the matter by rephrasing. There is ample authority on both sides on this one and at least we're consistent. Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me – hope they help! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

"the Royal Mint struck five-pound coins with a reverse design by Noad showing an interpretation of the Royal Arms." Possibly a bit picky, but the source three times states that the sovereign coin has the arms on the reverse; could you point me to where the design on the reverse of the five pound coin is similarly specified? Thanks.

I thought the mentions in the tables below the text that Noad designed each denomination was sufficient, but to nail it down, I've added a second source that shows and discusses all five coins in the sovereign range.

Alt text: "Gold coin showing a knight battling a dragon". "A knight"? Really? How does one tell? Perhaps 'a naked man on horseback'?

You aren't the first to make that criticism but as the man is intended to be a knight and is wearing various bits and pieces of gear, perhaps we should go with the intent?

If several editors have commented, possibly there is a widespread view that "knight" is not appropriate. The first line of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images[edit source]]] is "Alternative text (or alt text) is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image." I don't see how describing a purported intention is conveying the same information as conveying the same information as looking at the image. Even after being told that "the man is intended to be a knight and is wearing various bits and pieces of gear" I still don't see how he is a knight, and I probably know more about knights and their paraphernalia than the average reader. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant art critics, not editors. I'll change it. Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Alt text, image licencing and usage seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 August 2023 [69].

Australiformis[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third featured article nomination for parasitic worms, which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This one appears to be missing critical sections (such as life cycle) but I believe I can claim close to comprehensiveness despite this due to the paucity of sources available. I've done my very best to gather all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms). I had an excellent good article review by Chiswick Chap which reorganized and improved the article considerably. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Suggest adding an image of the actual subject

Completely agree. I put in the request for image in the talk page quite some time ago but no bites yet. Any thoughts on how to get this?

One option would be to request permission for an image from elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding a range map

OK I did my best to create and add a range map, I believe I have correctly attributed it in wikicommons. Please let me know if this was what you were looking for. Mattximus (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the image description should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added to both image and wikicommons file source

Suggest adding alt text

Done

File:Microperoryctes_longcaudata.jpg needs an author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author appears to be an institute, an the publication in 1870. I'm not sure how to proceed in this case. Shall I remove the image? Mattximus (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the image has a life+70 tag; if that can't be demonstrated, you'll need to swap that out for something else that represents its status in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly infer that the author has been dead for a century, I will just remove the image as I can't find an actual author name, thanks for the review Nikkimaria! Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Table is missing caption, row scopes, col scopes, row headers per MOS:DTAB

Fixed all three

Table font size should be no less than 85% per MOS:SMALLTEXT, MOS:SMALLFONT

Done

Heartfox (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Why is this article not at genus level and not at species level ("Australiformis semoni")? I thought that, for monotypic taxa, we always choose the species level (correct me if I am mistaken); see for example the platypus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Another drive-by comment) Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, it goes to the lowest rank but no lower than genus. So, a monotypic family would get redirected down to the genus, but a monotypic genus has its species redirected upward to the genus. The only time that's overridden is when there's a common name for the animal - which is the case for platypus, but not for Australiformis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Thanks for explaining. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

A quite technical article. I wonder what could be done to make it a bit more digestible for a general reader … In the lead, what about providing a general sentence to get an idea how acanthocephalans look like in general, before pointing out the diagnostic character of this genus? Furthermore, an image of the worm would certainly help, and if it is only a hand-drawn sketch …

Added "Their body consists of a proboscis armed with hooks which it uses to pierce and hold the gut wall of its host, and a long trunk.". I would love an image but I have been unable to locate one. I put a request for an image several months ago but no luck, all I can found is a copyrighted sketch from the original paper. Any ideas?

The trunk of the female worm range from – should it be plural ("trunks")?

Changed it to "worms" to correct the plural

may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis – placing three wiki-links directly next to each other is not ideal according to MOS:SEAOFBLUE.

Agree, but I don't know how to rephrase the sentence to make those three words (each of which is technical and requires a blue link) flow any better than right beside each other. Any thoughts?

I would solve it by explaining what this string of terms means (which would reduce technical language, too): Like "… ulcerative granulomatous gastritis, a form of gastritis (stomach inflammation) characterised by ulcers and granuloma ([add explanation])." This way, you don't necessarily need any links in the term, but can add the links to the explanation that follows. (Note that my example is probably incorrect; it is just to give you an idea of what I would propose). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an elegant solution. I've switch the wording in the lead to "...may cause debilitating inflammation of the intestines (gastritis) with granulomatous ulcers." and the second instance to your suggestion: "may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis, a form of gastritis (inflammation of the intestines) characterised by ulcers and granuloma (an aggregation of macrophages that forms in response to chronic inflammation)". Does that wording work? Mattximus (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the taxonomy section, I would compare with some other featured animal FAs regarding the structure. These sections usually start with who described the species, and the taxonomic history in chronological order. After reading this section, I still don't know who described the species to start with.
I have this information laid out quite nicely in note b, should it be moved to the body of the text?

Yes, I think this information is central for that section and should not be in a footnote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands each with a giant nucleus, a brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida. – This is too technical, and we can certainly be a bit better with explaining and wording. A bit of introduction on the general anatomy of this class of worms would be helpful. Furthermore, I find the wording a bit confusing; e.g. "A brain", does that mean they have more than one brain?

Fixed the brain issue, and defined one of the stranger terms with a definition in brackets, but the sentence needs to be a list as it all relates to the reasoning for the taxonomic placing. The overview of the anatomy is in the section below. Would you prefer description comes before taxonomy?

The host of marsupials is also unique to this genus. – I am not a native speaker of English, but "The host of marsupials" seems wrong: marsupials are the host of the worms, not the other way around. In other places in the article, I was confused about the grammar, too.

Reworded. Should be good now.

with the outer wall smooth lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers – is an "and" missing here?

Added an "and" and reworded it to sound a bit better " At the base of the proboscis is a double-walled proboscis receptacle with a smooth outer wall lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers and a large space between the walls"

I am not sure if the "large space between the walls" is lacking as well, or if it is the contrary. More interpunctation may help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I do not thing there should be any additional punctuation, unless you want me to make it two sentences?

The trunk is long and is very thin at the anterior end becoming thickest at the posterior end. – again, grammar.

Removed the second "is", does that fix it?

I think that the "becoming thickest …" is not well-connected to the previous part of the sentence. Maybe something like this instead: "The trunk is long, very thin at the anterior end, and thickest at the posterior end." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While in this case I think the original wording is better, I will use your wording here.

The trunk of the female worm range from 95 millimetres to 197 millimetres – Information in the lead not repeated in the body text.

Is this a requirement? I pulled this from the table in the description section as being the only measurement that doesn't cross over into trivial.

Based on my understanding of MOS:LEAD, I think it is a requirement, yes. Also, if the information is so important to be included in the lead (which I think it is), then it naturally also should go into the main text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the presence in the table below not considered main text? I can repeat the information from the table in a body text but that defeats the purpose of having a table to reduce clutter of numbers.

Wouldn't it be better (and more consistent with other articles) to start the description with something general, and the size?

Began with "The worm consists of a proboscis covered in hooks, a proboscis receptacle, and a long trunk.", size is in table on the right, should I repeat some of the highlights here?

I will add overall size here as well.

The second membrane is very thin and the third membrane is thick. – That the third is thick was already mentioned.

I believe the first and third membrane are both thick, so this would not be repetitious if this is what the source intended.

The last paragraph of the description feels like a rather random assortment of facts without apparent structure.

I added the concept of sexual dimorphism to the beginning of this paragraph to indicate that this paragraph will be about difference in anatomy of the sexes. Does that work?

To conclude, I think this article still needs some significant work, especially concerning language, structure, and comprehensibility. But it is a short one, so this should all be doable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still have concerns about the structure of the "Description" section. Other than these, I am happy with the changes!

There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males. – I think this should be moved to directly after the second sentence of the "description" section, where the actual lengths are provided.

It seems a bit odd to add that statement after listing the size differences, becoming redundant is it not? I rearranged the first two sentences to read as follows: "A. semoni consists of a proboscis covered in hooks, a proboscis receptacle, and a long trunk. There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males (up to approximately 20 cm in females and 8 cm in males)." Was this what you were looking for?

The outer membrane is often indented and the posterior end which is usually covered in small dots on the outer surface with a knob on the inner surface. – I can't follow the grammar here, there seems to be some verb missing.

Fixed! Thanks for the catch, I missed this earlier.

Males also have eight oval cement glands – Why "also"? This is confusing. You were previously talking about eggs, and this is now the first information about males. "Also" implies that the previous sentence was about something that males have, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your excellent review Jens Lallensack! Did I address all your comments? Please let me know if I missed any or if there are any more. Mattximus (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thebiguglyalien[edit]

General:

I suggest doing a comma check. I didn't look closely, but it seems like several sentences would benefit from a comma.

Added two commas, looking for more.

The article is inconsistent between Australiformis and A. semoni. Even though in practice they're the same thing, one should be used consistently when referring to the subject of the article.

Fixed this throughout the article

Lead:

"Their body consists of" should be "Its body consists of".

Done

Proboscis is linked twice in the lead but then not again until its fourth appearance in the body.

It is now linked once in the lead and once in the first appearance in the body.

"The proboscis is armed" – is "armed" the right word? This is in both the lead and the body.

It actually is, it's the word used in the literature.

"The trunk of the female worms range" – singular/plural between "the trunk" and "range". This sentence also runs on with two "and"s but no commas.

Fixed by splitting into two sentences and fixing plural. Second sentence now mentions that there is pronounced sexual dimorphism in lengths.

"Infestation by Australiformis may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis" – To whom? It's obvious from the body that it's marsupials, but the lead has less context, and "infection" without context is usually assumed to be infection of humans.

Done

Taxonomy:

"The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands each with a giant nucleus, a brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida." – This is a lot to take in. The way I would do this would be starting with info about its classification and then either simplify the reasoning or spread it out over a few sentences. But I'm not a biologist.

I agree this is a lot. I changed it a bit, and added a definition for cement glands, but it is still a mouthful. The logic is that it's a list used to define it's taxonomy, so it technically works as one sentence. I can try to break it up if you think this needs to be done.

Regarding the previous point, has no genetic testing been done because its classification is so obvious? The article is unclear about this.

Not at all, genetic testing is rarely done on these creatures. In fact I don't trust the classification at all without it, but that is original content and I just follow the sources.

"The host of marsupials is also unique to this genus" – this seems like a strange way to phrase this.

Fixed

"The genus is monotypic, the only species, Australiformis semoni (von Linstow, 1898), being necessarily the type species" – This sentence is too choppy.

I had worded it differently, however a previous reviewer suggested this new wording.

I was going to say that note b should just be prose, but I see that's mentioned above.

Done

Description:

"The worm consists of a proboscis covered in hooks" – Since this is the start of a new section, "Australiformis" might be preferred over "the worm".

Done

"The first three or four hooks" – Does it vary? If so, "three to four" might be better, because "three or four" suggests low confidence. If it's more complicated than that, then a general statement like this shouldn't be made.

No more detail than was is posted is available, but made the change as you suggested.

The article gets a bit bogged down by listing a bunch of lengths all in a row.

Agree, I created the table on the right to summarize almost all of the lengths, but left in the hook lengths in paragraph form as another table would be too many tables, I'm absolutely open to suggestions for alternatives.

"At the base of the proboscis is a double-walled proboscis receptacle with a smooth outer wall lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers and a large space between the walls." – First. this runs on a bit. It doesn't help that "proboscis" appears twice and "wall" appears three times. Second, what does "lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers" mean? And third, it's unclear whether "lacking" also applies to the large space between the walls.

I see what you mean, I could not find better wording but I added some commas to make the subclause clearly apply to the first case on not the second (space between the walls), resolving one of your concerns.

Would it be clear to someone with a novice understanding of worm anatomy why body parts are "piercing" each other? Because that sounds incredibly painful.

I see what you mean, but this is actually the correct scientific term use in the source

"Long and very thin" is imprecise. It should be a measurement, or it should be compared to something.

Added measurements of length early in body of text. And "a few mm thick" to width where you noted. Specific measurements in table.

The second paragraph of this section don't flow. It reads like a list of miscellaneous facts put into prose.

They all relate to the morphology of the trunk.

"The outer membrane is thick with the exception of the anterior end where it is thin and often indented and the posterior end which is usually covered in small dots on the outer surface with a knob on the inner surface." This runs on, and it's unclear what a knob is in this context.

Split sentence into two shorter sentences. And knob is the only word used to describe this feature in the original text. Admittedly a strange choice of words.

Distribution:

Good.

Hosts:

The first sentence of this section is quite long. Maybe split it so there's one sentence about the host species and another about the infection method.

Good suggestion, added a bit more detail on infection method.

The parenthetical about accidental hosts could be removed if accidental host was linked and the page was created, even if it's just a redirect to Host (biology)#Types of hosts for now.

Done

What's the context for the accidental host? Was it an unlikely event that's incredible because it happened as a fluke? Or is this a normal thing for this sort of worm?

Accidental hosts seem to be a common thing among parasitic worms, I think they were just found there and was not part of the reproductive cycle. I've worked on several worm pages and they all have them, though I am no worm expert.

I question the need of a gallery, but I'll defer to the nominator's preference and the image reviewer's judgement.

I see what you mean, but I like to include at least some host images as there is no image of the creature itself. Mattximus (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I will be getting to all these recommendations next week once my vacation starts. They are excellent recommendations and I will try to implement all of them. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with each section except for "description", which is still bogged down and difficult to read. There's not enough room for a table of hook lengths, but I'm sure a more concise description could be workshopped. You might try condensing it down to something like "the first hook of each row is 40 and 56 μm long, the second is 50 to 60 μm, the third is 42 to 50 μm, and the fourth is 42 to 54 μm." This paragraph is also unclear whether the hooks or the spines are being measured, which should be fixed. The second paragraph of this section could also use some reworking. Right now, there's virtually no flow between most of the sentences. The most obvious case is "No pseudosegmentation is present." as its own sentence, even though it feels like something else is the subject here. If the information is available, then how these parts of the trunk connect and relate to each other would also make this much clearer, but if not, then this can be ignored. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to reword (maybe the last reviewer has a suggestion), but sadly the condensed version is no longer correct (as it is not 40 and 56um, but between those numbers). The hooks and spines is explained in the sentence before quite clearly, not sure if I should repeat twice in two sentences.I did fix the pseudosegmentation to make it part of the first related sentence. The last comment you made unfortunately is out of our control as I've scanned all literature on the subject and what is present here is what is available to cite. Thanks for the comment! Mattximus (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that was supposed to be "40 to 56 μm" like I wrote with the others. And the prose does specify which hooks are spines, but it's better to use consistent terminology if possible. Would it still be accurate to say "and the remaining hooks" instead of "and the remaining spines"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh got it, yes I can make that change as you suggested. And we cannot say remaining hooks because the remaining ones are called spines (they don't have a curved end), only the first ones are actual hooks. This is mentioned in the previous sentence. Thanks for your prompt reply! Mattximus (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of my concerns have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Five weeks in and there is a wall of comments but with no declarations of support or opposition it feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote; unless discussion moves sharply in that direction over the next two or three days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unfortunately much of the blame is on me for being away for a few weeks in the middle of this nomination. Over the past few days I have been working on resolving all comments, I believe I've resolved most (but not all). I will try to complete remaining comments over the next few days. Mattximus (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We will try to stretch things a little. Don't forget to ping each reviewer once you have addressed all of their comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I should have it all completed by Tuesday. Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A further two weeks in and still little sign of a consensus to promote forming. I note unaddressed reviewer comments six days old. Pinging some of the reviewers to date. @Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, Dudley Miles, and Peter coxhead: Do any of you see yourselves supporting promotion for this article in the near future? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When all my issues are addressed, I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look, and except for one of my points I needed to follow up on, it looks good. If those minor comments I just added are addressed too, I can support. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, would it be possible to get Funk and Jens' comments addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also will support once my queries are dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it as quickly as possible, I've addressed most, but still working on the remaining comments. Mattximus (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed every single comment on here with a fix or a question. Thanks everyone for the excellent reviews! Please let me know if I missed anything or what I can do next in response to my questions. Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a few of my points don't have answers, yet, so it's hard for me to see if they have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're missing a source review, or did I miss it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Mattximus, Ping me for the third review when the above issues are fixed, so I don't thread on the same ground as the existing reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all the reviewers and your patience! I've completed or asked a question about all comments from Nikkimaria, Nikkimaria, Heartfox, Jens Lallensack, Thebiguglyalien. Please let me know if you have any more concerns or followups to my questions. To FunkMonk it is ready for your review. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll try to get to it today. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is WP:duplinked, but I wonder whether it needs a wikilink at all, as this seems to be discouraged.

Fixed, removed first link. Only place it's linked is in the distribution paragraph which makes sense to me.

The distribution map should be moved into the taxobox, like in for example tiger.

Done

Make sure that all synonyms are also redirects, which doesn't seem to be the case yet.

Done

Link morphological, Moniliformis, Moniliformis, Acanthocephala, Promoniliformis, sexual dimorphism, and other such terms at first mention outside the intro,.

Done, I think.

The single species should also be listed in the taxobox. See for example dodo.

Good idea, however I cannot use that format with the autotaxobox, any ideas how to get around this?

Probably something with the automatic taxobox, pinging Peter coxhead and Jts1882 in case they know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did my edit do what you wanted? — Jts1882 | talk 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's there, but at for example dodo, it seems each part of the binomial and their authorities have a parameter, and the name is centred, whereas here it's left aligned and with no authority? Is it just a matter of adding in the same parameters, or does something have to be done with the hierarchy too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any common names?

None reported in the literature

"The genus Australiformis Schmidt and Edmonds, 1989 was created for Moniliformis semoni as this species differed from other species in Moniliformis and the other genera of the family Moniliformidae" Unclear from this whether you mean the species was originally assigned to another genus, clarify in-text.

I see this is explained further down, but it's currently confusing, which speaks for arranging the text under taxonomy chronologically, it seems rather random now.

"The history of the genus of A. semoni is complex" The latter "of" is unnecessary.

Done. Reworded to say "taxonomic history" to make it read better as well.

I think it would better to spell out the taxonomic history first in the taxonomy section, and only after that the very heavy morphological diagnosis which is a bit hard to begin an article with, and as this also makes better chronological sense.

Meaning that this part should be moved to last in the taxonomy section: "The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands (which are used to temporarily close the posterior end of the female after copulation) each with a giant nucleus, the brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida. No genetic testing has been conducted on this species to confirm this classification."

OK I think I understood what you suggested and rearranged the whole section. Mattximus (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The parasitizing marsupials is also" Missing "of" to make this clearer.

Done

Any images in the old public domain sources that could be used?

None whatsoever. The only image I found was a hand drawn sketch that was under copyright. I would love an image here but I have no idea where to find one, or if one even exists.

Have you been able to find any of the 19th century sources? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Unfortunately. I've tried all synonyms as well.

State authors and date of the cladogram in-text.

Done

Why does the cladogram have two citations? If it's a combination of information from different sources, it's verging on WP:original synthesis.

Each of the two independent references has the same tree, but each are missing one genus. I see what you mean with original synthesis, but in this case it's pretty cut and dry as they are additive and not interpretive at all. Is this ok? Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the footnote is necessary, most taxon articles should have such a footnote then.

I see what you mean which is why I relegated it to a footnote, but when I first started working on wikiepdia pages for species I was very confused about this, and would have appreciated the footnote. I think for others like me, there is no harm in this explanatory footnote. But I agree it should not be in main text. Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This taxon should be bolded in the cladogram instead of being a selflink.

Done

Why does it have a question mark in the cladogram? I think this needs prose elaboration, on what grounds the cladogram is constructed, what its closest relatives are, why its placement is uncertain, etc. Are there conflicting trees and so on.

Explained question mark and why the placement is uncertain, explained the two genes used in the cladogram construction, there are no conflicting trees (the two trees used here are in 100% agreement, so hopefully this means no synthesis). Closest relative can already be seen from the cladogram no? Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Juvenile worms were found in the accidental host brown antechinus (Antechinus stuartii)." What was accidental about it, it's a marsupial too?

I had a definition here originally but another reviewer asked me to delete the definition and instead link to accidental host where it is explained. I added back the definition.

The links in the measurement table are unnecessary (the terms are already linked in the adjacent prose), and there are a lot of duplinks in it anyway.

Done

Measurements should have conversion (to US units) templates.

It seems strange that it is normal for scientific articles to convert to US units, would it be ok to do this only in the lead instead of the hundred other instances of measurements?

Personally I do it for all measurements. There is something about this at WP:Units. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your review is absolutely incredibly thorough and full of excellent suggestions, and I agree with every single comment you made, but this one is quite challenging. Is it possible to leave this article in SI units, nobody working with these creatures use anything but. Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good deal of technical terms mainly under description that could use some in-text explanation (could be in parenthesis).

Added additional explanation in parentheses.

How does it enter its host?

There is nothing known for this species on how it enters, but for acanthocephala in general it's usually through eating an infested intermediary host. I can safely add the word "eaten" as the entry for this parasite, but cannot give any more details as they do not exist in the literature. Will add "eaten". Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: here is the life cycle of a relate species I can assume is pretty similar to the species in question, but that's just an assumption. Anything I can do with this?

There is no source that gives a general overview of the wider group that could be used for information that is common to them all? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an excellent book which has a chapter on general reproduction. I can add this soon. Mattximus (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK FunkMonk, I found a good book chapter describing the life cycle including the order to which the species involves and it does indeed have some aspects that are universal. I've summarized it as the first paragraph of the "hosts" section in the article. Was this what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if this paragraph is considered good, I can add it to my other two featured articles on closely related species Gigantorhynchus and Apororhynchus.

"not attached distally to body wall" Missing "the" before body wall?

Done

"There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males." And what are the measurements for each? I see them in the table but overall length is significant enough to be mentioned in the article body.

Done

I'd expect the text about size dimorphism being at the beginning of the description section with the rest of the measurements, where you already mention the dimorphism in proboscis length.

Done

"each with single giant nucleus" Missing "a".

Done

Nothing more on Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc.?

No, nothing I can find.

"(thorny-headed or spiny-headed parasitic worms)" Give this explanation in the article body as well.

Good suggestion, added to opening sentence of taxonomy.

You could show an image of a relative (next to the cladogram perhaps) to give the reader some idea of what it may look like.

The closest species with a picture on wikicommons would be this, what do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a bit close to see the overall shape, how about this?[70] FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution makes it quite hard to see, but the other image you suggested I add on the lifecycle has a drawing that is more clear of this exact species, would that work? Until a real photograph is made of course. Mattximus (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made some replies above, there are also a few points I don't see answers to yet. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, FunkMonk: I made the changes a while ago but forgot to note them here, I think I've got everything completed now or at least responded to?

The new text looks good, and pretty much what I think I and Dudley Miles below requested. There is an issue wit the following sentence, though: "stages beginning when an infective acanthor (development of an egg) that is released from the intestines of the definitive host and then ingested by an arthropod, the intermediate host." I think the "that" is a mistake? FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now think it would make sense to use the life cycle image you showed above in that section, and to copy this text to the articles about related taxa this may also apply to.

Done, will also apply to the other two featured articles on related species. Mattximus (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great with the added context. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

The lead (and the description) should give the overall length of the worm, and of the trunk of the males.

Added the trunk length/width to males, however the overall length of the worm is virtually the same as the trunk length as the proboscis is only a fraction a millimeter long, so it would round to the same length. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the overall length is virtually the same as the trunk should be spelled out for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to explain this, as the proboscis kinda goes in an out of the tip of the trunk so has no fixed length, and even when fully extended only represents a rounding error for length. Mattximus (talk)

So how about "is...long, virtually all of which is the trunk"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added your wording, thanks. Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The parasitizing marsupials is also a unique trait of this genus among Acanthocephala." "The parasitizing marsupials is"? This is ungrammatical.

Done

Why is there a question mark against Australiformis semoni in the diagram?

All other species on this cladogram have been determined using phylogenetic analysis, the Australiformis semoni position is merely inferred based on morphology, so it's position is questionable. Is there a good place to explain this? As an attempt I added an explanatory sentence in the caption.

Maybe add "Unlike the other species shown," for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works, added your wording.

"The proboscis is long and swollen at the anterior end and tapers rapidly to a narrow base" I do not understand this. The female has a truck up to 20 cm long and a proboscis 0.8 by 0.32 mm, so what does it mean to say that the anterior end is long? It also seems odd to describe 50 μm hooks as large.

Indeed it is odd, I agree, but these are the exact words used by all references. I suppose it's all relative to other acanthocephalans? Mattximus (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article and the information on infestation is limited. You say that they use hooks to attach to the intestine, but how do they enter the host? They seem very large to enter as adults, and if as eggs you should say so and how they survive until adulthood? Is there any more information on the effect on the hosts? Is infestation commonly fatal and is it known what proportion of the hosts are infected. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm worried about making too many inferences as there is no published information on the life cycle in existence (as far as I can tell). I posted an image of the lifecycle above of a related species, so I can assume it's very similar, but it would just be an assumption. The safest thing to say is the word "eaten" is how it gets in, but even then I'm weary. I've added "eaten" as two reviewers recommended it. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be wary of writing "eaten" unless you are certain. After all, some parasitic worms enter the skin through wounds. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a book chapter that describes the life cycle of the order which Australiformis belongs and I summarized it in the first chapter of the "hosts" section. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As good as you can do with the limited information. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific authorities[edit]

I've corrected the genus and species authorities in the taxobox; the genus authority was showing for the species and the species lacked an authority.
I've also corrected the authorities for the synonyms in the taxobox; under the ICZN, only the original namer is shown, in parentheses for transfers. A reference needs to be added for the synonyms; I used AFD to check them.
There's inconsistency in the taxobox and in sources between using just "Linstow" and "von Linstow" in the authorities. Choose one for consistency and then use an appropriate source.

Done, chose Linstow as it was the one used in the authority's original paper for this species. Mattximus (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Schmidt and Lenhaus et al: either both should have a publisher location or neither. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added publisher location. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Since it seems that a source review is still needed, here it is:

The genus Australiformis is named after Australia, the locality of the species. – I don't see where this statement is supported in any of the sources that follow after the sentence. You might think it is a "the earth is round" kind of statement that does not require a source to start with, but I am skeptical nonetheless. For example, the dinosaur Australovenator, also found in Australia, was not named after that country; instead the name derives from latin "australis" – "southern". That's why I like to see the source here.

This is a very interesting case. When the etymology is obvious, it's almost always implied when it comes to acanthocephalan literature. I've done a few of these pages and only the names that are not obviously derived are cited. This means that there does not exist any reference stating it explicitly, it's just assumed. I'm very confident that no source exists stating it's named after Australia, as it's implicit. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we should remove this sentence, because it is not covered by a source, and because it is equally possible that it does not refer to Australia but to the Southern Hemisphere in general. But we could wait to see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is no source it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article, much less an FA. I am surprised that this has not been picked up previously. I would assume that the name comes from southern, as in Australopithecus etc, but we should not be ORing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is problematic. The book I usually look at for specific bird names only states it means southern[71], and while we can assume it refers to the continent, this can't be stated when it's ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence. I'm fairly certain it's named after australia, as that is the type location, but no source exists to confirm this. Mattximus (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 should not be in title case (i.e., use normal non-capitalised words as you did for the other sources; "n. Gen., n. Comb." and "Marsupials" should not be capitalised).

Done

Sometimes, full author names are provided, sometimes the first name is abbreviated. This should be consistent.

Is this always the case? Some authors go by their first initial and then second name spelled out and then last name. Some always go as abbreviations in their publications and some use their full name. In each case I reported the format in the literature. It would be OR to look up a name they chose not to put as the author would it not? In my own field you would never use V. S. Ramachandran's full name, or abbreviate Robert Sapolsky. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's usually not the choice of the authors, it's the choice of the journal they are publishing in; each has it's own style. Same for references; when you publish in a journal, the journal decides if the names in the references are to be abbreviated or not. In my own FACs, I was always required to keep this consistent, so I assume this rule is somewhere in the WP:MOS. As I do a source review, I am required to check the article for compliance with the WP:MOS, even if I personally don't really care about this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest fix would be to simply abbreviate all the names, this is what I usually do, since it is not always possible to find the full name of every author. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The first description of Linstow mentiones a figure plate; if the species is illustrated there, that figure could be included into this article because it would probably be in the public domain already.

I've searched everywhere and can't find the figures it refers to... Mattximus (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

, brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa). – not a source comment, but this should include an "and" to conclude the ennumeration, right?

Done, good catch!

Everything else looks good; sources are of high quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good now, I have no further comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Gaynes, Robert P. (2023). Germ theory: medical pioneers in infectious diseases (2nd ed.). Washington Hoboken, NJ: American society for microbiology & Wiley. p. 258. ISBN 978-1-68367-376-7.

[2] Gaynes (2023) p. 256

[1]

[2]